Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE BROADCASTING AUTHORITY of Ireland (BAI) has ruled that a scene showing a bare-chested man smoking marijuana before 9pm was ok.
This happened last November when complaints were received about an episode of the US sitcom ‘Mom’ that was broadcast on RTÉ Two.
The show is based around a mother and daughter, both of whom are recovering from drug and alcohol addiction, and the complainant felt that it was inappropriate content before the 9pm watershed.
What was happening in this scene?
In the scene in question, a woman and a man are seen in bed.
The man is bare-chested and the woman is wearing only underwear.
The man is then seen smoking marijuana through a bong and also makes reference to cocaine use in the course of the scene.
In its submission to the BAI, RTÉ said that a parental supervision (PS) label had appeared in the top right hand corner of the screen – something that was in place instead of a verbal warning.
RTÉ also argued that the scene in question contained “no content of a sexual nature” and could be broadcast at any time of the day.
On the depiction of drugs, the broadcaster stated that it:
Believes that the scene, the episode and the series do not encourage drug taking or substance abuse of any kind.
Decision of the BAI
In its ruling the BAI decided to unanimously reject the complaint.
In coming to its decision, the Executive Complaints Forum stated that the broadcaster should have issued information that children watching may have been offended by some of the content, but that it was reasonable to expect adult content on RTÉ after 8pm.
While the two people in bed were seen in a partial state of undress, there was no “strong sexual content” in the scene that would require the programme to have a more robust parental warning.
On the man smoking marijuana through a bong, it was decided that drug use was depicted in a negative light in the show, and could not be seen as encouraging drug use.
Out of the 22 complaints rejected by the BAI’s Executive Complaints Forum, 12 came from one individual.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Well these cant be considered genuine cases of asylum then. End of.
@BarronVonVaderHam: Err, end of what, per chance is it end of empathy
@BarronVonVaderHam: Actually there is no requirement in international law for a refugee to apply in the first safe country they come to. I used to think this too but I had a migration lawyer friend explain it to me. So Refugees are only required to have left their home country because it was unsafe for them. They can claim their asylum anywhere they want. What countries they cross through on the way make no legal difference unless they already applied for assylum there and were refused.
@Edmund Murphy: and how does the Dublin Regulation play into this? If you’re a refugee and you move on from a safe haven for economic reasons you become an economic migrant. Even if you’re intention for fleeing in the first place was legitimate you call into questions your motives by doing something dangerous and potential illegal purely for your economic benefit.
@Edmund Murphy: The Dublin regulation is a European union law and therefore and international law. It states that asylum seekers must apply for asylum in the country of their point of entry in to Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation
@Edmund Murphy: How long has your friend practiced immigration law, because the Dublin protocol is a legal document.
@Before it’s too late: I just asked my friend about the Dublin regulation. She said that the regulation is a process law between States but cannot take away Refugee rights under UN international law. So in the EU you are meant to apply in the first country you land in but if you do not the country you apply for assylum in later must begin processing your request. At that point the Dublin regulation kicks in. The country you claim assylum in can then ask the country you entered the EU through to take over your assylum claim and they argue that back and forth. At no point do you stop being a legal refugee though or become an economic migrant. It does go against you though in the refugee request but is not an auto fail. And if your request is denied you cannot apply again in any EU state.
@Edmund Murphy: Sorry that I am not great at explaining this. I’m asking a professional and then trying to regurgitate what they say coherently. I am likely failing at this.
@Edmund Murphy: If I understand you what you appear to be saying is that a refugee can choose to ignore European law, however the UN does not have any power to make laws.
The process you’re describing is somewhat similar to asking for forgiveness rather than permission, after the fact, in the full knowledge the act is illegal. The refugee knows they should have claimed asylum in the first country, but didn’t, they travelled to another country in the full knowledge that the legal system would have difficulty processing the necessary requests. By definition this means they are not a refugee fleeing persecution but rather an economic refugee seeking to enter a country of their own choosing.
@Arch Angel: I think an economic refugee would be a fair term. As they still are protected by the UN assylum process and are fleeing a home country that was a danger to them. But not an economic migrant as a migrant does not have refugee protection.
@Edmund Murphy: As I understand it the reason for this is because the assylum application is semi treated as an EU application under the Dublin regulations. In that no matter what country to apply for assylum to in the EU if that application fails you will be returned to your home country not to another EU country so you can make the same claims about persecution and risk to life if you were to be returned. So although legally you should apply at your first port of entry if you don’t it never removes risks of returning to your home country and that’s what the assylum application is based on.
@Edmund Murphy: As I understand this, the UN can make recommendations but cannot interfere in the laws of nation states. The Dublin Convention was designed to prevent a refugee submitting multiple applications in several countries and help sort out genuine refugees fleeing persecution from those economic refugees trying to enter a country illegally while claiming to be something they’re not.
@Edmund Murphy: While it’s certainly true that an person who’s asylum application is denied will be returned to their country of origin it’s also true that this is exploited. There have been numerous instances of people returned and found again in another country making another application. It’s also true that some countries process applications quicker than others and a person with an application likely to be denied would be better avoiding such countries. They would be better choosing a country with more lax systems where the process can take up to 10 years or more, like Ireland.
@Arch Angel: Exactly. So to take an example of someone landing in Italy and going to Austria. Before Dublin (and some other more basic agreement back in 1992) an assylum seeker who got to Austria and failed in their application could leg it into another EU country and try again. In practice EU countries were happy not to chase the refugee too hard and let it be someone’s else’s problem. But if they were caught before they could flee Austria was meant to return them to their home country (not Italy). After Dublin if they apply in Italy and fail they are sent home. But if they apply in Austria, Austria can ask Italy to take them and finish processing the application and if the application is failed no EU country has to accept another application and all can choose to send them home.
@Edmund Murphy: and although no other EU country has to accept the refugee request a lot do as they don’t fully trust the fairness of the process in all other EU countries. So their is still a huge benefit to refugees ignoring Dublin and trying to make it to the best country in their eyes. Which seems understandable to me if you fear for your life or liberty in your home country.
@Edmund Murphy: You’re waffling. Migrants cannot ignore the Dublin Regulation. In July 2017, the European Court of Justice upheld the Dublin Regulation, giving EU member states the right to deport migrants to the first country of entry to the EU.
@Edmund Murphy: completely wrong.
But why are they so eager to flee France for the UK? One guy above paying 15k to get there from France – what is it exactly that’s so appealing about Britain relative to France that someone would part with such large sums?
@Winston Smith: On Simon Reeves ‘Mediterranean’ migrants trying too get into Europe, said that Europe was Babylon. Other migrants in Europe said that they wished they never left home.
@KingCrisp: I understand people from poor regions paying money and taking risks to get into wealthier areas like Europe. But these people are paying money and taking risks to get from France to the UK. I honestly don’t understand why. It’s been going on for years now and beyond vague mentions of possible family connections in Britain I haven’t seen any reasonable explanations for this. What is so much better about Britain relative to France than you would part with 15k and risk life and limb to exchange one for the other?
@Winston Smith: From what I’ve gathered a lot of the migrants would have relatives in the UK for support in finding housing and work, that they wouldn’t have in France.
Also having to learn another language where most of the well educated migrants would already speak good English.
@Winston Smith: I think the 15k was the total to get from Iran. France to UK is 2-3k. Maybe they speak English and don’t want to learn French. I’m only half joking.
@Dotty Dunleary: The reason why France is unpopular with migrants is because there are few employment opportunities for people without documentation in a country which already has endemic unemployment. Britain’s more liberal economy, large and unregulated black-economy, and there being no requirement to carry identification, makes it a magnet for this sort of migration.
@Winston Smith: The UK has no ID cards or checks in place to confirm residency. You can easily disappear once you are in. In most European countries you always need to carry an ID and the local council will visit you at your address to confirm you live there. That does not exist in the UK (and also in Ireland, so let’s see what happens when they find that out).
Has anyone considered that they make the short crossing to the U.K. so that they can catch a ferry to Ireland? Zero security checks whatsoever at the ports
@PC Principal: No, nobody’s considered that, because Ireland isn’t that important in the grand scheme. We don’t have huge cities like London and a huge economy like the UK or France and if you decide to go the asylum route here, you’ll be stuck in some crumbling hotel down the country for a decade. Ireland is an unimportant fringe, and if they do come here, it’s not for the weather or the hospitality.
@PC Principal: There may well be more checks if we end up having a hard border after Brexit. It is a concern because already the vast majority of asylum seekers who present in the Republic with asylum claims are people who have come from the UK by way of the unregulated sea-crossing from Scotland, and across the non-existant border between NI and the Republic.
@Aindriú de Domhain: I should correct you on one point. No-one is “stuck in some crumbling hotel down the country for a decade”. Asylum claims are generally heard – and where unsuccessful at first instance, the appeals heard – within 18 months. Anyone who is in a direct provision centre for an extended period is almost certainly someone whose asylum-claim has been deemed at first instance, and again on legally-aided appeal to have been without merit, and they are failed asylum-seekers in the process of attempting to frustrate their legal deportation by means of lodging successive legally-aided, time-consuming court challenges.
If they have that kind of spare cash what is to stop them making a journey to the UK by conventional means and then seeking asylum?
@Mary Dunphy: Airline would not let them board a flight without a valid visa as airline will face large fines and cost of flight back if refused entry.
@Lapmo Dancer: Which is only right and proper.
@Mary Dunphy: Many are from safe counties, (Georgia, Albania, Pakistan etc). As a result they don’t want their real nationalities known. Therefore they enter with docs and claim to be either juveniles (if believable) or something like Syrian, as they know they will otherwise fail an asylum claim and get a deportation order.
Britain has an obligation to implement international law and process asylum applicants who arrive from countries where they might be persecuted if returned to. However, under the Dublin Agreement (an international treaty registered with the UN), the UK has no obligation to accept asylum seekers coming from a safe country like France where the asylum seeker had opportunity and obligation to make their asylum claim.
@Peter O’Muiri: True… However with the influx of high numbers and the fact that the real identity of the applicant is not disclosed in arrival, any asylum application made, is accepted and processed. By the time the real identity is verified via interview or fingerprints, the applicant is in the country many months. The applicant can then appeal the decision and drag the case through the courts system. If the applicant in the meantime manages to secure a marriage to an EU national, he or she can then apply to stay on the basis of EU treaty rights. Following this they can then make application for their family to join them. If the EU marriage is fake, they can also later apply for a divorce and then apply for the real wife to join them also.
@loons. Very sensible comment, let’s see how many shout it down
@Michael Byrne: It’s not sensible. Why do you want people to shout.
@KingCrisp: of course it’s sensible, what’s not sensible about it
@Michael Bodycoach: Whats sensible about shouting online at an IMHO vacuous comment.
If educated folk are paying people smugglers €15k to get from Iran to Britain through extremely dangerous methods, why don’t they just book return flights to London, book a hotel for a week, get a tourist visa and just abscond? If border control are suspicious they will look at their bank statements and see over 10k in their bank account, have a steady job and are probably here for sightseeing and shopping. This is where it just doesn’t add up?
@Derek Goulding: You are assuming that the UK admits all “educated” people. The UK only issues visas to people from places like Iran under very restricted circumstances, and will (rightly) only consider asylum applications from people who originally entered the UK on working, student, or holiday visas in very exceptional circumstances.
@Derek Goulding: Most don’t have a bank account, most are not educated & most don’t hold a steady job. If they did, they would remain at home. When German, Irish, UK and other EU citizens think we need such immigrants to support the labour markets here, they don’t realise that many of these people are in fact unemployable; no language, no education, no skills. Many end up in the social welfare system or involved in crime or working in the black market, where no contributions to the State are made and the taxpayer foots the bill. We need a certain amount of immigration and we need to support those less fortunate, but it must be done the right way and it must be controlled.
Can’t begrudge people trying to do what’s best for themselves
@Padraig Bateman: No one “begrudges” them. You can’t begrudge the British authorities either for returning these people to France where international law obliged them to make any asylum claims they might wish to make.
@Peter O’Muiri: inaccurate. Asylum seekers can make an application in any country they get into.
@Peter O’Muiri: Relax Peter. I was just pointing out that I’d do the same as them in that situation. I’m sure plenty of people do begrudge them for not adhering to international law, your tone certainly suggests that you do. Although you are right that I wouldn’t begrudge the British Authorities for doing their job either.
@Padraig Bateman: So how many economic migrants do you think should be allowed unhindered into the UK or Ireland per annum? 1000, 10,000, 100,000? At what point would you feel begrudged, or do you think the State should just fling open the borders and look after everyone who wants to live here? Would you feel begrudged when you can’t get your child into a local school anymore, you have to wait 3 weeks to see your GP or your wife is being told to cover her head in the street? You should spend a weekend in somewhere like Tirana, Lahore or Tbilisi and get a taste of real life on the ground there. I guarantee you will be the first one screaming for restrictions on uncontrolled migration.
Typical brexit. Always up to no good.
Just destroy the boats and dump the occupants back in France…
After brexit, there could be a few openings for entrepreneurs at people-smuggling across the border.
Nice little earner!
@Josh Hanners: the big money is in Garlic
have your say