Will racism ever end?

RobbieTheRobber · 15-09-2021 8:21am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893147#Comment_117893147

There we go again deflection avoidance and insults.

Did the incident in the op show racist intent to you?

15-09-2021 8:29am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893174#Comment_117893174

Going from the little information in the OP (and the fact I have no cause to doubt him), then yes, I take it at face value that the OP's wife did receive racial abuse.

And where was the insult op? Are you offended? Would what I said to you constitute hate speech?

Deflection would be not answering questions. I have answered your questions. So far in this thread you have wrongly accused me of deflection, wrongly accused me of defending hate speech, wrongly suggested I said there was no racism in football and many many more misrepresentations in order to frame me as something I am not.

Please stop.

RobbieTheRobber · 15-09-2021 8:33am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893181#Comment_117893181

I had to ask the same question again despite you quoting the post. So eh yeah that is deflection.

So we agree that the racist incident described in the opening post showed racist intent. Should we not look to deal with incidents like that in legislation. And note neither I nor you know the racist language used but here we are in agreement that there was racist intent.

15-09-2021 8:44am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893194#Comment_117893194

I'm asking what legislation you are proposing. What safeguards could we have in place in order to stop people like yourself misrepresenting others and potentially accusing others of racism or hatred?

It's virtually impossible to prove "hate" and I have not heard one convincing idea or argument that would make dealing with an incident like this slightly workable.

It just boils down to you declaring loud and proud that you want racism to stop and people be punished. Cool, I think most people feel the same. But you have no idea how to make it workable and the best I have heard from you is policing peoples speech and even at that, you want to make it based on contextual situations where you will punish someone for using a word and then the exact same word being absolutely fine in a different context.

I've answered your questions, now please answer this:

If two white people are standing at a bus stop and make a racist joke containing the N word and there is a black person in earshot who feels like the word was used as an insult to them, would you believe that would constitute hate speech and should be punishable?

One eyed Jack · 15-09-2021 9:21am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893224#Comment_117893224

I can’t speak for Robbie but in the hypothetical circumstances you’re describing, it wouldn’t constitute hate speech under the legislation that was proposed by Helen McEntee last year. In the circumstances the OP describes, the person’s actions could constitute either hate crime or under the proposed legislation could constitute hate speech.

It’s really not the impossibility you make out to prove something constitutes hate speech at all -

Speaking Thursday at the launch of a report recommending stronger hate speech and hate crime legislation, the Minister said the laws will target people who “intentionally or recklessly” incite hatred against individuals or groups.

The test for criminal hate speech will be the perpetrator’s intentions, not how the speech was perceived by the victim.

It is It is important that the intent of the law is communicated clearly to prevent thousands of people who may have taken offence at an internet post or comment “trying to press charges and going to the gardaí,” the Minister said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/hate-speech-law-not-about-catching-people-out-says-minister-1.4439740

15-09-2021 9:38am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893363#Comment_117893363

I suppose it boils down to proving the intent to cause "hate" and what constitutes hate.

Surely a defense for the OP's situation could be that they say that they were joking and no hatred was intended.

Again, before anyone jumps down my throat, I am not looking to defend racial abuse, I just don't see how hate speech legislation can work

One eyed Jack · 15-09-2021 9:44am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893437#Comment_117893437

When you raise a defence to something, I can’t see how that is anything other than defending it. That’s an entirely separate issue from being unable to understand how hate speech legislation can work when I’ve already demonstrated how it was suggested it would work in the article I linked to.

According to that article, we already know what constitutes hate speech, and it’s easily proven that something constitutes hate speech if it meets those conditions. Other than trying to be obtuse, I can’t imagine how this is a difficult concept for anyone to grasp, especially by anyone who claims to have been the victim of racist abuse on as many occasions as you have.

15-09-2021 9:56am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893452#Comment_117893452

Well that just proves my point Jack.

I didn't raise a defense, I simply pointed out that a person could lie and it would be almost impossible to prove him wrong. That is not defending hate speech even in the slightest and a response to the article you provided.

The article did not even come close to explaining what constitutes hate speech. Perhaps my reading comprehension is not the best this morning but can you point out a clear definition that is not ambiguous?

What conditions did it meet that can't be countered with a simple "I didn't intend any hate"?

And yes, as someone who has been on the receiving end of racial abuse, it is in my best interest to point out glaring inconsistencies in proposed legislation because as it stands, I can't see it making one iota of a difference.

One eyed Jack · 15-09-2021 10:24am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893521#Comment_117893521

You absolutely DID raise a defence -

Surely a defense for the OP's situation could be that they say that they were joking and no hatred was intended.

You didn’t say anything in your post about the person lying, and in any case the same test would apply - whether or not they intentionally or recklessly incite hatred against individuals or groups. The person can counter it with whatever they like, that’s called a defence btw. It would still be up to the investigating officers to determine whether they intentionally or recklessly incited hatred against individuals or groups.

There’s no inconsistency in the proposed legislation and that’s why I suggested that in my view the circumstances you describe of the two people standing at the bus stop making racist jokes would be unlikely to constitute an offence under the proposed legislation. Nothing unlawful about being racist. It’s the behaviour which may be determined to constitute an offence, based upon determining the person’s intent.

Claiming it was only a joke constitutes a defence, but it doesn’t mean they didn’t commit an offence.

15-09-2021 10:31am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893638#Comment_117893638

FFS jack, I said what I said because you need to prove intent to incite hatred, you can just say that you were joking and no hatred was intended. I was not defending any racist behaviour.

Can you clearly explain to me exactly what inciting hatred is, and how a singular case of calling someone a slur corresponds to it? That is a genuine question.

RobbieTheRobber · 15-09-2021 10:37am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893521#Comment_117893521

But you and I did agree something has racist intent. So it's not nearly as impossible as you make out. Given a single case study on this thread we have agreed intent.

15-09-2021 10:40am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893691#Comment_117893691

Because I believe the OP.

That couldn't and shouldn't hold up when it comes to legality.

RobbieTheRobber · 15-09-2021 10:42am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893703#Comment_117893703

But isn't that exactly what a judge or Jury does when they hear testimony in a case.

Do they not decide if they believe the testimony presented to them?

Isn't that what the Gardaí do as part of their investigation.

Do the DPP not further judge the evidence on whether it is likely to be believed in court. Are these not all judgment based decisions?

Fandymo · 15-09-2021 10:43am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893638#Comment_117893638

"Surely a defense for the OP's situation could be that they say that they were joking and no hatred was intended."

You didn’t say anything in your post about the person lying - so you would accept that they were joking as per above? Since you can't see anything in the post about the person lying?? You're tying yourself in knots.

We currently have laws against incitement to hatred. How would you expect an investigating officer to determine hatred in a "he said/she said" situation? Some form of Minority Report system?

One eyed Jack · 15-09-2021 10:45am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893668#Comment_117893668

I didn’t accuse you of defending racist behaviour, and I didn’t think you were defending racist behaviour by raising a possible defence for the behaviour of the person being referred to by the OP. Anyone can of course say they were just joking and no offence was intended. It doesn’t mean anyone has to believe them. That’s why what you’re looking for doesn’t exist - a lexicon of words that shall be verboten under any legislation.

Calling someone a slur with the intent to humiliate them or infringe upon their dignity, COULD constitute inciting hatred, whether the person is intentionally or recklessly doing so. Expecting anyone to define hatred for you is dancing on the head of a pin stuff. Nobody is going to do that. What I CAN do however, is suggest that a read of the Interpretation of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act which exists already, might give you some idea if you’re not deliberately trying to be obtuse -

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/section/1/enacted/en/html#sec1

One eyed Jack · 15-09-2021 10:53am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893718#Comment_117893718

Nobody’s tying themselves up in knots. The dunne only suggested they could be lying after already raising the defence that the same person could have been joking. They could also have had their granny in the boot poking them in the back of the head with a gun threatening to shoot them unless they shouted racist abuse at a random stranger for all anyone knows!

I expect investigating officers to be able to use their judgment in any circumstances. That seems to be an unreasonable expectation according to some posters here, and yet we rely on that same expectation every day without question. Perhaps it’s just not as difficult as posters here are trying to make out in defence of the indefensible.

pgj2015 · 15-09-2021 10:53am

No. Because there will always be stupid people.

Tombo2001 · 15-09-2021 10:58am

A couple of comments on this:

(i) there is no such thing as race. its bull. This idea that 'black people are a different 'race' from white people'. We are here in Ireland. People in France are a little bit darker than us. People in Spain are a little bit darker than the French. The Moroccans are a little darker than the Spanish. The Malians are a little darker than the Moroccans. And so on. The whole notion of race, and that one race is different to another, is complete bull.

(ii) 'Racism' per se only came into play in the 1700s and 1800s with the onset of the slave trade, where Africans were dehumanised in the same way that Irish were dehumanised, so that the imperial powers of Europe could justify treating them like animals and sending them off on slave ships to America and elsewhere. Race and Racism is an invented concept.

Having said all that - Racism obviously does very much exist unfortunately, and will do for as it suits certain classes of people to sneer and look down on other classes of people.

Mad_maxx · 15-09-2021 11:02am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117883317#Comment_117883317

To many ,that's both a philosophical and political question.

silverharp · 15-09-2021 11:26am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893795#Comment_117893795

you wouldnt make a good doctor with that attitude if you were being totally literal

Tombo2001 · 15-09-2021 11:32am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893930#Comment_117893930

Great point

🤔

Wibbs · 15-09-2021 12:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893795#Comment_117893795

"Race" is extremely dubious a definition alright. Complex populations of peoples with broadly shared genetic heritage over time with some regional overlap fits better, though is a bit of a mouthful. 😁 Those populations would roughly align with the idea of "race", in that broadly speaking modern human populations can be labelled African, Asian or European. Darkness of skin would be a small part of it. The "European" label could apply to North African, Arab and Indian as well as Northern European. There are some indicators even in our bones. For example a pathologist if presented with an African, Asian or European skull would have a fair chance of narrowing down ancestry by that alone.

Our evolutionary history follows the same basic trends. Africa, that is East and Sub Saharan Africa has the highest genetic diversity on the planet as that's where Modern Humans first evolved, had the largest population and were around for the longest(circa 150-200,000 years), Asia and Europe would have lower diversity, as Modern Humans arrived there much later(circa 70,000 and 40,000 respectively). Two African blokes living a few miles apart could have more genetic diversity going on than a Swede and a Greek, or Korean and Japanese. We see similar in the genes of archaic humans we met(and shagged) along the way. Europeans have Neandertal admixture, Asians have Neandertal(different mix than Europeans) and Denisovan admixture(and possibly Erectus), Africans have neither, though do show evidence of their own ancestors getting jiggy with more local archaic populations.

'Racism' per se only came into play in the 1700s and 1800s with the onset of the slave trade, where Africans were dehumanised in the same way that Irish were dehumanised, so that the imperial powers of Europe could justify treating them like animals and sending them off on slave ships to America and elsewhere. Race and Racism is an invented concept.

Not quite and that's a very eurocentric/American viewpoint. As is the modern first thought when the word slavery is mentioned. We pretty much automatically associate that word with the Atlantic slave trade. Slavery has a far longer history and across the world than that horrible time and was just as likely to be Whites or Asians in the mix. In Greece and Rome slavery was part of the social fabric. Their societies couldn't function without the practice. In Rome many doctors were Greek slaves. In Sparta the enslaved Helots outnumbered free Spartans by about five to one. Never mind that in many African societies it was also a fact of life and remains so in a couple. White Europeans arriving to the Slave Coast(Nigeria/Benin/Cameroon) didn't bring something new. Quite the contrary. They were simply new customers for a long established and highly organised business. Even today there are people from that neck of the woods who would have had great grandfathers who were slavers(BBC link to one such I love how she justifies it. No way would she apply the same criteria to a European). The Arab trade in African(and European) slaves was also going long before and long after Europeans were in the mix.

As for racism itself? Well there has always been a Them Vs Us, belonging, not belonging trait in humanity and from the earliest writings we can see this. If the Other was a different colour, then all the easier to mark them out. Tutankhamun a north African/Southern European had among his funerary goods slippers which had images of Black African(Ethiopians/Kushites) on the soles so he could walk on them with each step. Egyptians knew of and illustrated many different "races" as they saw them and also had the broad notions of African, European and Asian. The Greeks and Romans had their barbarians. Those considered uncivilised, open to subjugation and slavery because they were essentially born to it. Most cultures did and in many ways do and it's why that word and concept has remained intact over the millennia. In many East Asian cultures going back into antiquity pale skin was lauded as a sought out positive over darker skin along class lines, just like it was in Europe. "Blue blooded" comes from the rich not having to toil outside remaining pale so you could see the veins through their alabaster skin. Shakespeare's Othello was written in the first years of the 17th century, before the Atlantic slave trade really took off and illustrates and considers the attitudes to the "Moor"*, the dark of skin, the Other.

So racism and prejudice towards the Other has always been around. Later European thought added a "scientific" angle to it in the midst of the Enlightenment and after, though there had always been some "explanations" brought to bear on the matter when seeking to excuse and dehumanise the other.

*Moor generally meant North African/Arab, rather than Black African and there is still debate over what Othello was in period, but he could have been anything non White and it would still make the same points.

Fandymo · 15-09-2021 12:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117893770#Comment_117893770

There was no defence given by The Dunne, he gave a hypothetical example. How do you prove intent, without getting into someone's head. It's not possible, unless there is evidence of intent. In a one off, random incident, between two parties, there would be literally no evidence of intent. It's Schroedingers intent. So you would be convicting someone on the word of someone else, and nothing else. A very slippery slope.

RobbieTheRobber · 15-09-2021 1:21pm

We already leave the decision on intent in relation to other criminal matters to the courts why is racist abuse any different.

Why would the courts suddenly not be able to make a decision in relation to intent after hearing both evidence for the prosecution and the defence.

Is our current justice system flawed in this regard?

One eyed Jack · 15-09-2021 1:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894406#Comment_117894406

There was? It’s precisely why you asked me would I accept the defence that it was a joke. In the circumstances as described by the OP, it doesn’t appear as though they were sharing a joke with a random stranger, which is the circumstances which the dunne was referring to, and why the dunne suggested that the person could be lying, as if that makes a difference?

The only person actually tying themselves up in knots is the person offering a defence, and then tanking their own defence! The example the dunne gave was unrelated to the defence they offered for the behaviour of the person as described in the opening post, which is why I said they could offer the defence that they were being threatened with a gun to their head by their granny in the boot, that they would be shot if they didn’t shout racist abuse at a random stranger. The point is we just don’t know. Anything could be offered as a defence, and still nobody has to believe them!

It’s not Schrodingers intent, Minority Report or slippery slope stuff at all. That’s why the proposed legislation includes the conditions of intentionally or recklessly inciting hatred against individuals or groups. It doesn’t suggest anything about it being unlawful to think thoughts that could be construed as examples of racism. Helen McEntee even makes the point that the intent of the law is communicated clearly to prevent thousands of people who may have taken offence at an Internet post or comment “trying to press charges and going to the Gardaí.” -

Speaking Thursday at the launch of a report recommending stronger hate speech and hate crime legislation, the Minister said the laws will target people who “intentionally or recklessly” incite hatred against individuals or groups.

The test for criminal hate speech will be the perpetrator’s intentions, not how the speech was perceived by the victim.

It is It is important that the intent of the law is communicated clearly to prevent thousands of people who may have taken offence at an internet post or comment “trying to press charges and going to the gardaí,” the Minister said.

As you quite rightfully suggest, and I’m not sure how this was in any way unclear or misunderstood - evidence of either recklessness or intent would be required in order to determine whether or not a person or people had committed an offence, and under what Acts they COULD potentially face charges. It would depend upon the circumstances in each and every case!

“Thought crimes” though - not a thing, relax.

15-09-2021 1:49pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894568#Comment_117894568

It is as clear as mud jack.

You can't prove the intent of the example in the OP. (For clarity, I believe the OP and am not doubting them for a second)

And for the record, you are mixing up two of my posts. I asked Robbie if he considered someone joking with their friend using a bad word that was overheard by a third party and was offended.

That was my hypothetical question which you answered by showing the proposed legislation. That was grand. End of that discussion regarding the hypothetical scenario.

After reading the legislation again, I said it boils down to proving the intent to cause "hate" and what constitutes hate.

I said that in that case, surely a defense for the person in the OP's situation ( a single incident of someone shouting out a window at a stranger) could be that they say that they were joking and no hatred was intended, which would be impossible to disprove.

Wibbs · 15-09-2021 1:51pm

"Speaking Thursday at the launch of a report recommending stronger hate speech and hate crime legislation",

As an aside when did Irish journalist start aping American English? It should be "speaking on Thursday" in this neck of the woods. Then again much of our media and enough Irish people ape 'Murican politics in all her forms too so not such a shock.

Hector Savage · 15-09-2021 1:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117879593#Comment_117879593

As always @Wibbs a rock of sense ...

Ash.J.Williams · 15-09-2021 2:00pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058208248/will-racism-ever-end

it will never stop it can't . scum will always aim as low as possible .Race, sexuality, weight , looks ....all ammunition for idiots with nothing going for them .

Fandymo · 15-09-2021 2:03pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894568#Comment_117894568

You are literally arguing the same thing as me

"The test for criminal hate speech will be the perpetrator’s intentions" - how do you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, someone's intent? In the case of the OP, how would intent be proven? You would need witnesses and/or an admission of guilt. Only the person doing the shouting knows their intent!!

15-09-2021 2:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894615#Comment_117894615

People that commit any crime can come up with any defence.

Also, there is no such thing in criminal investigations as 'impossible to disprove ' a defence.

you prove guilt.

alan partridge aha · 15-09-2021 2:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894688#Comment_117894688

But are you not being scumist now.Tut Tut.

One eyed Jack · 15-09-2021 2:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894615#Comment_117894615

I’m not mixing up your two posts, I’m applying the example you gave of two friends sharing a joke and whether or not that would constitute hate speech, to the circumstances in the opening post, such that the person shouting racist abuse could offer the defence that they were only joking, and then you later suggested that they could be lying.

Well yes, they could be lying, but since you believe what happened in the opening post, and you have plenty of your own experiences of racist abuse (which I gather you determined they weren’t joking then either), you’re in the fairly admirable position of being able to determine using your own judgement whether or not a person or people had committed an offence in any given circumstances.

It isn’t impossible to prove a persons intent, or whether they were reckless in any case, and one is not required to be a mind reader to make any determinations based upon the evidence before them. That’s what the evidence is for.

Rothko · 15-09-2021 2:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117892386#Comment_117892386

Just for once, I would love to see you respond to someone without twisting their words. Then again, that would mean that you would have to be able to form a coherent argument which you have constantly failed to demonstrate. Oh, well.

15-09-2021 2:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894740#Comment_117894740

My point is that there is no evidence in the OP's example that would hold up to any investigation.

Look, we are obviously talking over each other and don't think we will reach an agreement so lets leave it at that.

One eyed Jack · 15-09-2021 2:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894712#Comment_117894712

Evidence, Fandymo. That’s how you prove either intent or recklessness. The standard of evidence required admittedly increases the more persistent a person is that they are innocent and they intend to make unnecessary work for everyone else.

One eyed Jack · 15-09-2021 2:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894771#Comment_117894771

We’re not talking over each other at all. You just don’t have a point. You’re struggling to make something out of nothing with trying to offer a defence for the behaviour of the person as described by the OP in the opening post, and then putting forward the idea that the person could be lying, but you believe the OP, and then declaring that there’s no evidence in the OP’s example that would hold up to any investigation, when clearly there is - the account of the victim, whom you believe! That’s a good start to any investigation.

15-09-2021 2:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894771#Comment_117894771

Are you an experienced investigator?

15-09-2021 2:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894845#Comment_117894845

I'm not making any defence. I simply am pointing out that its impossible to prove the intent in the particular example in the OP because there is no evidence!! That is not defending the behaviour!

I of course think the person who did the shouting would be lying if he said he was joking but because it would be impossible to prove that he intended to incite hatred in this one off incidence because of zero evidence of his intent other than his recounting of the incident.

I do believe the account of the victim but according to your own article her testimony would be moot if the other party denied it was hatred because it is only based on intent and "not how the speech was perceived by the victim".

You may not feel I have a point and fair enough, but please do not make it out that I am defending the behaviour of someone who shouts racist abuse.

I am just of the opinion that legislation would be useless in situations like this. I am not defending any behaviour.

15-09-2021 2:31pm

Many crimes are committed where intent has to be proved.

Many crimes are committed where it is one persons word against anothers.

Many of these crimes are successfully prosecuted. So, unless you are an experienced investigator who has investigated the OP fully, then pretty sure you cannot claim that the crime is unprovable

RobbieTheRobber · 15-09-2021 2:42pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894740#Comment_117894740

One of them would also have to report the other. Otherwise there is no victim. So not very good friends if they share a joke and the other reports them for racist abuse.

Its a really strange argument against this.

15-09-2021 2:42pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894959#Comment_117894959

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894862#Comment_117894862

FFS perry mason. 🤣

If you think it's in any way possible to prove a random stranger who shouted an insult and drove off had the intent to incite hatred then fill yer boots.

Unless the OP comes back and says that he has multiple witnesses, the car registration, video footage and an admission of guilt, I am still going to stick with my opinion that the proposed legislation would be of no assistance to the OP's wife in this instance.

15-09-2021 2:45pm

Lol, I'm Perry Mason?!

Says you that wrote off a complaint without even trying to investigate.

Which is what gardai do when people make a complaint. And yes, many of those things you mention would be involved in the investigation. So, why do you think it couldn't be proven?

Fandymo · 15-09-2021 2:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894776#Comment_117894776

Unless there is a recording or a witness, there is no evidence of verbal abuse.

Words don't hang in the air. So unless someone is an absolute idiot and abuses someone on camera, or around other people, there will be no way to prosecute someone for verbal racist abuse when it is one persons word against another.

15-09-2021 2:49pm

Yep, no one ever gets prosecuted when it's one persons word against another's. Never happens.

15-09-2021 2:50pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117895046#Comment_117895046

Sigh...

My example was two white friends sharing a joke which contained the N word, which was said in earshot of a black person who took offence and felt the slur was directed at him. I wondered what your opinion would be in this hypothetical, would that be racist hate speech?

But in the meantime, OEJ kindly showed where the legislation would decide that no, it wouldn't be unless the perceived victim could prove the two white men intended to incite hatred.

15-09-2021 2:51pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117895084#Comment_117895084

Have you many examples of people being prosecuted for hate crime based purely on one word against another?

RobbieTheRobber · 15-09-2021 2:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117895084#Comment_117895084

We are entering philosophical thought experiment territory but instead of

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

It should be replaced by for this thread

"If a crime is committed and there are no other witnesses is it even a crime?"

The answer is yes, yes it is still a crime.

15-09-2021 2:58pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117895092#Comment_117895092

Not offhand. But then I don't know every prosecution that has been taken in Ireland.

Also, as pointed out, by yourself, there maybe more evidence in this particular case.

for someone that is against racism, you seem to be putting an awful lot of blocks in the way of prosecuting people for it?

Wibbs · 15-09-2021 3:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894688#Comment_117894688

Again I think that assuming idiocy in such things is problematic and over simplified and explains things far too easily. Many if not most of the greatest minds in human history have been prone to some "ism" or other, including racism. I'd say racism came second only to sexism. If so called cancel culture were to go down that list to expunge such people there would be remarkably few left on it. Looking over my own life I've met a few people who mightn't have been the sharpest axes in the toolshed but who were anything but racist, and on the other side of that coin some of the most intelligent people I've met were incredibly racist. If were only scumbags and thickos it wouldn't be the problem it is in societies.

Will racism ever end?

Comments