Is it illegal to make racist comments?

Chefrio

I was watching sky sports news and saw that Nicolas Anelka is in a spot of bother for making a racist gesture.

This made me wonder if it's illegal to make racist comments such as " I dislike Asian people and like aborigines".

antodeco

Nope. Unless its about God being black or Jesus Chinese. Bless the oul Blasphemy law!

biko

It probably falls under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989.

seamus

It depends on if you're "inciting hatred". "I think all Roma should be placed in a gas chamber and be done with it", would probably qualify.

Inciting hatred is illegal. Making racist comments is not.

Mr. Incognito

A gesture is not a comment.

Totally different. people are too quick to volunteer persecution these days.

fleet

Without checking it, I'd imagine that expressing a personal preference would just about be legal. Whereas giving any "reason" for it probably wouldn't.

It's a minefield.

The incitement to hatred laws exist for good reason. However, they can stifle debate in cases where race IS a factor e.g. ghettoisation etc.

biko

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter):
Under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, it is an offence, inter alia, to use words, publish or distribute written material, or broadcast any visual images or sounds which are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended, or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred. The word “hatred” is defined as “hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation”. The State’s prosecutorial authorities have not brought to my notice any difficulties in bringing prosecutions under the 1989 Act.

In addition to the foregoing legislation, where criminal offences such as assault, criminal damage, or public order offences are committed with a racist motive, they are prosecuted as generic offences though the wider criminal law. The trial judge can take aggravating factors, including racial motivation, into account at sentencing.

[-0-]

If it was, all of our elderly would be in prison, not nursing homes.

Annasopra

biko wrote: »

It probably falls under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989.

And it hasn't been particularly succesful in terms of prosecutions unfortunately.

tigger123

biko wrote: »

It probably falls under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989.

It's PC gone mad.

efb

[-0-] wrote: »

If it was, all of our elderly would be in prison, not nursing homes.

the beatings are less severe in prisons tho...

Annasopra

tigger123 wrote: »

It's PC gone mad.

What is?

Friend Computer

Everything anyone doesn't agree with, if AH is to be believed.

tigger123

mango salsa wrote: »

What is?

The legislation I quoted. It was a (poor) joke.

Manach

As a means for the PC liberal crowd to brow-beat and hush any none PC topic, the force of their moral outrage usually is enough to quell any mutterings against their tolerance or else mindset.

Annasopra

Rabble rabble.... PC.... rabble rabble

Fr_Dougal

tigger123 wrote: »

The legislation I quoted. It was a (poor) joke.

I think most people got it!

tigger123

Manach wrote: »

As a means for the PC liberal crowd to brow-beat and hush any none PC topic, the force of their moral outrage usually is enough to quell any mutterings against their tolerance or else mindset.

What would you define as a non PC topic?

Starscream25

Slightly off topic but How about when someone says you look like a Jew? I've had this said to me a few times and I just don't know how to reply. I happen to have a larger nose than most and happens to be a bit crooked. Does this mean that people who say this are slightly racist with their observation or even look down on Jewish people? Or maybe just buying into the stereotype of what a Jew looks like.

Santa Cruz

Racism is used by the PC crowd to restrict other peoples freedom of speech. If you say "immigration is having a negative effect on the provision of health and education services in Ireland" you will be accused of being a racist to shut you up by people with their own agenda.

Does anyone believe that increased demand on services because of the influx of non Irish people has improved those services?

Chefrio

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Racism is used by the PC crowd to restrict other peoples freedom of speech. If you say "immigration is having a negative effect on the provision of health and education services in Ireland" you will be accused of being a racist to shut you up by people with their own agenda.

Does anyone believe that increased demand on services because of the influx of non Irish people has improved those services?

That's not racist as race is not the discriminant.

Annasopra

Rabble rabble.... freedom of speech.... rabble rabble

KTRIC

What If the statement is factual ??

seamus

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Racism is used by the PC crowd to restrict other peoples freedom of speech. If you say "immigration is having a negative effect on the provision of health and education services in Ireland" you will be accused of being a racist to shut you up by people with their own agenda.

No you won't, you'll be asked to provide evidence to support your opinion.

People immigrate to find work. Therefore it stands to reason that the majority of immigrants pay tax, easing the burden on the pre-existing taxpayers. This is demonstrated by the massive tax income this country had while immigration was high, and the collapse in tax take now that emigration is high. See how that works? It doesn't have to be hard facts, just a relatively verifiable deduction as to how you arrived at your opinion.

Sunglasses Ron

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Racism is used by the PC crowd to restrict other peoples freedom of speech. If you say "immigration is having a negative effect on the provision of health and education services in Ireland" you will be accused of being a racist to shut you up by people with their own agenda.

Does anyone believe that increased demand on services because of the influx of non Irish people has improved those services?

A few threads back I posted a comment about how if Ireland had given out quota work permits post 03 like the rest of the EU did (allowing in a manageable, orkable amount of Polish etc migrants) rather than a free for all, our property market would never have gotten into the state it did.

Any replies or counter arguments?

Did it fluck. It was the last post of the page, and remains so.

PC folk are generally.....I'm not even allowed to say here. But they are terrified of intelligent, rational, real world experience debate.

Legs.Eleven

Manach wrote: »

As a means for the PC liberal crowd to brow-beat and hush any none PC topic, the force of their moral outrage usually is enough to quell any mutterings against their tolerance or else mindset.

Thesaurus.com called; they want their words back.

Hitchens

Brigade company leaders to the CP immediately...........this is not a drill, repeat.......this is not a drill

Femme_Fatale

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

PC folk are generally.....I'm not even allowed to say here.

Aren't you?

But they are terrified of intelligent, rational, real world experience debate.

See here's the thing: most people who see a bad side to racism (I know, what are they like?!) aren't actually "PC" and terrified of intelligent, rational (lol - because the people who drone "PC" over and over are clearly so intelligent and rational), real world experience debate; they just... see a fairly unpleasant angle to racism, that is all. It doesn't always mean that they're hypersensitive, easily offended, or looking for racism even where it's not present.

It doesn't have to be "the PC crowd" versus your no-nonsense crowd and no in between, ya know.

Karl Stein

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

A few threads back I posted a comment about how if Ireland had given out quota work permits post 03 like the rest of the EU did (allowing in a manageable, orkable amount of Polish etc migrants) rather than a free for all, our property market would never have gotten into the state it did.

Any replies or counter arguments?

Can you explain how that is a non-PC thing to say? It's just a position on immigration based on an economic view as opposed to 'them blacks/Arabs/Muslims will destroy delicate Ireland'.

biko

I remember when this thread was about the legality of racist comments. That was an hour ago.

Siegfreid

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Can you explain how that is a non-PC thing to say? It's just a position on immigration based on an economic view as opposed to 'them blacks/Arabs/Muslims will destroy delicate Ireland'.

What about "them Brits will destroy delicate Ireland". I believe you would get your panties in a twist and go off on a rant about "true Irishmen" and Sinn Féin and the IRA and Gerry Adams and beards etc ad infinitum

You're a hypocrite :cool:

padd b1975

Chefrio wrote: »

I was watching sky sports news and saw that Nicolas Anelka is in a spot of bother for making a racist gesture.

This made me wonder if it's illegal to make racist comments such as " I dislike Asian people and like aborigines".

Of course it's not illegal to dislike certain people, and heaven help society as a whole if that ever was to change.

Dravokivich

Siegfreid wrote: »

What about "them Brits will destroy delicate Ireland". I believe you would get your panties in a twist and go off on a rant about "true Irishmen" and Sinn Féin and the IRA and Gerry Adams and beards etc ad infinitum

You're a hypocrite :cool:

Eh, leave beards out of that!

poundapunnet

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Thesaurus.com called; they want their words back.

Yeah but do Manach's sentence in a Captain Kirk voice and it's amazing.

Anyhoo I just popped into this thread on my way to the PC meeting for the PC people. Sure hope I don't encounter any common sense on the way!

Santa Cruz

poundapunnet wrote: »

Yeah but do Manach's sentence in a Captain Kirk voice and it's amazing.

Anyhoo I just popped into this thread on my way to the PC meeting for the PC people. Sure hope I don't encounter any common sense on the way!

Look out for those "DANGER DO NOT CLIMB ELECTRIC PYLON" signs

poundapunnet

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Look out for those "DANGER DO NOT CLIMB ELECTRIC PYLON" signs

why, are they racist?

Maura74

efb wrote: »

the beatings are less severe in prisons tho...

They would also have more rights as well. More space to exercise and not locked up 24/7 and having to sell their home to pay the greedy care home owners for locking them up. Bed at 5pm.

efb

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

A few threads back I posted a comment about how if Ireland had given out quota work permits post 03 like the rest of the EU did (allowing in a manageable, orkable amount of Polish etc migrants) rather than a free for all, our property market would never have gotten into the state it did.

Any replies or counter arguments?

Did it fluck. It was the last post of the page, and remains so.

PC folk are generally.....I'm not even allowed to say here. But they are terrified of intelligent, rational, real world experience debate.

Oh right Ted! The emigrants kept the boom alive were not the cause of its downfall. A poorly regulated banking system and Economic policy contrary to our economic situation caused the downfall

Karl Stein

Oh look, a fan of mine who's most likely a previously banned re-reg who's about to be banned again - how pathetic.

Siegfreid wrote: »

What about "them Brits will destroy delicate Ireland".

I've never once said that.

I believe you would get your panties in a twist and go off on a rant about "true Irishmen" and Sinn Féin and the IRA and Gerry Adams and beards etc ad infinitum

I challenge anyone to use the search function and if they can find where I've said 'true Irishman' or anything to that effect once I'll throw an extra €20 to SSF.

You're a hypocrite :cool:

And you are pathetic.

Frank Lee Midere

efb wrote: »

Oh right Ted! The emigrants kept the boom alive were not the cause of its downfall. A poorly regulated banking system and Economic policy contrary to our economic situation caused the downfall

In general people who talked up the property boom pointed to immigration as the cause at the time. As in "of course houses in South Dublin are worth 1M we are going to grow by 1M people over the next decade".


Not that that's anything to do with race.

Frank Lee Midere

Back to racism. I follow a friend on twitter who is a shinner and while I don't agree with him on most stuff, it's interesting how many "kill the Taig" twitter and Facebook posts he retweets. As a form of shaming. Twitter sometimes takes these down but they respawn. Not one arrest.

Edit. For instance.

http://twitter.com/SpydeeLAD/status/416993193406648320/photo/1

sheesh

Didn't a bus driver get in trouble couple of years ago for making a racist comment to someone ? he may also gotten 6 months for it too....

here it is http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/racist-dublin-bus-driver-faces-six-months-in-jail-26256416.html


correction: he was charged I am not sure of the outcome of the case.

Duck Soup

seamus wrote: »

It depends on if you're "inciting hatred". "I think all Roma should be placed in a gas chamber and be done with it", would probably qualify.

Inciting hatred is illegal. Making racist comments is not.

Seamus is right. The important bit in his post I've made bold in the quote above.

It is not illegal for your Auntie Concepta to give out about the darkies, nor can she be prosecuted for it. The salient point is whether it was intended to incite hatred. She's not interested in inciting anything. She just doesn't like darkies.

On the other hand, if you stand up on a soapbox on O'Connell Street and shout the odds about sending the chinks home, you can be prosecuted. You're in a public forum, your intent is to provoke hatred.

http://www.integration.ie/website/omi/omiwebv6.nsf/page/AXBN-9B2LU91733429-en

To quote from the clarification statement from the Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration:

The Prohibition against Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 Act is only directed at addressing incitement to hatred. It cannot and was never intended to address racist crime more generally. Nor can it address racial abuse which is not intended or likely to stir up hatred.

Message boards such as this one are interesting cases in point. They are public, it could argued that they are influential (and therefore could incite). The only thing is that, in practical terms, if you locked up everyone on the internet who's being an asshat, then you'd barely have anyone left who wasn't incarcerated.

Karl Stein

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

"kill the Taig" Not one arrest.

That is interesting.

bnt

I don't like dealing with stupid people: should I be ashamed to admit that? Does that make me a bad person, or a criminal? Or simply non-PC?

We all pass judgement on others: it's a natural consequence of having judgement. If we didn't discriminate between things that help us or harm us, we couldn't survive in the real world. You can police what people do, of course: actions have consequences. You can't police what people think - see Orwell and "thoughtcrime" - since thoughts can exist solely inside our heads, where no investigator can reach.

The thing about the law is: we only have laws about things because some people aren't able to figure out what is right for themselves. Professional drivers don't need speed limit signs: they can read the road and the conditions, and figure it out for themselves. The signs are not for them, they are for the average driver, to keep them safe. Even then, stupid drivers don't understand that it's a limit, not an order, so e.g. they'll keep on doing 70 in a 70 zone even when the weather conditions make it unsafe (e.g. fog or heavy rain). So you still get crashes, and more regulations or signs - to cater for the stupid drivers, rather than the average drivers.

So what is the relevence to the question, about laws against "incitement to hatred"? It's another example of a law to protect the stupid from themselves, in my opinion. Those who think carefully about the issues, before speaking, have no need of such a law. I'm not going to pretend that race doesn't exist - it does - but it's stupid to judge people on that alone. But, you might ask, am I not a hypocrite for being judgemental about the stupid? No, because race alone doesn't stop us working together and getting a job done - whatever the job might be. You can't say that about stupidity, which (in my opinion) is a fundamental hindrance to the progress of the human race away from its error-ridden past.

tl;dr: stupid people need stupid laws to protect them from their own stupidity. Racism is only one example of such stupidity.

robertpatterson

poundapunnet wrote: »

why, are they racist?

Only if theyre poles

Duck Soup

The defining characteristic, it seems to me, in whether you are prosecuted or not, is whether it was in a public space.

There's the bus driver incident referenced above by sheesh and then this one from earlier this year of man convicted of shouting obscenities at an African man:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bobby-sands-did-not-die-for-the-blacks-man-ranted-226510.html

There was also a case brought to court in 2011, but eventually dismissed, against an Irish man who started a Facebook page called "Promote the use of Knacker Babies as Bait".

http://businessandlegal.ie/the-facebook-traveller-case-implications-for-social-media-and-freedom-of-speech

poundapunnet

Duck Soup wrote: »

There was also a case brought to court in 2011, but eventually dismissed, against an Irish man who started a Facebook page called "Promote the use of Knacker Babies as Bait".

http://businessandlegal.ie/the-facebook-traveller-case-implications-for-social-media-and-freedom-of-speech

Hooooooooooooooly fcuking Christ. I think I wouldn't like to see people getting prosecuted for what they say on facebook but what a nasty cúnt.

Clandestine

bnt wrote: »

So what is the relevence to the question, about laws against "incitement to hatred"? It's another example of a law to protect the stupid from themselves, in my opinion.

tl;dr: stupid people need stupid laws to protect them from their own stupidity. Racism is only one example of such stupidity.

So... there should be a law against promoting racial hate speech because the people who spew it may possibly be stupid? That is a ridiculous idea. It doesn't matter whether or not the person is an idiot or a genius, they should be allowed to say what they want regardless. Hate speech is free speech. The state should have no authority to limit free speech.

efb

Clandestine wrote: »

So... there should be a law against promoting racial hate speech because the people who spew it may possibly be stupid? That is a ridiculous idea. It doesn't matter whether or not the person is an idiot or a genius, they should be allowed to say what they want regardless. Hate speech is free speech. The state should have no authority to limit free speech.

Free Speech is not an absolute and is not guaranteed in this State

Femme_Fatale

Clandestine wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether or not the person is an idiot or a genius, they should be allowed to say what they want regardless. Hate speech is free speech. The state should have no authority to limit free speech.

It's very telling about someone when they think people should have the freedom to say absolutely anything whatsoever. But hey, not surprising given your posts.