Is it illegal to make racist comments?

Karl Stein · 29-12-2013 03:57PM

Daqster wrote: »

If the person is Black, Chinese, Pakistani, Irish etc, then the insults will tend to incorportate that characteristic.

The only one of those 'characteristics' that can be assessed on first sight is 'Black'

It's just human nature.

Racism is learned.

poundapunnet · 29-12-2013 03:57PM

Daqster wrote: »

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.

I don't know about that. In the situation you mentioned people would be drawing attention to a physical characteristic which is insulting to draw attention to-fat, ugly, bald, whatever. It's not just the most obvious thing, it's something intended as an attack.

Clandestine · 29-12-2013 04:19PM

poundapunnet wrote: »

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.

There is a difference between advocating something and actually doing it. Actions speak louder than words. If someone commits violent acts, then yes they should be prosecuted. If not, then no, they should be allowed to speak.

poundapunnet wrote: »

should teachers be allowed to teach creationism to children?

If it is a private school, yes.

poundapunnet wrote: »

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?

This is a tough issue, because I don't own the opinions of other people, my reputation is just an idea in other people’s heads so how can I justly prosecute someone for changing the ideas in someone else’s head? On the other hand, i believe that if you lied and you were motivated by malice, then I feel I should be able to sue because my reputation (and possibly business) has been damaged.There are other ideas I have on slander but at the moment I really don't have a 100% clear answer for that

Daqster · 29-12-2013 04:21PM

poundapunnet wrote: »

I don't know about that. In the situation you mentioned people would be drawing attention to a physical characteristic which is insulting to draw attention to-fat, ugly, bald, whatever. It's not just the most obvious thing, it's something intended as an attack.

Isn't it the same though.

Aren't these things just different and so the reason for the attack.

I don't think there is anything different in bringing children up to not pick on other kids because they are different to you, be that because they have ginger hair, black skin, are disabled or whatever. Difference is the common denominator here.

Had a brother who worked in the UK who often had people calling him a mick this and paddy that, whenever he got in fights with them. He would call them an English so-and-so in return. Are all these people really racists, in the true definition. Again, I don't think so.

I think to really be able to call someone a racist, there has to be more evidence that some name calling. For me, the acid test is when people believe they are better than other races (and no doubt the definition of what constitutes a race will surface) based purely on the fact that they are members of that race.

Henlars67 · 29-12-2013 04:23PM

mango salsa wrote: »

Rabble rabble.... freedom of speech.... rabble rabble

Why do you keep doing that? Have you nothing better to contribute?

Karl Stein · 29-12-2013 04:28PM

Clandestine wrote: »

There is a difference between advocating something and actually doing it. Actions speak louder than words. If someone commits violent acts, then yes they should be prosecuted. If not, then no, they should be allowed to speak.

What a silly view of the world you have. Hitler (yes, godwinned) was only saying words sure - it was the soldiers who did the killing.

If it is a private school, yes.

Do you think that a private school should be allowed to teach children that adult-child sexual relationships are normal?

poundapunnet · 29-12-2013 04:28PM

Clandestine wrote: »

There is a difference between advocating something and actually doing it. Actions speak louder than words. If someone commits violent acts, then yes they should be prosecuted. If not, then no, they should be allowed to speak.

But if somebody directly causes violent acts to be committed through saying words that's grand?

If it is a private school, yes.

I agree with you there, but if it's a public school surely to god that is the state directly intervening in the freedom of the speech of the teacher? Is the state allowed to control your speech when it's your employer? If so, why is that different than the network of rights and responsibilities that make up the relationship between private citizen and state, especially when it is the responsibility of the state to prevent violence against its citizens and the right of an individual citizen to free speech that are in conflict?

This is a tough issue, because I don't own the opinions of other people, my reputation is just an idea in other people’s heads so how can I justly prosecute someone for changing the ideas in someone else’s head? On the other hand, i believe that if you lied and you were motivated by malice, then I feel I should be able to sue because my reputation (and possibly business) has been damaged.There are other ideas I have on slander but at the moment I really don't have a 100% clear answer for that

So there ARE limitations to this absolute free speech you're advocating.

osarusan · 29-12-2013 04:29PM

Daqster wrote: »

I don't think there is anything different in bringing children up to not pick on other kids because they are different to you, be that because they have ginger hair, black skin, are disabled or whatever. Difference is the common denominator here.

Isn't it negative difference though? Not just what is different, but what is different and worse?

Do we see bald guys calling the other guy a 'full head of hair wanker?'

Do we see a girl getting called a 'large-breasted bitch'?

Do we hear insults like 'you slender/healthy prick'?

So, if somebody is called a black bastard, or an Irish bastard, or a Paki bastard, isn't it because that aspect of their appearance/identity is something worse, something wrong with them, in comparison to the person insulting them?

J_E · 29-12-2013 04:30PM

There is no such thing as free speech. There are always reasonable cutoffs. If we really had the ability to say what we want without any sanction the world would be in chaos.

Daqster wrote: »

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.

Agreed with your points. I just think the reason it seems to cause more friction when it comes to the likes of race is that there is a perception that being a certain race is inferior to the other when you make insults like that.

poundapunnet · 29-12-2013 04:33PM

Daqster wrote: »

Isn't it the same though.

Aren't these things just different and so the reason for the attack.

I don't think there is anything different in bringing children up to not pick on other kids because they are different to you, be that because they have ginger hair, black skin, are disabled or whatever. Difference is the common denominator here.

Had a brother who worked in the UK who often had people calling him a mick this and paddy that, whenever he got in fights with them. He would call them an English so-and-so in return. Are all these people really racists, in the true definition. Again, I don't think so.

I think to really be able to call someone a racist, there has to be more evidence that some name calling. For me, the acid test is when people believe they are better than other races (and no doubt the definition of what constitutes a race will surface) based purely on the fact that they are members of that race.

Yeah, good point about it being about difference. And I certainly don't put yelling "You black bastard" in anywhere near the same league as things like refusing to employ someone or associate with them on the basis of their race, it's just something that'd never even enter my head to do, which makes me unsure of what in the name of god is other people's motivation for it.

I must find a really really fat black person to follow around and see what people shout at them :P

Jester252 · 29-12-2013 04:35PM

Thankfully there are some people here that understand that Ireland doesn't have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only exist in the USA.
To the guys who what to make "inciting hatred" comments, feel free to do so. Just don't complain to the gardas when someone smacks you.

Daqster · 29-12-2013 04:35PM

Nodin wrote: »

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

No Nodin, surely it's the:

'Dey fordeners tuk r jobs and ya can even be racialist anymore. It's PC gone mad, Joe' types.

Right?

J_E · 29-12-2013 04:36PM

Jester252 wrote: »

Thankfully there are some people here that understand that Ireland doesn't have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only exist in the USA.
To the guys who what to make "inciting hatred" comments, feel free to do so. Just don't complain to the gardas when someone smacks you.

Ooh definitely not! Unless I missed the sarcasm

Maura74 · 29-12-2013 04:36PM

This case recent case in the UK is waiting for the outcome is not due to later.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516949/Boss-harassed-using-word-golliwog-claims-chef-Court-decide-word-inherently-offensive-black-people.html

Even Carol Thatcher got sacked for using the word and they are selling them on ebay

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Golliwog-row-Thatcher-talks/story-12360456-detail/story.html

Nodin · 29-12-2013 04:37PM

Daqster wrote: »

No Nodin, surely it's the:

'Dey fordeners tuk r jobs and ya can even be racialist anymore. It's PC gone man, Joe' types.

Right?

It's hard to tell which is worser, tis true.

Duck Soup · 29-12-2013 04:39PM

Pretty much every liberal democracy in the world has legislation against two forms of speech - that which is not true (slander & libel) and that which can endanger (incitement to hatred and/or violence, shouting 'fire' in the proverbial crowded theatre). Once again: no country in the world has absolute free speech.

Strangely, after all the various legal shortcomings in the Irish legal system that have been aired on AH - and they are legion - I think that the Irish legislators have the balance about right in this area. Not illegal for your racist 80-year-old uncle to vent about da furriners over the Sunday lunch; absolutely illegal to roar on the street or Luas about wogs and wallahs, particularly when picking on an individual as a starting point for the wider rant.

Jester252 · 29-12-2013 04:39PM

Cydoniac wrote: »

Ooh definitely not! Unless I missed the sarcasm

The WBC exist. What more freedom do you what?

Hande hoche! · 29-12-2013 04:41PM

Jester252 wrote: »

The WBC exist. What more freedom do you what?

Westboro baptist church?

Karl Stein · 29-12-2013 04:42PM

I'm just drawing attention to the list of inconvenient questions that have been ignored by 'Clandestine'.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

So the people of the state should not make laws to protect themselves from inciters to violence?

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Do you believe you should be allowed to sell yourself to someone else? Can you see how that might become problematic?

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Do you think parents should own their children and be allowed to refuse medical treatment for them?

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Do you think that a private school should be allowed to teach children that adult-child sexual relationships are normal?

poundapunnet · 29-12-2013 04:43PM

Maura74 wrote: »

This case recent case in the UK is waiting for the outcome is not due to later.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516949/Boss-harassed-using-word-golliwog-claims-chef-Court-decide-word-inherently-offensive-black-people.html

Even Carol Thatcher got sacked for using the word and they are selling them on ebay

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Golliwog-row-Thatcher-talks/story-12360456-detail/story.html

Now THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is political correctness gone mad. Although that woman's only after money I'd say, and will that poor man have a conviction for racial harassment on his record now? Total bitch.

J_E · 29-12-2013 04:45PM

Jester252 wrote: »

The WBC exist. What more freedom do you what?

We've got the likes of Youth Defense, Iona Institute, which I will admit are less extreme, but much the same premise going on. WBC are meticulously careful regarding keeping themselves out of trouble. They're just about on the fringe. They also abuse the First Amendment.

The US isn't exactly the land of the free though, as heavily covered in the last few years.

Daqster · 29-12-2013 04:53PM

osarusan wrote: »

Isn't it negative difference though? Not just what is different, but what is different and worse?

So, if somebody is called a black bastard, or an Irish bastard, or a Paki bastard, isn't it because that aspect of their appearance/identity is something worse, something wrong with them, in comparison to the person insulting them?

Yes, but does that make it racist?

In the following video (2m35s mark) Dave Chappelle calls a crowd who gave him a hard time:

"Young white alcoholics" - was that racist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDBbdq3FjME

Jester252 · 29-12-2013 04:55PM

Cydoniac wrote: »

We've got the likes of Youth Defense, Iona Institute, which I will admit are less extreme, but much the same premise going on. WBC are meticulously careful regarding keeping themselves out of trouble. They're just about on the fringe. They also abuse the First Amendment.

Anyone else can abuse the First Amendment. Like I said before giving that such a hate group can exist the US has Freedom of Speech.

osarusan · 29-12-2013 05:01PM

Daqster wrote: »

Yes, but does that make it racist?

I don't know, maybe i'm thinking too much into what are usually off-the-cuff utterances.

But if a person is called 'black scum', isn't it because their skin colour is part of what makes them worse than the person insulting them? Is that not racist?

poundapunnet · 29-12-2013 05:03PM

Daqster wrote: »

Yes, but does that make it racist?

In the following video (2m35s mark) Dave Chappelle calls a crowd who gave him a hard time:

"Young white alcoholics" - was that racist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDBbdq3FjME

I've wondered that myself a few times, and take a look at some Richard Pryor from back in the day too. It really doesn't bother me if someone calls me "Cracker" or "white-girl" or "mick", but I live in the rural west of Ireland so honestly the situation doesn't come up that much :pac: buuuuuuuuuut, if I was living in the states or London or somewhere a bit more diverse, I probably would get annoyed that derogatory racial terms could be hurled at me because I'm white whereas it'd be pretty verboten to respond in kind.

Not that I'd be annoyed because I don't get to racially abuse people, just the hypocrisy of it. I'm 24 years old and my family is hungry shpud-eating farmers back as far as I'm aware, people can fcuk off if they try put any white guilt on me.

Nodin · 29-12-2013 05:13PM

poundapunnet wrote: »

Not that I'd be annoyed because I don't get to racially abuse people, just the hypocrisy of it. I'm 24 years old and my family is hungry shpud-eating farmers back as far as I'm aware, people can fcuk off if they try put any white guilt on me.

Spud-eaters? Well for them that has them.

poundapunnet · 29-12-2013 05:21PM

Nodin wrote: »

Spud-eaters? Well for them that has them.

Sometimes at Christmas they'd get TWO spuds :cool:

Frank Lee Midere · 29-12-2013 05:24PM

To correct on facts.

1) The US doesn't have hate speech legislation. Cf David Duke Black Panthers etc.
2) the argument "you can't shout fire in a public space" is incorrect. That case was thrown out. Search the phrase and the term "Supreme Court".

Irish people clearly prefer safety to liberty. Although I don't fetishize the US on other counts, on freedom of speech it is the modern exemplar.

Frank Lee Midere · 29-12-2013 05:29PM

poundapunnet wrote: »

I've wondered that myself a few times, and take a look at some Richard Pryor from back in the day too. It really doesn't bother me if someone calls me "Cracker" or "white-girl" or "mick", but I live in the rural west of Ireland so honestly the situation doesn't come up that much :pac: buuuuuuuuuut, if I was living in the states or London or somewhere a bit more diverse, I probably would get annoyed that derogatory racial terms could be hurled at me because I'm white whereas it'd be pretty verboten to respond in kind.

Not that I'd be annoyed because I don't get to racially abuse people, just the hypocrisy of it. I'm 24 years old and my family is hungry shpud-eating farmers back as far as I'm aware, people can fcuk off if they try put any white guilt on me.

Kill the Taigs is, as I pointed out earlier is a common twitter and FB meme, and unpoliced. Equally unpoliced is the burning of the flags of Catholic countries ( and flags which may be Catholic but are probably African) by right wing groups in the UK every July.

Probably Taigs have white privilege.

Daqster · 29-12-2013 05:33PM

poundapunnet wrote: »

if I was living in the states or London or somewhere a bit more diverse, I probably would get annoyed that derogatory racial terms could be hurled at me because I'm white whereas it'd be pretty verboten to respond in kind.

Indeed, and imagine coming across this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBhzJnJIilI

Is it illegal to make racist comments?

Comments