Lord Mayor of Dublin harassed at her home by protesters

24-01-2021 11:22pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Hazel Chu is right that we do need to address the lack of any law banning racism or hate speech in Ireland (outside the equal status act).

Racists should not be allowed to use hate fueled language to demean or harass any people in this country. I will certainly support her call for the introduction of any such legislation.

Again, that sounds so easy.

But it's bull****.

Define hate. And tell me how we should outlaw it.

tayto lover · 24-01-2021 11:25pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Hazel Chu is right that we do need to address the lack of any law banning racism or hate speech in Ireland (outside the equal status act).

Racists should not be allowed to use hate fueled language to demean or harass any people in this country. I will certainly support her call for the introduction of any such legislation.

How come this lady didn’t sympathise with the victims of George Nchenko?
Is she not the Lord Mayor of all the people of Dublin or is she just the LM of non-whites?

RobbieTheRobber · 24-01-2021 11:33pm

punisher5112 wrote: »

But the other side to it is really it's an attack on freedom of speech is t it....
I do not condone or would never use racist words or have such an agenda but imho the race card in my eyes is used way too much and has actually watered it down so much it's hard to actually understand it's meaning as it's used so much.

Example someone is refused entry because they are locked/drunk etc.... They can then bring a case especially if black or Chinese for example as they could say it was racial.

There is no freedom of speech in Ireland. There is freedom of expression. (subject to public order and morality)
If you are seeking freedom of speech so you can ridicule or abuse people on the colour of their skin or country of birth etc then I certainly don't support your call for free speech. That is not free speech that is seeking a right to abuse other on race grounds.
I would seek to have hate speech legislation added to those already prohibited from the right to freedom of expression.

weldoninhio · 24-01-2021 11:37pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

She is actually not the Lord mayor of balbriggan as it happens. I have already said in this thread I don't agree when hazels position on the balbriggan incident. But that incident is not the subject of this thread.

Just because I don't agree with her on that didn't mean I can't agree on this.

What has Balbriggan got to do with anything??

LostinBlanch · 24-01-2021 11:39pm

tayto lover wrote: »

How come this lady didn’t sympathise with the victims of George Nchenko?
Is she not the Lord Mayor of all the people of Dublin or is she just the LM of non-whites?

You know, I have only realised she didn't send any message of sympathy to the shop manager hospitalised by George Nchenko. I wonder why?

LostinBlanch · 24-01-2021 11:39pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

What has Balbriggan got to do with anything??

Deflection maybe?

24-01-2021 11:53pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

That is up to attorney General. I'm supporting hazels call for legislation not suggesting I write the legislation.

Can you not agree that prohibiting abuse of a person on race grounds is something that we should at least attempt?

Im not asking for the AG's definition.

I'm asking you.

You want a law implemented which would make hate crimes and hate speech illegal.

What would you define "hate" as and how could you make it against the law?

You're hardly supporting an implementation of a legislation that you can't define?

That would be madness.

weldoninhio · 24-01-2021 11:55pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The poster I was responding to asked was Hazel Chu not the mayor of I presume the shop worker.
I am assuming they are from balbriggan as that was where the incident was.
So I was pointing out that no Hazel is not the Lord mayor of balbriggan.

Just to clarify I am saying balbriggan is in County Dublin and Hazel is not the Lord mayor for County Dublin. She is the Lord mayor of Dublin City.

The George Nchenko incident happened in West Dublin. Nowhere near Balbriggan.

humberklog · 24-01-2021 11:59pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

OK weldoninhio. OK. Was it in Dublin City?
Because if it wasn't then my point still stands doesnt it?

Ah give over. If you can't get the basics right how are people supposed to take your technicals serious?

Sweetemotion · 25-01-2021 12:04am

weldoninhio wrote: »

The George Nchenko incident happened in West Dublin. Nowhere near Balbriggan.

Pretty racist in itself to assume it was.

25-01-2021 12:12am

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

OK the dunne off the top of my head.
Well we have already identified 9 protected grounds under the equal status act. I would suggest that we use those identified groups which we don't allow discrimination and don't allow people utter expressions of hatred toward towards other people for those same identified groups as a start.

But I would hope that better legal minds than mine would be asked to write the legislation.

I agree about discrimination. We have that law.

You are talking about hate speech though.

"Expressions of hatred"

What does that mean? Far too vague. What is "hate"?

If you don't know or can't define, how can you support any legislation to make it illegal?

gozunda · 25-01-2021 12:13am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She's a woman, in a ceremonial position, with no ceremonies to attend, who does very little except complain that racists are racists.

We knew that. That's why we called them racists.

Racism is not accepted in general society.

That's why when white knighting idiots who find racism in everything do more harm than actual racists.

The vast majority of people would stamp out racism. But when racism becomes an amorphous blob because everything can be racist, you lose support.

Unfortunately, it seems the bar for being a racist no longer means "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others" but now means that "you said a thing that I don't like".

Actual racism is disgusting.

Bull**** made-up racism is also disgusting, but for the opposite reason.

Its quite sad that even though there were no actual incidents of racism reported at the demonstration/ protests by a bunch of anti maskers in front of the Mansion house - that the incident has now grown legs and has been added to the Nkencho incident and "incessant racially motivated attacks" / "far right" to show just how bad things are here ...

https://twitter.com/ddiezworld/status/1352770136466468865?s=20

25-01-2021 12:13am

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I confused the names of Balbriggan when Blanchardstown. I'm sorry either way whomever asked me if Hazel was the Lord mayor of the victim. My reply that no she was the Lord mayor of Dublin City still stands.

She probably, as mayor of Dublin, should not have inflamed the situation.

weldoninhio · 25-01-2021 12:13am

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I confused the names of Balbriggan when Blanchardstown. I'm sorry either way whomever asked me if Hazel was the Lord mayor of the victim. My reply that no she was the Lord mayor of Dublin City still stands.

You have yourself tied in knots. No one asked if she was “the Lord Mayor of the victim” anywhere on the thread. Your reply is to a question that no one asked.

25-01-2021 12:15am

gozunda wrote: »

Its quite sad that even though there were no actual incidents of racism reported at the demonstration/ protests in front of the Mansion house - that the incident has now grown legs and has been added to the Nkencho incident and "racially motivated attacks" to show just how bad things are here :rolleyes:

https://twitter.com/ddiezworld/status/1352770136466468865?s=20

It used to be sad. It's now expected.

25-01-2021 12:25am

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Are you really suggesting that if i a lay person in terms of the law can't define a hate speech legislation within minutes of being asked the law is unworkable?

What utter utter nonsense. Come on your better than that dunne.

No. I'm not asking you to give me a workable and legally binding legislation. That would be madness.

I'm asking you a simple question.

What do you define "hate" as, and how would you punish it?

Also as an aside, how can you support Hazel Chu championing legislation against hate, if you have no idea what hate it is ?

Surely to support something, you need to know what it entails?

25-01-2021 12:25am

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I can agree with you on that she probably should not have commented on the situation. I think I have now send more than five times on this thread I do not support Hazel chu claims of racism in the actions of the Garda.
Do you need me to say it again?

I didn't need you to say it once.

LostinBlanch · 25-01-2021 12:26am

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Hazel is the Lord mayor of Dublin City. There is no lord mayor over the balbriggan area.
Do you understand now?

Listen, are you even aware of where the incident happened? Obviously not going by your answer, which you doubled down on.

I'll tell you, it happened in Clonee, not far from the Blanchardstown centre. Also people are well aware that Chu is Lord Mayor of Dublin City, but it didn't stop her weighing in on twitter immediately liking a post implying that the gardai were racist before any of the facts were fully known. That didn't go down well, so she quietly deleted the tweet. That fact that she was quick to jump in on something which happened outside of her city boundaries. So it's fair for people to ask her about it.

But she has not acknowledged the shop manager's hospitalisation, which leaves her open to questions of bias.

SexBobomb · 25-01-2021 12:41am

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

If I meet you in the street and call you a bastard that is abuse.
If I call you a insert nationality/colour of skin/disability that would be abuse on some of the 9 protected grounds covered by the equal status act.

I would like to see that sort of abuse covered by hate speech at a minimum.

Or how about the un definition.

as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality .....

But in Chu's own words no one said anything to her that would fall under this definition ?? Yet they are still perceived as racist and engaging in hate speech

25-01-2021 12:44am

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

If I meet you in the street and call you a bastard that is abuse.
If I call you a insert nationality/colour of skin/disability that would be abuse on some of the 9 protected grounds covered by the equal status act.

I would like to see that sort of abuse covered by hate speech at a minimum.

Or how about the un definition.

as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality .....

Interesting.

If you called me a white bastard, would that be hate speech?

If people used "positive" discrimination in order to give minorities preferential treatment in employment or education, would that be a hate crime?

If someone said the phrase " you *whatever ethnicity* prick", the insult is the word prick surely?

y0ssar1an22 · 25-01-2021 12:52am

i dunno how this is a story. how often is the us president harassed at their home?

25-01-2021 1:00am

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Yes
Yes
No

Even more interesting.

So you think that calling someone a bastard is just abuse but calling someone a white bastard is a hate crime, which you would support legislation to make it punishable.

Now, given the propensity for black people to use the n word to describe each other, are they liable for hate crimes against each other for using a common descriptor? If I overheard it and found it hateful, could I prosecute?

How, in your opinion, could that be legislated against? Are you in favour for a blanket law or for context to be applied?

Or do you not have a clue and are saying you are for "hate" crime legislation without actually thinking about ramifications?

And as for your last "no", the "ethnicity" is what makes it crime, not the insult?

How in god's name do you reconcile that?

weldoninhio · 25-01-2021 1:03am

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

If I meet you in the street and call you a bastard that is abuse.
If I call you a insert nationality/colour of skin/disability that would be abuse on some of the 9 protected grounds covered by the equal status act.

I would like to see that sort of abuse covered by hate speech at a minimum.

Or how about the un definition.

as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality .....

So you’d ban The Simpsons?

Groundskeeper Willie calls the French “cheese eating surrender monkeys”.

They have on more than one occasion referenced the Irish as being drunks

Amongst many other stereotypes they’ve shown, based on nationality.

25-01-2021 1:04am

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I dont agree with positive discrimination and have never suggested it. Thanks for trying though.

Just saw your edit.

I never suggested you did. That's why I asked the question.

"Thanks for trying though"?

Funnily enough, discussion and questions aren't always "gotchas".

I was actually interested in your opinion.

25-01-2021 1:07am

weldoninhio wrote: »

So you’d ban The Simpsons?

Groundskeeper Willie calls the French “cheese eating surrender monkeys”.

They have on more than one occasion referenced the Irish as being drunks

Amongst many other stereotypes they’ve shown, based on nationality.

Sadly it's because of attitudes like the one you quoted which has killed the Simpsons and many more like it. The fear of being branded racist, sexist, and any type of IST has killed many forms of entertainment.

You only have to look at people being dragged across the coals for Jokes said twenty years ago to see that everyone is on tenterhooks for fear of being cancelled by future generations of people who claim moral superiority

OneEightSeven · 25-01-2021 1:14am

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i dunno how this is a story. how often is the us president harassed at their home?

From reading the comments from the people who condemn the protest, the issue seems to boil down to the lack of security fencing around the Lord Mayor's home/office. Other than that, it's no different to protesting outside of 10 Downing Street or The White House. All three temporarily live at their workplaces and Boris has a young child, too.

nullzero · 25-01-2021 1:23am

Le Cheile's website is quite a read.

The tweet that was posted above describing the incident at the mansion House as Hazel Chu being "racially targeted" by people "Emboldened by the shooting of George Nkencho" is incredibly worrying.

Here we have an organisation that has only recently been established (their ten founding principles mention the covid19 crisis by name more than once) wading into this situation, leading with the George Nkencho shooting as being something that has encouraged supposed far right activists to shout weird rhetoric at the Lord mayor of Dublin.

How the George Nkencho case has emboldened the far right is beyond me. The workings of that case are clearly not racially motivated.

It would also appear that the protestors at the mansion House were not abusing Hazel Chu racially.

Why le Cheile feel the need to rubber stamp this incident as a racist incident connected to another incident which we can only assume they feel is racist (when it wasn't) is beyond me.

They then state; "This demonstrates the need for our campaign so please spread the word as far and wide as possible."

Here we reach the nub of the issue. Here's their second founding principle verbatim ; "We recognise that a new wave of far-right politics, emboldened by the toxic rhetoric of Trump in the US, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Orban in Hungary, Duterte in the Philippines, is a dangerous threat that, if unchallenged, will divide and weaken working people and all who believe in social justice, equality and freedom."

There in lies the problem for an organisation like Le Cheile, they are an Irish organisation fighting against far right groups that do not exist in this jurisdiction. We have the National Party (4773 votes or 0.2% of the total ballots cast in last year's General election), who do not measure up to any of the groups or individuals listed in their founding principles.

Is it not telling that they could not think to lost even one Irish far right group or personality for them to rail against in their founding principles?

Here we have a situation (and by extension two situations) that have nothing to do with their remit of fighting far right activism but they have decided to dip their toe in the water nonetheless.

Here we have an organisation which supposedly exists for the good of Irish society acting only in it's own interests for the sake of keeping itself relevant. And the saddest part is those mindlessly following their rhetoric.

I abhor any type of discrimination and the thought of fascists being allowed to do as they please doesn't sit well with me. However, there aren't any fascist groups operating in Ireland. The National Party is a joke that only makes the news when anti fascist activists turn up at their rallies to throw things at them.

We don't need an organisation such as le Cheile stirring racial tensions, which is exactly what what they are doing in lieu of any actual fascism to rail against in Irish society.

These people may have good intentions, but statements of the like they are releasing have no basis in fact and their actions are currently only serving the propagate a far right into existence in protest of their own nonsense.

25-01-2021 1:25am

nullzero wrote: »

Le Cheile's website is quite a read.

The tweet that was posted above describing the incident at the mansion House as Hazel Chu being "racially targeted" by people "Emboldened by the shooting of George Nkencho" is incredibly worrying.

Here we have an organisation that has only recently been established (their ten founding principles mention the covid19 crisis by name more than once) wading into this situation, leading with the George Nkencho shooting as being something that has encouraged supposed far right activists to shout weird rhetoric at the Lord mayor of Dublin.

How the George Nkencho case has emboldened the far right is beyond me. The workings of that case are clearly not racially motivated.

It would also appear that the protestors at the mansion House were not abusing Hazel Chu racially.

Why le Cheile feel the need to rubber stamp this incident as a racist incident connected to another incident which we can only assume they feel is racist (when it wasn't) is beyond me.

They then state; "This demonstrates the need for our campaign so please spread the word as far and wide as possible."

Here we reach the nub of the issue. Here's their second founding principle verbatim ; "We recognise that a new wave of far-right politics, emboldened by the toxic rhetoric of Trump in the US, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Orban in Hungary, Duterte in the Philippines, is a dangerous threat that, if unchallenged, will divide and weaken working people and all who believe in social justice, equality and freedom."

There in lies the problem for an organisation like Le Cheile, they are an Irish organisation fighting against far right groups that do not exist in this jurisdiction. We have the National Party (4773 votes or 0.2% of the total ballots cast in last year's General election), who do not measure up to any of the groups or individuals listed in their founding principles.

Is it not telling that they could not think to lost even one Irish far right group or personality for them to rail against in their founding principles?

Here we have a situation (and by extension two situations) that have nothing to do with their remit of fighting far right activism but they have decided to dip their toe in the water nonetheless.

Here we have an organisation which supposedly exists for the good of Irish society acting only in it's own interests for the sake of keeping itself relevant. And the saddest part is those mindlessly following their rhetoric.

I abhor any type of discrimination and the thought of fascists being allowed to do as they please doesn't sit well with me. However, there aren't any fascist groups operating in Ireland. The National Party is a joke that only makes the news when anti fascist activists turn up at their rallies to throw things at them.

We don't need an organisation such as le Cheile stirring racial tensions, which is exactly what what they are doing in lieu of any actual fascism to rail against in Irish society.

These people may have good intentions, but statements of the like they are releasing have no basis in fact and their actions are currently only serving the propagate a far right into existence in protest of their own nonsense.

Sounds like you're one of those racists....

gozunda · 25-01-2021 1:28am

OneEightSeven wrote: »

From reading the comments from the people who condemn the protest, the issue seems to boil down to the lack of security fencing around the Lord Mayor's home/office. Other than that, it's no different to protesting outside of 10 Downing Street or The White House. All three temporarily live at their workplaces and Boris has a young child, too.

Thing is - there's been protests outside the Mansion House during the residency of various of Lord Mayors over the years. There certainly seem to be some legitimate and some oddball protests from time to time.

No idea why Ms Chu reckons her residency is any different tbh.

Whatever the Mansion House is - it's neither number 10 Downing Street nor the Whitehouse for sure.There is security on the building already afaik. What is she looking for I wonder - anti riot fencing with razorwire perhaps?

25-01-2021 1:34am

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I dont reconcile anything in God's name.

I leave legislation to the attorney general to draft and the government to enact that is how our country works thankfully i a single citizen am not expected to be the oversight for all legal implications of potential legislation. That would be absurd. Absolutely absurd.

I agree with divorce but I have never thought all of the ramifications of that, have you?
I could vote yes to the recent abortion referendum without thinking of all the medical and legal ramifications being neither a doctor nor solicitor. Did you give full consideration to all before voting?

And so I can support calls for anti hate speech legislation and then when experts write that law I can review at that time and see if I support.
Don't be so ridiculous as to try make out that everyone else in the world or on this thread thinks through all the ramifications before supporting a social issue.
Some posters can't even read the links they post but yet you hold only me to this high standard of thinking of everything from every angle before I support a social issue. Again absolutely absurd.

Have you given thought to how racial abuse affects the victims of it. Do they not deserve consideration. Or is it only people who seek to use racially motivated language to abuse and demean others that deserve your consideration?

Actually yes. I do think long and hard and educate myself to the best of my ability about anything I vote for and the ramifications of which the result would bring.

I find it exceptionally worrying that you wouldn't.

So you support anti hate laws being drafted so you can read them so you can decide to support them? You also say that supporting social issues without thinking about the ramifications is normal? Wow. Thankfully, I disagree.

I know only too well how racial abuse affects the victims. I also know how Molly coddling and disingenuous concern from people who care more about being seen to care rather than actually caring is often much more negative than the abuse itself.

You again are trying to frame me as someone who is advocating and even encouraging racially motivated language. I have stated explicitly that I am wholly against racism. I am also wholly against people seeking out racism where there is none. They are both equally damaging to people who suffer from genuine racism.

Lord Mayor of Dublin harassed at her home by protesters

Comments