I want to refer specifically to the case of Teboga Sebala.

Reported in the Carlow Nationalist

Quote :

“There were obscene racial
comments like ‘kill the f***ing n****r’ and the likes,” said Mr Tomlin.
“I was absolutely shocked. My wife was in tears. She asked them to stop
and they turned on her. I pulled her away because I feared she would be
attacked. I am beside myself - I am thinking of pulling my son from the
sport. It was ongoing throughout the match and Teboga was visibly
upset.”

Day long discussion on P.ie (At your own risk)

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=38948&sid=7074a29f4fc50659a970e98bfc4d4fcb

And on the radio/TV mainstream newspapers.

Coupled with this horrendous occurrence, is the occasional outbreak of downright violent behaviour on football pitches around the country.

Here's my question : Why does everyone look to the GAA/FAI or whoever for answers ?
Should they not be looking to the Gardaí ?
Have not crimes been comitted in some of these cases, especially the specific case above?
Why is criminal behaviour on the pitch given a wide berth by the powers we have set up to prevent it ?

I must be missing something here.....

zakalwe wrote:

no real need for the guards (you'll only entrench racial bigotry) to be involved, only social intolerance/isolation for those views would work.

That sounds reasonable to me from zakalwe - of course the people shouting could be breaking some law like the one we had here recently - incitement to violence or public disturbance and be subject to the full rigours of the law.

Auditor #9 wrote:

zakalwe wrote:

no real need for the guards (you'll only entrench racial bigotry) to be involved, only social intolerance/isolation for those views would work.

That sounds reasonable to me from zakalwe - of course the people shouting could be breaking some law like the one we had here recently - incitement to violence or public disturbance and be subject to the full rigours of the law.

What page was that on ? I don't accept what zakalwe said at all. They should at least have made some shapes and said they were making enquiries etc. They should also have rolled out their PR man and reminded people of the law, and that there are criminal implications for this kind of behaviour.

So Irish solution time again ? Ignore the fucking thing ?

Yeah I think it's terrible what happened but there's some sanity to what zakalwe said on the first page on p.ie. My first instinct was tarring and feathering in the vein of Norfolk Enchants himself.

They should be at least educated on the law as you say from the sidelines is it? any guff and they're inciting hatred .

We haven't a hope of turning this crap around, so long as our statutory bodies don't give a rat's ass.

What we get is a GAA plonker and a local priest on the radio telling us ' Ahhhhh shure jaysus we've never had that kinda thing round here'

What way is that to sell a legal system to a nation ?

As far as I'm concerned, it stinks. I'm very annoyed.

RTE is reporting that the girls who were taunting the boy in the Carlow case were being encouraged by adults who are also watching the match
video link

I would be of the opinion that these adults should be facing charges on incitement to something or other (do we have an incitement to racial hatred law over here? I know there is one in the UK)

AfricanDave wrote:

RTE is reporting that the girls who were taunting the boy in the Carlow case were being encouraged by adults who are also watching the match
video link

I would be of the opinion that these adults should be facing charges on incitement to something or other (do we have an incitement to racial hatred law over here? I know there is one in the UK)

Section 7 of the Public Order Act? (thanks to Hermes and Kate P for the discussion)

Auditor #9 wrote:

Section 7 of the Public Order Act?

It looks like section 6 of the same act would cover it, as section 7 seems to deal with display or distribution of threatening or abusive material. The provision isn't specific on racial hatred though, it merely refers to threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a public place - s.6 that is.
Should there be specific incitement to racial hatred legislation?
Should it be made an offence for a parent to teach their children racist views? It probably wouldn't be constitutional with the family being recognised as the primary educator.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Why is criminal behaviour on the pitch given a wide berth by the powers we have set up to prevent it ?

I think ignoring criminal behaviour on the pitch is ok because everyone involved in playing any given sport knows exactly how rough that sport is. A certain level of fouling is always expected in soccer for example, and a lot of tackling manouvres in all contact sports would be grounds for an assault case if done off the pitch.
In the case of Teboga Sebala however, the criminal behaviour was on the part of the spectators which is unacceptable.

AfricanDave wrote:

Should there be specific incitement to racial hatred legislation?
Should it be made an offence for a parent to teach their children racist views? It probably wouldn't be constitutional with the family being recognised as the primary educator.

Interesting. Defining racism and racist terms - how is that done usually? In the other section it was 'abusive' that needed expansion but where is this defined does anyone know? The OED?

Wouldn't one part of the constitution contradict another part - isn't there liberty rights sections in the constitution which would be breached by allowing racism? How does one area of a constitution or treaty have precedence over another is my next question.

Quote :

Defining racism and racist terms - how is that done usually? In the other section it was 'abusive' that needed expansion but where is this defined does anyone know? The OED?

Isn't the standard definition of racism believing that one race is superior to another?
For legislation prohibiting parents from passing racist views to their children it could be defined as teaching the child that they are superior to someone else based on race.
This then raises the question as to what exactly race is. Obviously black and Asian people spring to mind automatically as being a different race to white people, but what about mediteranian people? They would have different physical hallmarks. The same could be said for people from the Middle East, who have darker skin but are by no stretch of the imagination black. Then there's people from eastern Europe, who, although are just as white as Irish people, they also have slightly different physical distinctions.
There were Hitler's Arians, who were supposedly white, tall and usually had blonde hair, are they a different race than other Europeans? Do they even exist?
What about Jewish people? There is the stereotype of the Jew with the big nose, is that enough of a physical difference to mark Jewish people out as a seperate race?

When it comes to these questions of race I begin to become confused.
I find it much easier to remind myself that if you were to slice open any black, Asian or Arabic person, their blood and guts would look just the same as mine, so what's the difference?

Quote :

How does one area of a constitution or treaty have precedence over another is my next question.

I suppose deciding which part of the constitution should take precedence in the event of a conflict would be the job of the Supreme Court. However, I'm sure any part of the constitution found to be in conflict with another part would have to be altered by referendum - eventualy.

Good question EVM.

In our house when someone is assaulted on pitch in a match that we are watching the shout of "Call the Gards!" goes up from the sofa. Some assaults do go to the courts. No one should get away with behaviour on the pitch that would tet you six months outside the pub.

The phenomenon of thousands of fans chanting and throwing bananas, as it used to be at Chelsea, is more difficult logistically. There was a very sorry situation in the UK for a while and it took a combined push from the supporters clubs and the clubs to put a stop to it, which by and large they did.