Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Two-thirds of people say Ireland is too politically correct
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,325 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59252
shot fanwards without a paddle
I's soooo nicking that Og.
+1. I voted yes for both and for both divorce referendums and the previous abortion referendums and I'm somewhere to the right of Mussolini in some minds. And I would be "politically incorrect" on a few subjects. I'm relatively polite around here...suicide_circus wrote: »are you happy with the ssm and abortion referenda results?
do you think ireland is too politically correct?
these are 2 completely different and unrelated issues.
you could answer yes to both
I consider the Traveller matter woefully badly handled and the "ethnic status" a good example of it. How does one expect to integrate a sub culture by making them more excluded by such a label? Never mind the very real social issues affecting them and more, the reasons for it and it isn't all the "settled" people's issue as is usually claimed.
Multiculturalism is a busted flush. Good when there are ideas being exchanged, bad when it's people in large enough numbers. It's like fire; the right amount will serve to heat the house, too much and it risks burning it down. Doubly so when the wishy washy, let's hold hands together, cultural equivalence and western culture isn't so great y'know, notions of the progressives will be found wanting in the face of cultures that believe in themselves and their cultures. And well they should. Until they bitch about living in a different country's culture they ran to.
Feminism of the third wave variety is a political movement masquerading as "equality" and full of shit for the most part. Shit that can be knocked over with a feather in any debate.
And no, I don't want Cock Gobblers for Confucius or whatever reading Hansel and Gretel to kids. A fetish is for adults. Keep your identity politics out of the classroom.
Gaol terms are too damned low. Sod taking 178 previous convictions into account. Build more prisons, sentence more people(women and men BTW) and hit "minor" crimes early and hard. Though I'm not a death penalty type. On a gut level I would be and would pull the lever too. However and it's a bloody big however, I simply trust no legal system to not fuck up, and on the regular, even with the best of intentions. Though I would happily drop the trap on the guilty evil oxygen thieves, leading even one innocent man or woman to the noose is far too big a negative for me.Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »I would love to see a non discussion thread: Please define political correctness.
A lot of people are up in arms about it, yet can't or won't even explain what it is!
For me, political correctness can be summed up with, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
AKA: Don't be a dick.
Not really. Good manners, treating people decently and not being a dick already covered those areas. Political correctness as I see it is something else entirely. Unfortunately, it can be a bit of a moving target and does mean different things to different people, but for me it's a bit like art or pornography: hard to define*, but you know it when you see it. By way of illustration, here are some events that I would consider to have been prompted by political correctness:
Example 1: When I was living in the UK in the late 80s and someone high up in the Metropolitan Police announced the statistic that the majority of a certain type of crime was being committed by young black men. This was followed by a big hue and cry complete with de rigeur accusations of racism. I suspect it only died down because Twitter and Facebook didn't exist yet. It struck me at the time that, unpalatable as the claim might be, it might be more useful to examine it more closely to establish (a) whether it was actually correct, (b) what was likely to be the cause (e.g. poverty, culture etc) and (c) to decide what to do about it. But no, it was lost amid all the wagon-circling and virtue-signalling. That is what I see as political correctness.
Example 2: Scientist Tim Hunt makes a poor joke about women in laboratories and is hounded out of his job for it, his knowledge and talent discarded, so satisfy online mob outrage.
Example 3: Criticism of the Charlie Hebdo victims as having brought it on themselves with their satire.
Example 4: Sexual assaults in Cologne on New Years' Eve 2015/16 groups of men of north-African/Arabic appearance. The German press didn't cover it for days (perhaps understandable reticence, given Germany's history). In Ireland, Una Mulally declares that the assaults are actually the fault of "all men".
Example 5: A Canadian teaching assistant is disciplined for showing a video to her class that portrayed a contrary view of trans rights issues.
Each of these examples goes beyond good manners and "not being a dick" in that they involve twisting facts in line with agenda, ruining the careers of people who suddenly find themselves on the bien-pensants' naughty list. I endeavour to do unto others as I would have them do unto me and I do my best not to be a dick, but I'm still uncomfortable with the mindset that prompted the events described above. That's what I refer to as "political correctness".
The notion that opponents of political correctness are all just frustrated racists, homophobes and...er...dicks, is getting a bit old, by the way, and ids really just the overused right-wing "snowflake" jibe, but flying a different flag.
By the way, as someone who voted to repeal the 8th and also voted in favour of the marriage referendum, I'm sure some would see me as being too politically correct. Complicated, isn't it?
*And its manifestations can be quite varied. The historian Antony Beevor describes discussion with a man on a train in Russia in which the subject arose of the large number of Russians in German uniforms captured by the Red Army at Stalingrad. The man dismissed the subject claiming that no Russians worked for the Germans at Stalingrad. When Beevor outlined his evidence for the existence of such people, the man declared simply "Those were no longer Russians". Politicaly correctness, but a different flavour.
0 -
-
-
One Eyed Jack my dear friend, that is employment law. People who go to job interviews are not employed unless hired. Can you please point out where there is an anti-discrimination law at the interview stage of applying for a job at the interview stage and also please state where there is a law prosecuting people for using the wrong pronouns. (in Ireland of course)
I love you too klaaaz, but we can’t keep doing this
In relation to employment legislation and prospective employees (you know, interview candidates who are not yet employed by a prospective employer), it’s specifically covered by Section 8 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 -8.—(1) In relation to—
(a) access to employment,
(b) conditions of employment,
(c) training or experience for or in relation to employment,
(d) promotion or re-grading, or
(e) classification of posts,
an employer shall not discriminate against an employee or prospective employee and a provider of agency work shall not discriminate against an agency worker.
...
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), an employer shall be taken to discriminate against an employee or prospective employee in relation to access to employment if the employer discriminates against the employee or prospective employee—
(a) in any arrangements the employer makes for the purpose of deciding to whom employment should be offered, or
(b) by specifying, in respect of one person or class of persons, entry requirements for employment which are not specified in respect of other persons or classes of person.
(6) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), an employer shall be taken to discriminate against an employee or prospective employee in relation to conditions of employment if, on any of the discriminatory grounds, the employer does not offer or afford to that employee or prospective employee or to a class of persons of whom he or she is one—
(a) the same terms of employment (other than remuneration and pension rights),
(b) the same working conditions, and
(c) the same treatment in relation to overtime, shift work, short time, transfers, lay-offs, redundancies, dismissals and disciplinary measures,
as the employer offers or affords to another person or class of persons, where the circumstances in which both such persons or classes are or would be employed are not materially different.
And in relation to the potential to prosecute people for misgendering a person, again that comes under numerous statutes in Irish legislation, including but not limited to employment law and harassment. A person could be prosecuted on numerous grounds.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I love you too klaaaz, but we can’t keep doing this
Love u more! :P (and hugs! )
A candidate cannot prove in an interview that there has been discrimination, as often has been the case the excuse has been "we'll keep you on file" amongst many excuses a recruiter can claim without the recruiter themselves actually stating the reason for non-hiring.One eyed Jack wrote: »I
In relation to employment legislation and prospective employees (you know, interview candidates who are not yet employed by a prospective employer), it’s specifically covered by Section 8 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 -One eyed Jack wrote:And in relation to the potential to prosecute people for misgendering a person, again that comes under numerous statutes in Irish legislation, including but not limited to employment law and harassment. A person could be prosecuted on numerous grounds.
I have not seen this legislation, care to elaborate?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Love u more! :P (and hugs! )
A candidate cannot prove in an interview that there has been discrimination, as often has been the case the excuse has been "we'll keep you on file" amongst many excuses a recruiter can claim without the recruiter themselves actually stating the reason for non-hiring.
They can, and they do? There are numerous examples I can think of off the top of my head, but here are a few examples -
Many of Ireland's most reputable employers have found themselves in murky legal waters due to the manner in which they handled recruitment and selection processes. The list now includes Superquinn, the Revenue Commissioners, University College Dublin, the Coombe Hospital, Gateaux, Independent Newspapers, the Eastern and Southern Health Boards, Nenagh Urban District Council, the Medical Council, the Central Statistics Office, Donegal County Council and VEC and Laois VEC.
• Ryanair was ordered to pay €8,000 compensation to the Equality Tribunal for placing an advert for a ‘young and dynamic professional’.
• Lidl was ordered to pay €5,000 compensation to the complainant when they advertised for a graduate with no more than 2/3 years’ experience.
• Trinity College Dublin also found itself in trouble when job applicant Lisa Rodmell was referred to as the "lady electrician" at an interview board.
• Clonmel Healthcare's interview discussion with Majella McDonald about her marital and family circumstances, resulted in the organisation having to pay for her `distress'.
• Regarding the appointment of a consultant obstetrician/gynaecologist to the Mater and Rotunda hospitals, the hospitals were rebuked for their interviewers' "lack of any notes, failure to agree criteria prior to interview, and the lack of any transparency in relation to the selection procedure." The complainant claimed that one member of the interview board made the comment: "that's fine, sink the sisters", after she responded that she wouldn't be interested in doing voluntary work in the hospital's Sexual Assault Treatment Unit. Interestingly enough, male applicants weren't asked whether they would do this work. Furthermore, the interview board "complimented" Dr. Gleeson for having "had her babies". Not surprisingly, the Court ordered the hospitals to pay her £50,000 compensation.
While this Equality Act forces employers to explain themselves in the event of a legal challenge, it is also interesting that in 1998 the Freedom of Information Act took effect. This gives job applicants "the right to be given reasons for decisions taken by public bodies that affect them."
Taken from here - https://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en/Events/OurEvents/Finance-for-Growth/Recruitment-and-Selection-Guidelines.pdfI have not seen this legislation, care to elaborate?
Section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 -10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—
(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and
(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other’s peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.
From here - http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/enacted/en/print#sec100 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement