Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Proposed Blasphemy Law

1…678911

Comments

  • #502
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Sanjuro wrote: »
    Okay, take something like South Park or one of those shows that in the past have actively made a point of parodying religious institutions and beliefs. These shows parody primarily for comedy value. But if outrage is caused, they don't exactly retract what they've said. If a show like that was made here, could the makers be prosecuted under this new legislation?


    People people.......have none of you actually read the actual provision of the actual law.......? The amount of uninformed comment on this topic is frightening.

    Jerry Springer: The Musical, South Park, Father Ted etc. etc.... even if it could be shown that they intended to cause outrage (possibly J.S.; doubtful on the other two), they would clearly come within one of the Defences, ie. artistic value.

    http://oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2006/4306/b43d06s.pdf


  • #503
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    drkpower wrote: »
    Jerry Springer: The Musical, South Park, Father Ted etc. etc.... even if it could be shown that they intended to cause outrage (possibly J.S.; doubtful on the other two), they would clearly come within one of the Defences, ie. artistic value.

    http://oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2006/4306/b43d06s.pdf

    All. Utterly. Irrelevant. One shouldn't need to defend it under "merit". The only defense one needs is "free speech". That's why people are pissed off. If I wanted to film a pig defecating on a Koran, it should not be illegal for any reason, full stop.


  • #504
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    So that's why they call you Mr. Popularity.


  • #505
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    All. Utterly. Irrelevant. One shouldn't need to defend it under "merit". The only defense one needs is "free speech". That's why people are pissed off. If I wanted to film a pig defecating on a Koran, it should not be illegal for any reason, full stop.

    Of course, what this law actually criminalises is utterly irrelevent...... Well done.

    Dont get me wrong, I do not defend the legislation; it was clearly pointless and a very bad signal symbolically. But that does not mean we should talk sh!te about what this law actually does or does not do. That does noone any good and simply serves to make people look a little uninformed and silly.

    And does noone care about facts anymore or do they fall victim to a good rant?


  • #506
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Lol, what is this ****. Refused to read it until now, I'd say I don't have faith in humaity, but that's probably a crime. Sometimes I just want to go live in my little corner and let people be idiots on their own time. Off I go.


  • #507
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    drkpower wrote: »
    People people.......have none of you actually read the actual provision of the actual law.......? The amount of uninformed comment on this topic is frightening.

    Jerry Springer: The Musical, South Park, Father Ted etc. etc.... even if it could be shown that they intended to cause outrage (possibly J.S.; doubtful on the other two), they would clearly come within one of the Defences, ie. artistic value.

    http://oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2006/4306/b43d06s.pdf
    It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this
    section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would
    find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value
    in the matter to which the offence relates

    What's a reasonable person? How can you prove that one finds artistic value in something. For example South Park's artistic value varies depending on who you ask.
    It also seems that the defendant has to prove it rather than the prosecutor has to prove it's not.


  • #508
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    It also seems that the defendant has to prove it rather than the prosecutor has to prove it's not.

    Indeed, any law no matter what it is should never require the defendant to prove his or her innocence. It goes against one of foundations of modern justice as we know it.


  • #509
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    The artistic merit thing is a defense, in the same way 'self-defense' is applied in murder cases. Both may be put forward by the defendant to defend against the actual charge which the prosecution must prove.


  • #510
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Dades wrote: »
    The artistic merit thing is a defense, in the same way 'self-defense' is applied in murder cases. Both may be put forward by the defendant to defend against the actual charge which the prosecution must prove.

    This is true. The burden of proof will always be on the prosecution to prove that there was no artistic merit.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    This is true. The burden of proof will always be on the prosecution to prove that there was no artistic merit.
    On the contrary, it's my thinking that in the case of a defense - the burden is on the defendant.

    Once the prosecution have proven you have "blasphemed" under Sec 36 (2) - i.e. outrage, intent etc, it is up to you to show that you can avail of the defense under Sec 36 (3).


  • #512
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    This is true. The burden of proof will always be on the prosecution to prove that there was no artistic merit.

    It's in the wording for me,
    It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this
    section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would
    find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value
    in the matter to which the offence relates


  • #513
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Dades wrote: »
    The artistic merit thing is a defense, in the same way 'self-defense' is applied in murder cases. Both may be put forward by the defendant to defend against the actual charge which the prosecution must prove.

    Point taken- defendants need to defend themselves. I guess I should have gotten to the point and said there never should be a prosecution for blasphemy. I didn't say it because I didn't want to state the obvious again...


  • #514
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Dades wrote: »
    On the contrary, it's my thinking that in the case of a defense - the burden is on the defendant.

    Once the prosecution have proven you have "blasphemed" under Sec 36 (2) - i.e. outrage, intent etc, it is up to you to show that you can avail of the defense under Sec 36 (3).

    Ah, right. I assumed that the law would follow the same rules as every other law on the statute books where in a criminal trial the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime and the defendant does not have to prove that he didn't. I must have missed the bit where we moved to North Korea

    I agree with ChocolateSauce. It goes against one of foundations of modern justice as we know it.


  • #515
    --amadeus--
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,096 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    Apologies because I haven't read through the whole thread and this may have been covered already, but...

    Reading through the Alive! thread someone (joking, I think) said that it should be prosecuted under teh new defamation laws as it was offensive to thier beliefs.

    From teh paper the law states:
    “Blasphemous matter” is defined as matter “that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

    I know that atheists generally bridle at the notion that a lack of belief in god is a religious belief or in any way a religion but could the law be turned around so that anything atheists found offensive (Alive! being a great example) could be tackled? Could this law be turned to our advantage?

    [edit] Or is it finally time for our own FSM trials?


  • #516
    Yoda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,853 ✭✭✭Yoda


    I find the fact that my RTÉ licence pays an astrologer to guest on some daytime talk shows to be fairly offensive.


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    --amadeus-- wrote: »
    Apologies because I haven't read through the whole thread and this may have been covered already, but...

    Reading through the Alive! thread someone (joking, I think) said that it should be prosecuted under teh new defamation laws as it was offensive to thier beliefs.

    From teh paper the law states:



    I know that atheists generally bridle at the notion that a lack of belief in god is a religious belief or in any way a religion but could the law be turned around so that anything atheists found offensive (Alive! being a great example) could be tackled? Could this law be turned to our advantage?

    [edit] Or is it finally time for our own FSM trials?

    I think it's probably unwise to make a long-term error like suggesting that atheism is a religion in order to win a short-term victory. It would also be a touch hypocritical, I would think, to use a law that shouldn't exist to silence the voices of other people, even if they are a bunch of idiots.


  • #518
    STBR
    Registered Users Posts: 442 ✭✭STBR


    Sorry if this was mentioned already, but this does apply to Pastafarianism I'm guessing?


  • #519
    A_SN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 515 ✭✭✭A_SN


    In case it hasn't been pointed out yet http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/20/1550224


  • #520
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    I am far too busy and important to see if this has been posted already: http://bocktherobber.com/2009/07/president-queries-blasphemy-and-criminal-justice-bills

    McAleese shows doubts about the legality of the blasphemy law, which is nice. I don't suppose she has any actual power to stop this going through?


  • #521
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Zillah wrote: »
    I am far too busy and important to see if this has been posted already: http://bocktherobber.com/2009/07/president-queries-blasphemy-and-criminal-justice-bills

    McAleese shows doubts about the legality of the blasphemy law, which is nice. I don't suppose she has any actual power to stop this going through?

    Why do people think McA is considering referring this Bill to the SC on foot of the blasphemy sections......?
    It is highly unlikely to be the reason.
    The SC practically told the Gov to enact a blasphemy law.
    And the Law Reform Commission suggested enacting a law in similar terms to the present one (mind you, they advised a refernedum as Plan A - which would have saved us all a lot of bother).
    Remember, blasphemy is already in the Constitution; noyt sure what part of this law would make it unconstitutional.

    I would imagine its the defamation parts of the bill that are causing concern.


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Could be a free speech issue, which is guaranteed by the constitution.

    Also, it could be that she finds it reprehensible and wants to see if there's any way to stop it.


  • #523
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Zillah wrote: »
    Could be a free speech issue, which is guaranteed by the constitution.

    Also, it could be that she finds it reprehensible and wants to see if there's any way to stop it.

    Could be, but the entire Bill deals with free speech or the restriction on it. 9/10ths of the Bill has nothing to do with blasphemy. And the Constitution specifically states that blasphemy is an offence....

    She may find it reprehensible; in many ways, though, referring it is a dangerous game - if it is found to be constitutional, it can never ever be challneged again - sometimes it is only in the operation of a piece of legislation that its unconstitutionality can properly be demonstrated.


  • #524
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    drkpower wrote: »
    She may find it reprehensible; in many ways, though, referring it is a dangerous game - if it is found to be constitutional, it can never ever be challneged again - sometimes it is only in the operation of a piece of legislation that its unconstitutionality can properly be demonstrated.
    Just because something is found to be constitutional doesn't mean it can't be repealed. And, subject to referendum, it can of course be removed from the constitution as well as legislation. :)


  • #525
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Dades wrote: »
    Just because something is found to be constitutional doesn't mean it can't be repealed. And, subject to referendum, it can of course be removed from the constitution as well as legislation. :)

    True; but that has nothing to do with the President potentially referring the Bill to the SC.


  • #526
    Heisenberg.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,541 ✭✭✭Heisenberg.


    This post has been deleted.


  • #527
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    I was kind of hoping he wouldn't find out.

    Like being caught vomiting by your parents after a night out. :(


  • #528
    Darlughda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭Darlughda


    Hi. am a new ex-lurker turned logged in round these here parts.

    I am fascinated to hear you can ex-communicate yourself from the Roman Catholic Church. countmeout.ie sounds like a good idea to me.

    My religious beliefs are private, and I enjoy the religious political freedom in Ireland to keep them that way.

    I'm bored by endless arguments about proving your faith.

    I wonder what that blasphemy law will mean for excercising satire and the freedom to criticize corruption, but also interested to know if there is anyone else delighted to discover you can remove your name from the Vatican Register of Souls!:eek:

    Not an organisation I personally want to have anything to do with, nor my name on any of their lists.


  • #529
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Welcome, Darlughda!

    If you have info on the Vatican Register of Souls, this is the thread for it. :)

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055615511


  • #530
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    this is atheist ireland's letter to president in reagrd to blasphemy law

    * The law is contrary to the guarantees of equality under the law enshrined in Article 40.1 of the Irish Constitution, and of freedom of conscience and religion enshrined in Article 44.2.
    * The law is contrary to Article 44.2.3 of the Irish Constitution, which says that the State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.
    * The law shifts the burden of proof to the defendant in contravention of Article 38 of the Constitution, and of Schedule 1, Article 6, 2. and 3(a) of the European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003.
    * The law does not meet the standard of prevention of imminent public disorder that made the old English blasphemy law compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights.
    * The definitions in the law are too vague to allow citizens to regulate their conduct, and it could make it unlawful for a religious citizen to inform his co-religionists about a statement he believes to be blasphemous.


    details...

    http://blasphemy.ie/2009/07/21/is-the-blasphemy-law-unconstitutional/


  • #531
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Blasphemy provisions clash with Constitution, Irish Times Wednesday, July 22.


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    President Mary McAleese has signed the Defamation Bill and Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill into law.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0723/crime.html

    lest the president actually ever does something


  • #533
    Coriolanus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    Yeah, very disappointed in her. :( Not least over the blasphemy issue, the whole Criminal Justice bill needed closer scrutiny imo.


  • #534
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Guys; you should be thanking her - on both Bills. And thanking her that she didnt take heed of a lot of the populist gnashing of teeth on these issues.

    Judges hate interpreting law in a vacumn with no factual context and they are inclined to err on the side of a Bill being constitutional. Of course, they might have found either (or both) Bills unconstitutional; but in the more likely event the Court found the law constitutional, it would forever be constitutional and never open to constitutional challenge, no matter what the circumstances. This way, if a prosecution occurs in either case in the future, which has particular circumstances that make it clear that the law is unconstitutional, then it can be challenged. If she had referred the Bill, it was found to be constitutional, and such a case occurred in the future..... tough, it would never be open to challenge even it were patently obvious, in light of the facts, that the law was unconstitutional.

    The Presedential referral is a nuclear button; one that was unwarranted and counter-productive in both these cases.


  • #535
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    drkpower wrote: »
    If she had referred the Bill, it was found to be constitutional, and such a case occurred in the future..... tough, it would never be open to challenge even it were patently obvious, in light of the facts, that the law was unconstitutional.
    So in effect you're happy that the bill hasn't been referred to the courts to check it's constitutionality so that it can be referred at some undetermined future date instead? I don't quite follow your logic.

    If you're fearful that it would be found constitutional now, surely it follows it would be found constitutional down the line? Same result - different date.

    And like I mentioned before, just because something is constitutional doesn't mean the law can't be removed from the books at any date, or take away from the court's job of applying the law as they read it.


  • #536
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Dades wrote: »
    So in effect you're happy that the bill hasn't been referred to the courts to check it's constitutionality so that it can be referred at some undetermined future date instead? I don't quite follow your logic.

    If you're fearful that it would be found constitutional now, surely it follows it would be found constitutional down the line? Same result - different date.

    And like I mentioned before, just because something is constitutional doesn't mean the law can't be removed from the books at any date, or take away from the court's job of applying the law as they read it.

    The point is that if the Bill was determined to be constitutional by the SC on foot of an Article 26 Referral by the President, it can never ever ever be challenged again by any court in the land no matter who has been convicted under it and no matter what the particular circumstances.. So declaring it constitutional in this manner does take away any future court's ability to even consider its constitutionality ehen considering it. Even if a future SC all think it is the most unconstitutionallaw they ever saw, they cannot even consider its constitutionaility; them's the Rules....

    And no; just because it may be found constitutional now does not mean it would be found constitutional down the line - judges are always reluctant to declare a law unconstitutional on the basis of hypotheticals - it is only when real facts come to light, that an Act is shown clearly to be unconstitutional.


  • #537
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Dades wrote: »
    If you're fearful that it would be found constitutional now, surely it follows it would be found constitutional down the line? Same result - different date.

    Not necessarily. Looking at the law theoretically, there might be something they didn't consider. In a real situation it might become obvious to all that it's unconstitutional but if it's referred later and they didn't think of that particular eventuality before, it wouldn't matter at that stage, the law would still stand.

    Stupid but apparently the way it works


  • #538
    OK-Cancel-Apply
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭OK-Cancel-Apply


    I've been reading about this and still can't find the answers I'm looking for - could someone here perhaps dumb it down a bit for those who don't want to read pages and pages of text?

    What exactly does this mean for the man on the street? Surely people can't be prosecuted for speaking ill of God in public? Sorry if this seems like a stupid question.

    Times like this make me want to fook off out of this moronic country. Blasphemy law. One thing is certain: I'm definitely leaving the church now. What next-- law against 'witches'?


  • #539
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »
    I've been reading about this and still can't find the answers I'm looking for - could someone here perhaps dumb it down a bit for those who don't want to read pages and pages of text?

    What exactly does this mean for the man on the street? Surely people can't be prosecuted for speaking ill of God in public? Sorry if this seems like a stupid question.

    Times like this make me want to fook off out of this moronic country. Blasphemy law. One thing is certain: I'm definitely leaving the church now. What next-- law against 'witches'?

    In the defence of all things religousular, I have talked to several devout Christian friends who disagree immensely with this law. Make sure you aim your (well justified) anger in the right direction!


  • #540
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    So... any protests or other shenanigans planned now that our moronic government has gotten their way? I'm ashamed to say I've not been keeping a close enough eye on this one, and now I really regret that.


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Anyone know when Atheist Ireland are going to publish their blasphemous statement now that the Act has been signed?


  • #542
    A_SN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 515 ✭✭✭A_SN


    Even if the law gets in effect there's probably not much to worry about, they still have such a law in Massachusetts and they haven't tried anyone for blasphemy since the 1830s or something. It's there, just not enforced.
    SoDoM wrote: »
    In the defence of all things religousular, I have talked to several devout Christian friends who disagree immensely with this law. Make sure you aim your (well justified) anger in the right direction!
    Why would it be surprising, this law also means they can't make fun of Muslims and Jews ;)


  • #543
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Macros42 wrote: »
    Anyone know when Atheist Ireland are going to publish their blasphemous statement now that the Act has been signed?

    I kind of think this will backfire.


  • #544
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »
    What exactly does this mean for the man on the street? Surely people can't be prosecuted for speaking ill of God in public? Sorry if this seems like a stupid question.
    In my view, it's an ill-advised, embarrassing bit of legislation - enacted to avoid a referendum - that is unlikely to ever see a charge, much less a conviction.

    Other people hear black helicopters.

    Only time will tell what the repercussions, if any, will be. :)


  • #545
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Well Ireland has become an international farce, it damages the countries credibility to investors and business, whatever repercussions that has remain to be seen.


  • #546
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    eightyfish wrote: »
    I kind of think this will backfire.

    It may well do but it would be a good test of the law - if they prosecute it will cause outrage - if they don't it will cause outrage. Either way it will prove the law is an ass.


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    It really is here isn't it.


  • #548
    OK-Cancel-Apply
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭OK-Cancel-Apply


    Another nail in a coffin containing our image as a modern European country. Just what we need! When are we going to say enough is enough? I mean, are the majority really content with this sort of regression? Sure, we won't see an actual prosecution, but the principal of signing such a thing into law is just ridiculously stupid and short-sighted.

    I don't think there's ever been a better time for columnists and bloggers in Ireland to unload. Bring it on I say.


  • #549
    Urizen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,354 ✭✭✭Urizen


    I was going to write a long winded, deeply sarcastic fake letter to the President here. And I did, but it was ****.

    I just hope her imaginary sky friend will help her out of the hole she's dug for herself.


  • #550
    A_SN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 515 ✭✭✭A_SN


    OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »
    Another nail in a coffin containing our image as a modern European country. Just what we need! When are we going to say enough is enough? I mean, are the majority really content with this sort of regression? Sure, we won't see an actual prosecution, but the principal of signing such a thing into law is just ridiculously stupid and short-sighted.

    I don't think there's ever been a better time for columnists and bloggers in Ireland to unload. Bring it on I say.
    Yep, not a great PR move. I mean, even I didn't think of Ireland as much of a country where one religion rules, I thought that belonged to the past and that it was a modern secular country. Well, still feels like one, except for that nice bit of international PR stunt.


  • #551
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    drkpower wrote: »
    Guys; you should be thanking her - on both Bills. And thanking her that she didnt take heed of a lot of the populist gnashing of teeth on these issues.

    Judges hate interpreting law in a vacumn with no factual context and they are inclined to err on the side of a Bill being constitutional. Of course, they might have found either (or both) Bills unconstitutional; but in the more likely event the Court found the law constitutional, it would forever be constitutional and never open to constitutional challenge, no matter what the circumstances. This way, if a prosecution occurs in either case in the future, which has particular circumstances that make it clear that the law is unconstitutional, then it can be challenged. If she had referred the Bill, it was found to be constitutional, and such a case occurred in the future..... tough, it would never be open to challenge even it were patently obvious, in light of the facts, that the law was unconstitutional.

    The Presedential referral is a nuclear button; one that was unwarranted and counter-productive in both these cases.

    either she thinks its unconstitutional and she refers it or she doesn't think it unconstitutional.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement