Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Examiner: Gardaí investigate forum comments about Roma

13567

Comments

  • #62
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Red Nissan wrote: »
    Well, actually in the "Scandinavian Islam" thread a video shows an extremist Muslim Group openly saying they own NO allegiance to the UK Government or the Police.

    But that's in that thread, do pop over, if you're not already there. :)

    Nothing illegal in saying you own no allegiance to your government.


  • #63
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Rod Serling wrote: »
    Glad the gardai are using their time wisely. No sense tackling any of the real problems in Ireland like rampant drug dealing, burglaries and muggings when someone on a small Irish forum said something mean about someone else.

    Incitement to Hatred is every bit as serious as drug dealing or any other crime, especially for those on the receiving end of it.


  • #64
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    humbert wrote: »
    I would say that it is opinion. It straddles the line between
    "Travellers/Roma/Africans/ Gayss /whomever, are scum/vermin/filth etc , and I think they should shot/burned/spat on."
    which is certainly opinion and
    "Travellers/Roma/Africans/ Gayss /whomever, are scum/vermin/filth etc , and you/we should shoot/burn/spat on them"
    which is incitement.

    Well happily the law would disagree with you.


  • #65
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    Probably was only a matter of time.
    A small number of people seem to think the internet is a place they can post bile and hatred with impunity, so sooner or later action will have to be taken.

    It's been done already in the case of an anti traveller facebook page. It made it to court & judge dismissed the case.


  • #66
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    humbert wrote: »
    I would say that it is opinion. It straddles the line between
    "Travellers/Roma/Africans/ Gayss /whomever, are scum/vermin/filth etc , and I think they should shot/burned/spat on."
    which is certainly opinion and
    "Travellers/Roma/Africans/ Gayss /whomever, are scum/vermin/filth etc , and you/we should shoot/burn/spat on them"
    which is incitement.

    The act does not say opinion is a Defence the Act sets out defences and I don't think use of the words "I think" instead of "we should" would act as a Defence. But if you want to test it go for it.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    Such as?
    In any event the Incitement to Hatred Act deals with individuals and organizations.
    If a religious leader from any religion promoted or incited hatred against any group then they should be prosecuted.

    Such as the claim that all non-members are to be hated etc. all religions do this in some text or other.


  • #68
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    Rod Serling wrote: »
    Glad the gardai are using their time wisely. No sense tackling any of the real problems in Ireland like rampant drug dealing, burglaries and muggings when someone on a small Irish forum said something mean about someone else.

    It's the publicity you see, they're all star seekers, and when they don't have the petrol for their cars, sure, GOD BLESS boards ie, they're just a click away and can be done from the comfort of their own living rooms whilst wearing pajamas and sipping a Chardonnay, good job.


  • #69
    humbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    Well happily the law would disagree with you.
    We can all rest easy knowing that distasteful opinions are suppressed.


  • #70
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    Well happily the law would disagree with you.

    Apparantly not. And why happily? Free speech has to triumph over "taking offence" which is what is happening here. I wouldn't use these terms, however in the absence of incitement to violence, people should be free say what they want. That's the best thing we got from the enlightenment.


  • #71
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Such as the claim that all non-members are to be hated etc. all religions do this in some text or other.

    The person actively saying that is likely to prosecution depending on how they phrase it.
    That said I cant think of any priest/pastor/Rabbi etc being reported as having stated anything like that in Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    infosys wrote: »
    Nothing illegal in saying you own no allegiance to your government.

    Isn't it potentially treasonable?


  • #73
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Howard Juneau wrote: »
    It's been done already in the case if an anti traveller facebook page. It made it to court & judge dismissed the case.

    After a apology from the accused, in light of all the facts it was more than likely the correct result. http://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/man-cleared-of-inciting-hatred-against-travellers-27411942.html

    BTW innocent people don't usually apoligise.


  • #74
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Apparantly not. And why happily? Free speech has to triumph over "taking offence" which is what is happening here. I wouldn't use these terms, however in the absence of incitement to violence, people should be free say what they want. That's the best thing we got from the enlightenment.

    There is no right to "Free Speech" either in Ireland or any country that I know of, that right is limited, including in the Irish Constitution.


  • #75
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Red Nissan wrote: »
    Isn't it potentially treasonable?

    Constitution of Ireland

    ARTICLE 39

    Treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, or assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government established by this Constitution, or taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt.


  • #76
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Red Nissan wrote: »
    Isn't it potentially treasonable?

    No.
    Treason would require a specific action.
    For instance , for decades so called republicans publicly stated that they neither recognised nor owed any allegiance to this state.


  • #77
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    There is no right to "Free Speech" either in Ireland or any country that I know of, that right is limited, including in the Irish Constitution.

    Exactly correct the relevant section

    "
    6 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –

    i The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

    The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

    The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law."


  • #78
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    There is no right to "Free Speech" either in Ireland or any country that I know of, that right is limited, including in the Irish Constitution.

    It's pretty much unlimited in the US. Now I know you want to ban crime think but I am opposed to it. First they came for the people who criticised the Roma etc.


  • #79
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    infosys wrote: »
    After a apology from the accused, in light of all the facts it was more than likely the correct result. http://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/man-cleared-of-inciting-hatred-against-travellers-27411942.html

    BTW innocent people don't usually apoligise.

    No. Incorrect.
    The judge dismissed the charges after the defendant rebutted all of them, he offered the apology afterwards!
    Make of that what you must


  • #80
    revisionist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 196 ✭✭revisionist


    we had a Roma cafe in Dungarvan ....great feckin chips and potato cakes ( even with the inevitable heartburn)


  • #81
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    infosys wrote: »
    Exactly correct the relevant section

    "
    6 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –

    i The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

    The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

    The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law."

    So all the constitution cares about is morality, sedition and indecency. It seems the Internet in Ireland is breaking all kinds of rules. Porn in particular.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    It's pretty much unlimited in the US. Now I know you want to ban crime think but I am opposed to it. First they came for the people who criticised the Roma etc.
    No, first they came for the people who described Roma as vermin who should be exterminated, thank god this time they came!
    By the way "pretty much unlimited"=Limited!


  • #83
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    revisionist wrote: »
    we had a Roma cafe in Dungarvan ....great feckin chips and potato cakes ( even with the inevitable heartburn)
    Yeah Them Roma deffo have heartburn issues, I prefer Borza:D


  • #84
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Howard Juneau wrote: »
    No. Incorrect.
    The judge dismissed the charges after the defendant rebutted all of them, he offered the apology afterwards!
    Make of that what you must

    In the witness box, Patrick Kissane apologised and said he was "sickened" by his behaviour. He told the court that he had been working alone in The Granary Bar in Killarney, when members of the Travelling community, who were in town for a funeral came in.

    You can not go into the witness box after the court dismisses the charge.

    Further

    "Dismissing the charge against the accused man, 27-year-old Patrick Kissane of Knockasartnett at Killarney District Court last Friday, Judge James O'Connor found that while the offence was "obnoxious, revolting and disgusting", the creation of the Facebook page was a "once-off" and an "over-reaction" to an incident involving Kissane and members of the Traveller community."

    Pretty strong words from the judge. He was a lucky guy the Defendant.


  • #85
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    infosys wrote: »
    In the witness box, Patrick Kissane apologised and said he was "sickened" by his behaviour. He told the court that he had been working alone in The Granary Bar in Killarney, when members of the Travelling community, who were in town for a funeral came in.

    You can not go into the witness box after the court dismisses the charge.

    Further

    "Dismissing the charge against the accused man, 27-year-old Patrick Kissane of Knockasartnett at Killarney District Court last Friday, Judge James O'Connor found that while the offence was "obnoxious, revolting and disgusting", the creation of the Facebook page was a "once-off" and an "over-reaction" to an incident involving Kissane and members of the Traveller community."

    Pretty strong words from the judge. He was a lucky guy the Defendant.

    Well, again, no.
    The judge had no option but to dismiss the charges.


  • #86
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    No, first they came for the people who described Roma as vermin who should be exterminated, thank god this time they came!
    By the way "pretty much unlimited"=Limited!

    I strongly object and am deeply offended with the quoted phrase, please remove it.

    Also please do rewrite your reply as you are going over my head, and without the quoted phrases, thank you very much, appreciated.


  • #87
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Red Nissan wrote: »
    I strongly object and am deeply offended with the quoted phrase, please remove it.

    Also please do rewrite your reply as you are going over my head, and without the quoted phrases, thank you very much, appreciated.

    You know well enough where the "Report Post" button is.:P


  • #88
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Howard Juneau wrote: »
    Well, again, no.
    The judge had no option but to dismiss the charges.

    To me it reads that the court dismissed the charge under the probation of offenders Act, which allows a court after a finding of guilt to dismiss the charge. The DC often feel a charge is proved but dismiss for many reasons.

    See section 1 (1) (i)

    http://www.probation.ie/pws/websitepublishing.nsf/attachmentsbytitle/Probation+of+Offenders+Act+1907/$file/Probation+of+Offenders+Act+1907.pdf


  • #89
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    You know well enough where the "Report Post" button is.:P

    Not this time. No report from me.


  • #90
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    I can see it now another email to the powers that be and ohhh here we go again
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Red Nissan wrote: »
    Not this time. No report from me.

    Or me.
    *calls for truce*:)


Advertisement
Advertisement