Examiner: Gardaí investigate forum comments about Roma

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 09-11-2013 07:56PM

Gatling wrote: »

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

Cant see it, the AH charter is pretty explicit on the subject.

Howard Juneau · 09-11-2013 07:57PM

infosys wrote: »

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

Nothing to do with the case, no guilt assigned to the man at all, charges dismissed

Pro Hoc Vice · 09-11-2013 08:01PM

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Nothing to do with the case, no guilt assigned to the man at all, charges dismissed

And I ask agin was that under the probation of offenders Act, even if not the accused apoligised for his action.

I found another report which says

"When questioned by Judge O'Connor, Ms Boyne said she had not been subjected to threatening behaviour as a result of the site.

Judge O'Connor said what Mr Kissane had done was revolting but that he hadn't posted any more material after that night nor did he reply to messages posted to the site.
He said the defendant had succeeded in rebutting the charge of incitement to hatred."

It seems he raised the Defence set out in section 2 in that the complaintant admitted she was not subjected to hatred.

Howard Juneau · 09-11-2013 08:05PM

infosys wrote: »

And I ask agin was that under the probation of offenders Act, even if not the accused apoligised for his action.

No, dismissed without prejudice

darkpagandeath · 09-11-2013 08:05PM

I'm confused .. why do we need incitement to hatred why is this other level needed.. Inciting any group of people to violence is already a crime ? This just seems to be needed to tick a box saying ahh Incitement to hatred we have that one covered now. These laws lead to really poor interpretations seems to overly protect a minority for any action they can toss in the Racism card now and Hatred. Existing laws were enough .

Frank Lee Midere · 09-11-2013 08:07PM

infosys wrote: »

And I ask agin was that under the probation of offenders Act, even if not the accused apoligised for his action.

Well he clearly said it wasn't under the probation of offenders Act.

It seems we have a toothless hatred Act. And a toothless blasphemy law. And a toothless constitutional opposition to indency, or sedition.

Long live the Internet.

crockholm · 09-11-2013 08:11PM

On the whole incitement thing-there was an example given earlier about what can/can't be said.

Someone who says "I hate xyz they are vermin,we should kill them all" is guilty (and monumentally foolish)

If one were to say" I hate xyz,they are vermin" that,however unpalatable,is offering an opinion,and nowhere in the short sentence is there a call to arms.

Am I right or wrong on this?

Frank Lee Midere · 09-11-2013 08:13PM

crockholm wrote: »

On the whole incitement thing-there was an example given earlier about what can/can't be said.

Someone who says "I hate xyz they are vermin,we should kill them all" is guilty (and monumentally foolish)

If one were to say" I hate xyz,they are vermin" that,however unpalatable,is offering an opinion,and nowhere in the short sentence is there a call to arms.

Am I right or wrong on this?

Wrong. The first was always illegal. It's incitement to violence. "Vermin" is incitement to hatred.

Pro Hoc Vice · 09-11-2013 08:16PM

crockholm wrote: »

On the whole incitement thing-there was an example given earlier about what can/can't be said.

Someone who says "I hate xyz they are vermin,we should kill them all" is guilty (and monumentally foolish)

If one were to say" I hate xyz,they are vermin" that,however unpalatable,is offering an opinion,and nowhere in the short sentence is there a call to arms.

Am I right or wrong on this?

We are delving into guess work here, but both comments may be both incitement to hatred and not. The act sets out defences. But let's just say I publish the first on a very small blog with a few followers, there is no evidence any are pushed in to hatred then more than likely not guilty. Then say the second comment is made a a very well respected persons website, it is the uttering a of the person and hundreds of his followers then converge in groups of the group involved, then maybe that person is guilty. It really would depend on the facts.

LionelNashe · 09-11-2013 08:16PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm confused .. why do we need incitement to hatred why is this other level needed.. Inciting any group of people to violence is already a crime ? This just seems to be needed to tick a box saying ahh Incitement to hatred we have that one covered now. These laws lead to really poor interpretations seems to overly protect a minority for any action they can toss in the Racism card now and Hatred. Existing laws were enough .

Your post reads like you're objecting to a new law being brought in; the incitment to hatred act is from 1989.

I think it is needed. It's happened too many times in the 20th century that minorities have been decimated or sectarian factions have engaged in blood-lettings. I'm sure I've seen a couple of stories of Roma families being burned out their homes in Belfast in the last 10 years or so, and wasn't there a family of 4 catholic or protestant boys (can't remember which) burned to death as well somewhere around the border. Loose talk that describes people as animals or vermin or subhuman is how this can start.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 09-11-2013 08:17PM

crockholm wrote: »

On the whole incitement thing-there was an example given earlier about what can/can't be said.

Someone who says "I hate xyz they are vermin,we should kill them all" is guilty (and monumentally foolish)

If one were to say" I hate xyz,they are vermin" that,however unpalatable,is offering an opinion,and nowhere in the short sentence is there a call to arms.

Am I right or wrong on this?

Probably right, though some might well (and successfully) argue that calling a group "vermin" is inciting others to hate them.
My own view is that why would anyone call all members of any race, religion, ethnicity, gender, nationality etc vermin if one wasn't trying to incite hatred?

Howard Juneau · 09-11-2013 08:18PM

LionelNashe wrote: »

Your post reads like you're objecting to a new law being brought in; the incitment to hatred act is from 1989.

I think it is needed. It's happened too many times in the 20th century that minorities have been decimated or sectarian factions have engaged in blood-lettings. I'm sure I've seen a couple of stories of Roma families being burned out their homes in Belfast in the last 10 years or so, and wasn't there a family of 4 catholic or protestant boys (can't remember which) burned to death as well somewhere around the border. Loose talk that describes people as animals or vermin or subhuman is how this can start.

Since 1989, how many successful prosecutions under the law had their been?

Pro Hoc Vice · 09-11-2013 08:19PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Wrong. The first was always illegal. It's incitement to violence. "Vermin" is incitement to hatred.

It may not be incitement to violence, there is a requirement to request the violence and intention it will be carried out. Inchoate offences are very difficult to prove.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 09-11-2013 08:20PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Wrong. The first was always illegal. It's incitement to violence. "Vermin" is incitement to hatred.

Incitement to Hatred is illegal under Irish Law.

Pro Hoc Vice · 09-11-2013 08:21PM

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Since 1989, how many successful prosecutions under the law had their been?

I was at a conference recently on the Racism and hate crimes, I'm trying to remember was it 0 or 6 in any event it was a very low number. I think but may be wrong there is no conviction under the act.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 09-11-2013 08:21PM

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Since 1989, how many successful prosecutions under the law had their been?

None.
There have also been no successful prosecutions for treason, for Blasphemy, and for many other offences. That does not mean that such actions are not illegal.

crockholm · 09-11-2013 08:24PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Wrong. The first was always illegal. It's incitement to violence. "Vermin" is incitement to hatred.

And here is the problem.How can a word that can be used to describe squirrels be an incitement to hatred?

Pro Hoc Vice · 09-11-2013 08:26PM

crockholm wrote: »

And here is the problem.How can a word that can be used to describe squirrels be an incitement to hatred?

Without an asshole we would all burst and die but it's not a nice thing to call someone.

LionelNashe · 09-11-2013 08:26PM

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Since 1989, how many successful prosecutions under the law had their been?

From your question, I'm assuming little or none. The first one was in the year 2000 ( http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0914/8916-hatred/ )

Edit: I see he won on appeal though.

There was a story in the press this week that only a very small number of dog owners have been prosecuted for not picking up dog litter. This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a law against it.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 09-11-2013 08:27PM

crockholm wrote: »

And here is the problem.How can a word that can be used to describe squirrels be an incitement to hatred?

It can be when it is applied to human beings, inferring or stating they are vermin infers that they should be treated as such, vermin are a pest that it is ok to trap or kill.
Of course you know this already and are just on a wind up.

crockholm · 09-11-2013 08:31PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Probably right, though some might well (and successfully) argue that calling a group "vermin" is inciting others to hate them.
My own view is that why would anyone call all members of any race, religion, ethnicity, gender, nationality etc vermin if one wasn't trying to incite hatred?

I guess people call each other unflattering things all the time, for example,someone calling me,or someone else an extremist on a public forum(;))may incite others to do something irrational or hateful.

It's only when there is an explicit"call to arms" should the law come into force imho.

Red Nissan · 09-11-2013 08:31PM

infosys wrote: »

I was at a conference recently on the Racism and hate crimes, I'm trying to remember was it 0 or 6 in any event it was a very low number. I think but may be wrong there is no conviction under the act.

Statistics are public and free to download.

On that precise subject, the law needs to be thrown out and rewritten, from TODAY on. The "Spirit of the Law" is too often lost, but in this case, no blasphemy law should exist.

A law that allows people to say they believe, they are usually criminals for christ sake [an expression only] and then the learned judge, believes them?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Howard Juneau · 09-11-2013 08:32PM

LionelNashe wrote: »

From your question, I'm assuming little or none. The first one was in the year 2000 ( http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0914/8916-hatred/ )

Edit: I see he won on appeal though.

There was a story in the press this week that only a very small number of dog owners have been prosecuted for not picking up dog litter. This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a law against it.

My point is not! that there shouldn't be a law against it, but that the law is unworkable in it's current wording.

Frank Lee Midere · 09-11-2013 08:32PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Incitement to Hatred is illegal under Irish Law.

Yes I know. Sorta.

Pro Hoc Vice · 09-11-2013 08:33PM

crockholm wrote: »

I guess people call each other unflattering things all the time, for example,someone calling me,or someone else an extremist on a public forum(;))may incite others to do something irrational or hateful.

It's only when there is an explicit"call to arms" should the law come into force imho.

Being an extremist is not protected under the Act.

“hatred” means 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;

Frank Lee Midere · 09-11-2013 08:35PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

It can be when it is applied to human beings, inferring or stating they are vermin infers that they should be treated as such, vermin are a pest that it is ok to trap or kill.
Of course you know this already and are just on a wind up.

No he's not. The Act says nothing about violence just hatred. You are muddying the waters with vermin, who are generally considered fair game for killing.

It should be illegal under the Act to call Catholics bastards. In public.

This was all pre internet of course, this law.

Red Nissan · 09-11-2013 08:36PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

It seems the Internet in Ireland is breaking all kinds of rules. Porn in particular.

Use a VPN, some are free, some cost a few schillings, enjoy!

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 09-11-2013 08:39PM

crockholm wrote: »

I guess people call each other unflattering things all the time, for example,someone calling me,or someone else an extremist on a public forum(;))may incite others to do something irrational or hateful.

It's only when there is an explicit"call to arms" should the law come into force imho.

Calling an individual a name is not an offence under the relevant act unless it is related to their nationality, ethnicity, religion, or membership of the Travelling community. There is no need for a call to arms under the Incitement to Hatred Act.

Pro Hoc Vice · 09-11-2013 08:39PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

Statistics are public and free to download.

On that precise subject, the law needs to be thrown out and rewritten, from TODAY on. The "Spirit of the Law" is too often lost, but in this case, no blasphemy law should exist.

A law that allows people to say they believe, they are usually criminals for christ sake [an expression only] and then the learned judge, believes them?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I have always been in two minds about such laws, but I have to admit when push comes to shove I don't like such laws. They are ripe for abuse and don't ever fix the problem. I also don't like the classification of crimes as hate crimes, I find most violent crimes are motivated by hate, don't see why certain crimes should get that designation and others not.

Under the current law I can incite hatred against lawyers, doctors or social workers but not against the Irish, English or the Welsh.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 09-11-2013 08:40PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

No he's not. The Act says nothing about violence just hatred. You are muddying the waters with vermin, who are generally considered fair game for killing.

It should be illegal under the Act to call Catholics bastards. In public.

This was all pre internet of course, this law.

Read his post that I replied to Frank, he used the term vermin.

Examiner: Gardaí investigate forum comments about Roma

Comments