nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is it illegal to make racist comments?

Chefrio

I was watching sky sports news and saw that Nicolas Anelka is in a spot of bother for making a racist gesture.

This made me wonder if it's illegal to make racist comments such as " I dislike Asian people and like aborigines".

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

padd b1975

Chefrio wrote: »

I was watching sky sports news and saw that Nicolas Anelka is in a spot of bother for making a racist gesture.

This made me wonder if it's illegal to make racist comments such as " I dislike Asian people and like aborigines".

Of course it's not illegal to dislike certain people, and heaven help society as a whole if that ever was to change.

Dravokivich

Siegfreid wrote: »

What about "them Brits will destroy delicate Ireland". I believe you would get your panties in a twist and go off on a rant about "true Irishmen" and Sinn Féin and the IRA and Gerry Adams and beards etc ad infinitum

You're a hypocrite :cool:

Eh, leave beards out of that!

poundapunnet

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Thesaurus.com called; they want their words back.

Yeah but do Manach's sentence in a Captain Kirk voice and it's amazing.

Anyhoo I just popped into this thread on my way to the PC meeting for the PC people. Sure hope I don't encounter any common sense on the way!

Santa Cruz

poundapunnet wrote: »

Yeah but do Manach's sentence in a Captain Kirk voice and it's amazing.

Anyhoo I just popped into this thread on my way to the PC meeting for the PC people. Sure hope I don't encounter any common sense on the way!

Look out for those "DANGER DO NOT CLIMB ELECTRIC PYLON" signs

poundapunnet

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Look out for those "DANGER DO NOT CLIMB ELECTRIC PYLON" signs

why, are they racist?

Maura74

efb wrote: »

the beatings are less severe in prisons tho...

They would also have more rights as well. More space to exercise and not locked up 24/7 and having to sell their home to pay the greedy care home owners for locking them up. Bed at 5pm.

efb

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

A few threads back I posted a comment about how if Ireland had given out quota work permits post 03 like the rest of the EU did (allowing in a manageable, orkable amount of Polish etc migrants) rather than a free for all, our property market would never have gotten into the state it did.

Any replies or counter arguments?

Did it fluck. It was the last post of the page, and remains so.

PC folk are generally.....I'm not even allowed to say here. But they are terrified of intelligent, rational, real world experience debate.

Oh right Ted! The emigrants kept the boom alive were not the cause of its downfall. A poorly regulated banking system and Economic policy contrary to our economic situation caused the downfall

Karl Stein

Oh look, a fan of mine who's most likely a previously banned re-reg who's about to be banned again - how pathetic.

Siegfreid wrote: »

What about "them Brits will destroy delicate Ireland".

I've never once said that.

I believe you would get your panties in a twist and go off on a rant about "true Irishmen" and Sinn Féin and the IRA and Gerry Adams and beards etc ad infinitum

I challenge anyone to use the search function and if they can find where I've said 'true Irishman' or anything to that effect once I'll throw an extra €20 to SSF.

You're a hypocrite :cool:

And you are pathetic.

Frank Lee Midere

efb wrote: »

Oh right Ted! The emigrants kept the boom alive were not the cause of its downfall. A poorly regulated banking system and Economic policy contrary to our economic situation caused the downfall

In general people who talked up the property boom pointed to immigration as the cause at the time. As in "of course houses in South Dublin are worth 1M we are going to grow by 1M people over the next decade".

Not that that's anything to do with race.

Frank Lee Midere

Back to racism. I follow a friend on twitter who is a shinner and while I don't agree with him on most stuff, it's interesting how many "kill the Taig" twitter and Facebook posts he retweets. As a form of shaming. Twitter sometimes takes these down but they respawn. Not one arrest.

Edit. For instance.

http://twitter.com/SpydeeLAD/status/416993193406648320/photo/1

sheesh

Didn't a bus driver get in trouble couple of years ago for making a racist comment to someone ? he may also gotten 6 months for it too....

here it is http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/racist-dublin-bus-driver-faces-six-months-in-jail-26256416.html

correction: he was charged I am not sure of the outcome of the case.

Duck Soup

seamus wrote: »

It depends on if you're "inciting hatred". "I think all Roma should be placed in a gas chamber and be done with it", would probably qualify.

Inciting hatred is illegal. Making racist comments is not.

Seamus is right. The important bit in his post I've made bold in the quote above.

It is not illegal for your Auntie Concepta to give out about the darkies, nor can she be prosecuted for it. The salient point is whether it was intended to incite hatred. She's not interested in inciting anything. She just doesn't like darkies.

On the other hand, if you stand up on a soapbox on O'Connell Street and shout the odds about sending the chinks home, you can be prosecuted. You're in a public forum, your intent is to provoke hatred.

http://www.integration.ie/website/omi/omiwebv6.nsf/page/AXBN-9B2LU91733429-en

To quote from the clarification statement from the Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration:

The Prohibition against Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 Act is only directed at addressing incitement to hatred. It cannot and was never intended to address racist crime more generally. Nor can it address racial abuse which is not intended or likely to stir up hatred.

Message boards such as this one are interesting cases in point. They are public, it could argued that they are influential (and therefore could incite). The only thing is that, in practical terms, if you locked up everyone on the internet who's being an asshat, then you'd barely have anyone left who wasn't incarcerated.

Karl Stein

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

"kill the Taig" Not one arrest.

That is interesting.

bnt

I don't like dealing with stupid people: should I be ashamed to admit that? Does that make me a bad person, or a criminal? Or simply non-PC?

We all pass judgement on others: it's a natural consequence of having judgement. If we didn't discriminate between things that help us or harm us, we couldn't survive in the real world. You can police what people do, of course: actions have consequences. You can't police what people think - see Orwell and "thoughtcrime" - since thoughts can exist solely inside our heads, where no investigator can reach.

The thing about the law is: we only have laws about things because some people aren't able to figure out what is right for themselves. Professional drivers don't need speed limit signs: they can read the road and the conditions, and figure it out for themselves. The signs are not for them, they are for the average driver, to keep them safe. Even then, stupid drivers don't understand that it's a limit, not an order, so e.g. they'll keep on doing 70 in a 70 zone even when the weather conditions make it unsafe (e.g. fog or heavy rain). So you still get crashes, and more regulations or signs - to cater for the stupid drivers, rather than the average drivers.

So what is the relevence to the question, about laws against "incitement to hatred"? It's another example of a law to protect the stupid from themselves, in my opinion. Those who think carefully about the issues, before speaking, have no need of such a law. I'm not going to pretend that race doesn't exist - it does - but it's stupid to judge people on that alone. But, you might ask, am I not a hypocrite for being judgemental about the stupid? No, because race alone doesn't stop us working together and getting a job done - whatever the job might be. You can't say that about stupidity, which (in my opinion) is a fundamental hindrance to the progress of the human race away from its error-ridden past.

tl;dr: stupid people need stupid laws to protect them from their own stupidity. Racism is only one example of such stupidity.

robertpatterson

poundapunnet wrote: »

why, are they racist?

Only if theyre poles

Duck Soup

The defining characteristic, it seems to me, in whether you are prosecuted or not, is whether it was in a public space.

There's the bus driver incident referenced above by sheesh and then this one from earlier this year of man convicted of shouting obscenities at an African man:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bobby-sands-did-not-die-for-the-blacks-man-ranted-226510.html

There was also a case brought to court in 2011, but eventually dismissed, against an Irish man who started a Facebook page called "Promote the use of Knacker Babies as Bait".

http://businessandlegal.ie/the-facebook-traveller-case-implications-for-social-media-and-freedom-of-speech

poundapunnet

Duck Soup wrote: »

There was also a case brought to court in 2011, but eventually dismissed, against an Irish man who started a Facebook page called "Promote the use of Knacker Babies as Bait".

http://businessandlegal.ie/the-facebook-traveller-case-implications-for-social-media-and-freedom-of-speech

Hooooooooooooooly fcuking Christ. I think I wouldn't like to see people getting prosecuted for what they say on facebook but what a nasty cúnt.

Clandestine

bnt wrote: »

So what is the relevence to the question, about laws against "incitement to hatred"? It's another example of a law to protect the stupid from themselves, in my opinion.

tl;dr: stupid people need stupid laws to protect them from their own stupidity. Racism is only one example of such stupidity.

So... there should be a law against promoting racial hate speech because the people who spew it may possibly be stupid? That is a ridiculous idea. It doesn't matter whether or not the person is an idiot or a genius, they should be allowed to say what they want regardless. Hate speech is free speech. The state should have no authority to limit free speech.

efb

Clandestine wrote: »

So... there should be a law against promoting racial hate speech because the people who spew it may possibly be stupid? That is a ridiculous idea. It doesn't matter whether or not the person is an idiot or a genius, they should be allowed to say what they want regardless. Hate speech is free speech. The state should have no authority to limit free speech.

Free Speech is not an absolute and is not guaranteed in this State

Femme_Fatale

Clandestine wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether or not the person is an idiot or a genius, they should be allowed to say what they want regardless. Hate speech is free speech. The state should have no authority to limit free speech.

It's very telling about someone when they think people should have the freedom to say absolutely anything whatsoever. But hey, not surprising given your posts.

Femme_Fatale

poundapunnet wrote: »

Hooooooooooooooly fcuking Christ. I think I wouldn't like to see people getting prosecuted for what they say on facebook but what a nasty cúnt.

Absolutely. I can still see the problems within traveller culture, yet that's just reprehensible. Some folks think people can only be of one view or the other though.

Frank Lee Midere

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It's very telling about someone when they think people should have the freedom to say absolutely anything whatsoever. But hey, not surprising given your posts.

Voltaire would disagree.

poundapunnet

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Absolutely. I can still see the problems within traveller culture, yet that's just reprehensible. Some folks think people can only be of one view or the other though.

Ah now. If you don't think jokes about killing traveller babies are funny you must love all the travellers.

Duck Soup

My right to free speech ends where the rights begin of other people to live free from violence and intimidation and free from the threats of them - hence the specific remit of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989 to deal with incitement.

Even in America, contrary to what some may believe, there are legal boundaries on what can be said, dealt with variously by laws on public nuisance or endangerment (shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre), racial hatred, slander and libel. In no country in the world is the right to free speech absolute.

Karl Stein

Clandestine wrote: »

The state should have no authority to limit free speech.

Lol, what a crock of shit. So the people of the state should not make laws to protect people from inciters to violence?

Seriously, you need to think about the implications of your 'shoulds' instead of regurgitating the anti-state propaganda you've filled your head with.

Clandestine

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It's very telling about someone when they think people should have the freedom to say absolutely anything whatsoever. But hey, not surprising given your posts.

You think that because I've made some "controversial" (in your view) posts? At the end of the day, I would defend anyone's right to speak their mind, whether I agree with their views or not.

I believe in self ownership. I own my body, and I own my actions, so long as I don't use force against others and their property, then I can do anything that I want and others have no right to control me. But people also have the right to restrict certain things as a condition of allowing me on their property. so for example, lets say I shout "fire" at a crowded privately owned theater when there isn't a fire. Them getting me to leave is not a violation of my free speech because I agreed to conditions and I am violating that agreement.

Nodin

poundapunnet wrote: »

Ah now. If you don't think jokes about killing traveller babies are funny you must love all the travellers.

PC Liberal Traveller baby lovers are what has the country in the state its in.

Daqster

Making what some consider a racist comment, doesn't mean someone is racist, much to the obvious displeasure of many.

For example: a lot of people, where they driving and cut off by some bald guy in a BMW, will invaribly shout:

"Fcuk you, you bald cunt!"

If the person was ginger, you might call them a ginger cunt.

Does that mean they hate bald people or ginger haired people?

I don't believe so. People just tend to pick on other people's most obvious characteristic when hurling abuse.

If the person is Black, Chinese, Pakistani, Irish etc, then the insults will tend to incorportate that characteristic. It's just human nature.

Doesn't make it right of course but there you go.

I think the people who tend to make an online pastime out of what they feel is unmasking racists in some kind of ta-da fashion, are quite laughable. True racists don't need to be unearthed, they will quite openly reveal themselves to be just that, all on their own.

Karl Stein

Clandestine wrote: »

I believe in self ownership.

Do you believe you should be allowed to sell yourself to someone else? Can you see how that might become problematic? Do you think parents should own their children and be allowed to refuse medical treatment for them?

You very clearly haven't thought through the things you've absorbed.

poundapunnet

Clandestine wrote: »

You think that because I've made some "controversial" (in your view) posts? At the end of the day, I would defend anyone's right to speak their mind, whether I agree with their views or not.

I believe in self ownership. I own my body, and I own my actions, so long as I don't use force against others and their property, then I can do anything that I want and others have no right to control me. But people also have the right to restrict certain things as a condition of allowing me on their property. so for example, lets say I shout "fire" at a crowded privately owned theater when there isn't a fire. Them getting me to leave is not a violation of my free speech because I agreed to conditions and I am violating that agreement.

Can you not see that this is where the incitement to hatred bit comes in? There is a big difference between for example walking around muttering n*gger to oneself and standing at the top of a crowded room encouraging people towards racial violence, which is why there's a law against one and not the other. Should teachers be allowed to teach creationism to children? If I believed you to be an active pedophile should I be allowed to tell everyone I meet about that belief and create a serious risk of someone using force against you?

That Voltaire quote is nice and catchy and all, but it's more of a "facebook status when you're 15" kind of quote than an actual life philosophy for a rational adult ffs.