ICP use "racist and inflammatory hate speech" -ICC

[Reece]

So who pays your wages Tanya?

Nothing about funding on their site - are listed as a not-for-profit, independent NGO.

Do charge a membership fee - hmmmm.

[damianob]

I am not a lawyer, BUT, I get the impression that the ICCL have just have accused ICP of inciting hatred by having "found them using racist and inflammatory hate speech against migrants and ethnic minorities..."
If they broke the law they should have reported them and let the law take its course. On the other hand this is probably more of the bullshyt, or dare I say "old wives tales", that these people come up with on occasions.

No, they haven't just accused the ICP of incitement. Incitement requires that the inciter had intent to incite hatred and for a prosecution to be successful it had to be shown that the incitement led directly to a 'hate' act. All ICCL have said is that ICP used 'racist and inflammatory hate speech". Which is unpleasant, but not illegal.

Because many of these groups would not exist without the handouts, the age of vollunteerism has passed.

Not entirely true. Most voluntary organisations do not depend on the state for funding. They raise money from supportive individuals, companies, trusts asnd foundations. Some also get money from statutory sources, but this pales next to the levels of private philanthropy. And virtually every voluntary organisation I know depends to a huge extent on volunteers giving their time.

What I do have a major problem with is the idea that NGOs who do receive state funds should be restricted in the stances they can take or the positions they adopt. That notion is a serious threat to free speech and democracy.

I agree and this is exactly the reason why ICP should receive funding!

Two points:
1) what should they receive funding for?
2) As a political party (they have stood candidates) why should they be treated any differently than FF, FG etc...

So who pays your wages Tanya?

The ICCL, I guess. Who pays your's Catalpa?

As far as I'm aware, the ICCl receives no state funding.

[smiffy]

I am not a lawyer, BUT, I get the impression that the ICCL have just have accused ICP of inciting hatred by having "found them using racist and inflammatory hate speech against migrants and ethnic minorities..."
If they broke the law they should have reported them and let the law take its course. On the other hand this is probably more of the bullshyt, or dare I say "old wives tales", that these people come up with on occasions.

They continue:
"Of course the Immigration Control Platform has a right to express their opinion freely and we believe that this is very important provided they do not incite hatred....."
Sorree...but did you not just say they had, or was that a slip of finger.

Your little triumph is premised on the assumption that 'inflammatory hate speech' is necessarily the same thing as 'incitement to hatred'. This is not necessarily the case, particularly if a fairly rigorous standard of proof is required in the latter case.

Try harder next time.

[Catalpa]

I am not a lawyer, BUT, I get the impression that the ICCL have just have accused ICP of inciting hatred by having "found them using racist and inflammatory hate speech against migrants and ethnic minorities..."
If they broke the law they should have reported them and let the law take its course. On the other hand this is probably more of the bullshyt, or dare I say "old wives tales", that these people come up with on occasions.

No, they haven't just accused the ICP of incitement. Incitement requires that the inciter had intent to incite hatred and for a prosecution to be successful it had to be shown that the incitement led directly to a 'hate' act. All ICCL have said is that ICP used 'racist and inflammatory hate speech". Which is unpleasant, but not illegal.

Because many of these groups would not exist without the handouts, the age of vollunteerism has passed.

Not entirely true. Most voluntary organisations do not depend on the state for funding. They raise money from supportive individuals, companies, trusts asnd foundations. Some also get money from statutory sources, but this pales next to the levels of private philanthropy. And virtually every voluntary organisation I know depends to a huge extent on volunteers giving their time.

What I do have a major problem with is the idea that NGOs who do receive state funds should be restricted in the stances they can take or the positions they adopt. That notion is a serious threat to free speech and democracy.

I agree and this is exactly the reason why ICP should receive funding!

Two points:
1) what should they receive funding for?
2) As a political party (they have stood candidates) why should they be treated any differently than FF, FG etc...

So who pays your wages Tanya?

The ICCL, I guess. Who pays your's Catalpa?

As far as I'm aware, the ICCl receives no state funding.

So who is funding them then?

My employers pay my wages.

So who are ICCL's Employers?

[smiffy]

So who is funding them then?

My employers pay my wages.

So who are ICCL's Employers?

ICCL is governed by an executive board of a minimum of eight persons, four of whom are elected at each AGM to serve for two years. In addition, two more members may be co-opted onto the Board to a maximum of 10 persons. the co-option facility enables the Board to appoint people who can bring sepcific skills or persepectives to the organisation. The co-option procedure is also used to promote greater diversity and inclusivity within the organisation.

If you want to know where their funding comes from, why don't you just ask them (like martan did) rather than posting daft questions on here?

[stringjack]

Do charge a membership fee - hmmmm.

Try, for example, spending ten or fifteen seconds on their website.

There are four categories of membership listed:

Individual - €40
Couples/Double - €70
Unwaged - €10
Organisation - €70

[Catalpa]

Hey folks why don't we join up and take it over from the inside (like the yuppies did with SF) and turn in into an Immigration Control Platform?

Anybody on for it? :twisted:

[damianob]

So who is funding them then?

My employers pay my wages.

So who are ICCL's Employers?

If you want to know where their funding comes from, why don't you just ask them (like martan did) rather than posting daft questions on here?

an eminently sensisble suggestion.

there's also this new fangled thing called google, you just type your question in and voila! answers just appear out of the interweb...

But to help you on your way: The ICCL is an independent NGO, that - like all other charities / NGOs raises money from a range of sources. Individuals, businesses, trust and foundations.

[Catalpa]

OK so I just googled them and headed for their 'Freedom of Expression' page

Got this:

Freedom of Expression General
This section is Under Construction....
<< Back

[green]

2) As a political party (they have stood candidates) why should they be treated any differently than FF, FG etc...

<pedantry> They're not actually a party but a pressure group that runs candidates as Independents - comparable to Independent Fianna Fáil (in Dáil elections, at least), WUAG or RSF. </pedantry>