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

Bishop Accused of Incitement to Hatred - File Sent to DPP

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    I'd prefer freedom of speech where ever possible and hold individuals responsible if they allowed themselves to be incited.
    Fair point, but look at what happened in Germany in the 1930's; once enough people get incited they can change the law so that their subsequent actions are no longer illegal. Could WW2 have been prevented by adequate incitement to hatred laws?


  • Options
    #33
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,330 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    In the sense that I'd prefer freedom of speech where ever possible and hold individuals responsible if they allowed themselves to be incited. I guess I just wish we didn't need them as people should realise when someone is saying something stupid and lose respect for them rather than say well he's in my tribe so I guess I agree.
    the reason i asked was i was wondering what your stance on incitement to hatred laws is; i'm not sure how thin the line between incitement to hatred laws and verbal assault is, but it'd be a problematic area, possibly.

    personally, i have no real beef with the law saying you cannot publically call for the jewish race to be exterminated, for example.


  • Options
    #34
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    the reason i asked was i was wondering what your stance on incitement to hatred laws is; i'm not sure how thin the line between incitement to hatred laws and verbal assault is, but it'd be a problematic area, possibly.

    personally, i have no real beef with the law saying you cannot publically call for the jewish race to be exterminated, for example.

    what if a jewish person says the muslims want to exterminate jews. what reaction would that incite.

    is there such a thing as an 'incitement to fear' ( in irish law or just in general)

    although catholic mistrust of atheists is pervasive its not high tensioned which is why this case would fail.


  • Options
    #35
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I have to say, I am a little conflicted on these types of cases.

    On the one hand I find it amusing that a religious person has fallen foul of a law that was originally made to protect the religious and their very sensitive, easily offended simple minds.

    On the other hand, I am fairly keen on freedom of expression...

    This entire subject is getting a little bit silly with people on both sides claiming to be offended or persecuted and the authorities in the middle with the thankless task of trying to enforce stupid legislation and appease professional offence takers.

    MrP


  • Options
    #36
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I have to say, I am a little conflicted on these types of cases.

    On the one hand I find it amusing that a religious person has fallen foul of a law that was originally made to protect the religious and their very sensitive, easily offended simple minds.

    On the other hand, I am fairly keen on freedom of expression...

    This entire subject is getting a little bit silly with people on both sides claiming to be offended or persecuted and the authorities in the middle with the thankless task of trying to enforce stupid legislation and appease professional offence takers.

    MrP
    you talking blasphemy law or incitment to hatred?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    expectationlost wrote: »
    you talking blasphemy law or incitment to hatred?
    Incitement. I am not conflicted on blasphemy laws, we are hundreds of years too late for blasphemy laws; they are ridiculous and I can see no justification for them. I can, however, see justification for the incitement laws though they are badly written and poorly enforced.

    MrP


  • Options
    #38
    Adamas
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 66 ✭✭Adamas


    recedite wrote: »
    Fair point, but look at what happened in Germany in the 1930's; once enough people get incited they can change the law so that their subsequent actions are no longer illegal. Could WW2 have been prevented by adequate incitement to hatred laws?


    The problem with these clerical announcements about 'forces' supposedly 'attacking' them, is that they are not honest statements of fact, clearly identifying exactly who and by what means they are being 'attacked'.
    If they have something to say about someone saying something that can be shown to be wrong or misguided, then so be it, and say it out, but don't stand up on a pulpit in front of hundreds of scared believers who can't figure out what is going on, as they are mainly working on unfounded fears that their pastors know full well are never explained.
    It's fear being promoted for fear's sake, and is typical of these types who made pariahs out of thousands of right-minded citizens of this supposed Republic who dared to question the heavy handed authority of the priesthood, with obvious cover-ups and abuses continuing until they could no longer be hidden. That's not the right way to do things, as it's feeble-minded excuse to make themselves feel less inadequate. In fact, it might be seen as unchristian, if they bothered to follow their own rules.


  • Options
    #39
    beerbuddy
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭beerbuddy


    Adamas wrote: »
    The problem with these clerical announcements about 'forces' supposedly 'attacking' them, is that they are not honest to follow their own rules.....

    Can you tell me what he said that was so Inflamatory,His speech in Spain caused no controversy and i hadnt even heard of it until somebody on Boards brought it to my attention.


  • Options
    #40
    Adamas
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 66 ✭✭Adamas


    beerbuddy wrote: »
    Can you tell me what he said that was so Inflamatory,His speech in Spain caused no controversy and i hadnt even heard of it until somebody on Boards brought it to my attention.


    I never said his comments were 'inflamatory, just that they were making unfounded and unverifiable allegations toward unnamed forces, as in being "attacked from outside by the arrows of a secular and godless culture".

    The Christian 9th Commandment says very clearly "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.", and as Jesus said that alll men are your neighbour, you should not go around saying that they are doing things to you that you can't be specific about. If they are, go to the Gardai and make a complaint.

    What I am saying is that if a person in a position of influence, like a priest, makes such statements, then he should be aware that the unknowns in his words can cause his flock to imagine all sorts of things that he can't justify. The same goes for anyone, but in this case it was a man of God, who should bear witness to the truth, and not spread anxiety about somehow being mysteriously attacked by invisible enemies. That's how Jew baiting and boycotting was propagated in Limerick in the 19th century, by slanderous allegations by a priest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Limerick#Pogrom

    It's not particularly a 'Catholic' problem, but people should think before they make emotive statements that contradict their own supposed beliefs.


  • Options
    #41
    Redlimo
    Registered Users Posts: 22 ✭Redlimo


    You don't have to look too far on the Internet to find any amount of sometimes pretty vile attacks on the Catholic church. I'm not saying they might not be deserved, but they are there. And as far as "emotive statements" go, surely you're making some yourself by accusing the bishop of breaking the ninth commandment and by juxtaposition of his comments with anti-Semitism in 19th century Limerick! Also, you seem to give remarkably little credit to his congregations intelligence. So he says the church is being attacked and they're all going to panic and do what exactly?!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Pwpane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 457 ✭✭Pwpane


    Redlimo wrote: »
    You don't have to look too far on the Internet to find any amount of sometimes pretty vile attacks on the Catholic church. I'm not saying they might not be deserved, but they are there. And as far as "emotive statements" go, surely you're making some yourself by accusing the bishop of breaking the ninth commandment and by juxtaposition of his comments with anti-Semitism in 19th century Limerick! Also, you seem to give remarkably little credit to his congregations intelligence. So he says the church is being attacked and they're all going to panic and do what exactly?!!

    Perhaps control (not influence) what people believe and how they behave: curriculum in schools, behaviour of teachers, ethics committees in hospitals, enactment of laws, constitution of public bodies, disbursement of public money....

    And I'm talking about current practice.

    Catholic opinion, directed and on occasion whipped up by church leaders, has done much damage in this country.


  • Options
    #43
    Adamas
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 66 ✭✭Adamas


    Redlimo wrote: »
    You don't have to look too far on the Internet to find any amount of sometimes pretty vile attacks on the Catholic church. I'm not saying they might not be deserved, but they are there. And as far as "emotive statements" go, surely you're making some yourself by accusing the bishop of breaking the ninth commandment and by juxtaposition of his comments with anti-Semitism in 19th century Limerick! Also, you seem to give remarkably little credit to his congregations intelligence. So he says the church is being attacked and they're all going to panic and do what exactly?!!

    [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I may be wrong, but you seem to be getting angry, no? In fact I was not, and am not, the slightest bit emotional when I post, as it's not necessary or mandatory. I can choose to control myself, and so can anyone else, but only if they consciously choose to do so and have the will to do it, no? [/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
    I'm not accusing him of anything, simply stating that if he uses a public platform to make non-specific statements about being his church being "attacked from outside by the arrows of a secular and godless culture", he should be wise enough to know of the possible consequences, as he speaks from a position of a man of a god that the people look up to.
    If someone chooses to use words like 'attacked' it doesn't mean a pat on the head or a nod and a wink. It's suggestive of a violent action or attitude, is it not? Aggression, even imagined aggression, has a way of lending itself to reaction, and we all know where that can lead.     [/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
    I'd like to know if I was incorrect in stating what I said about the 9th Commandment, that it forbids as an act against the express will of God to bear false witness against one's neighbour? Who, as a Christian, is your neighbour supposed to be? Are 'godless' people not also human beings?     [/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
    On the associated issue of what his congregation might or might not do, that's the whole point, he does not know, so the lesser of two evils for a man who uses a platform to make statements that might even possibly trigger off some reaction or unfounded fear in an attendee, is not to make any sort of suggestion at all, as the consequences are unknown but predictable if fear and anxiety is added. Fearful people have reacted on less and for less reason, as it only takes one to take it upon themselves to act out on what they see as approval from a figure of authority. A dripping tap wears the stone, and emotional dripping wears down the mind, and fearful minds are always fragile.    [/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
    Finally, I made no comment on the intelligence level of his audience at all, as I don't actually know anything about them, and even intelligent people can feel fear, but if he insists on promoting a notion of fear and oppression, then it's his fault. That's all I'm saying, no more, no less.     [/FONT]


  • Options
    #44
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Redlimo wrote: »
    You don't have to look too far on the Internet to find any amount of sometimes pretty vile attacks on the Catholic church.

    What 'vile' attacks are these nasty secularists conducting?


  • Options
    #45
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Galvasean wrote: »
    What 'vile' attacks are these nasty secularists conducting?
    Reposting a link from a couple of days back:

    http://newsthump.com/2012/02/14/baroness-warsi-condemns-rise-in-militant-clear-thought-and-logic/


  • Options
    #46
    Redlimo
    Registered Users Posts: 22 ✭Redlimo


    Galvasean wrote: »
    What 'vile' attacks are these nasty secularists conducting?
    To be honest I had in mind readers comments I read on thejournal.ie. I would regard myself as a secularist- some of the awful drivel on that site was hardly written by people with any kind of a coherent agenda beyond spewing foul mouthed insults. You ever get the feeling reading a post that "Yes, I agree with you, but I cordially detest you"? Getting back to the point, if someone-anyone- genuinely feels under attack and expresses same, do we automatically dust down Incitement to Hatred Laws and call in the guards? Surely in a free society a certain tension and friction between opposing viewpoints is just a healthy sign that we can hold different views and still get along?


  • Options
    #47
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Redlimo wrote: »
    Surely in a free society a certain tension and friction between opposing viewpoints is just a healthy sign that we can hold different views and still get along?
    Well, this is exactly the problem. Some people see opposing views as attacks. Irrespective of the intention when the legislation was drafted, it has become a tool for the professional offense taker to threaten and try to silence critics. Very dangerous legislation in the wrong hands.

    MrP


  • Options
    #48
    Adamas
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 66 ✭✭Adamas


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Well, this is exactly the problem. Some people see opposing views as attacks. Irrespective of the intention when the legislation was drafted, it has become a tool for the professional offense taker to threaten and try to silence critics. Very dangerous legislation in the wrong hands.

    MrP

    Well, maybe it shows that laws, no matter how well intentioned, are no remedy for stupidity, as it's a choice? Maybe one law was created to counteract another?

    On the 'religious' side, can we really say that a religious law that says that it is permissible and laudable to not only accept being asaulted by others, but turn the other cheek and be hit again, and then complain about being 'attacked', not even physically but by words only, and even then by suggestion only, and not specifically? Are they not supposed to rise above it all? There appears to be a contradiction here, but I accept that I could possibly be wrong.

    On the 'secular' side, which can be applied to any citizen equally, the laws relating to the Phohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act clearly give the accused the right to defend themselves against accusation if they can show that they did not intend to cause incitement, and so long as it is not done outside a private residence, as defined under the Act, as follows:

    [FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]Actions likely to stir up hatred.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]2.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person—[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri, sans-serif](a) to publish or distribute written material,[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri, sans-serif](b) to use words, behave or display written material—[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri, sans-serif](i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri, sans-serif](ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]or[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri, sans-serif](c) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.[/FONT]

    The Act further defines what is meant by private residence, namely:

    (3) In this section “private residence” means any structure (including a tent, caravan, vehicle, vessel or other temporary or moveable structure) or part of such a structure used as a dwelling but does not include any part not so used or any part in which a public meeting is being held; and in this definition “public meeting” means a meeting at which the public are entitled to be present, on payment or otherwise and as of right or by virtue of an express or implied permission.

    So you can say and do what you like once you do it inside your own home, and a public place like a church is not a private residence, just as a football field or the main street of a town is not a private residence. So the DPP will have to weigh up the pros and cons of whether an offence has in fact been comitted under the Act.
    The same right to avail of the Act is also available to the priest, should he consider it as fact that an offence causing incitement to hatred might arise to himself or to others, so it's not a one way street.
    Why not make use of both the weight of his religious convictions and his citizenary ones if he feels that they merit speaking out about it? it will be interesting to see what comes it, if anything at all, as we could do with a good look at all our 'laws' and see what thay are really about, as law without justice is called oppression.


  • Options
    #49
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    robindch wrote: »
    Reposting a link from a couple of days back:

    http://newsthump.com/2012/02/14/baroness-warsi-condemns-rise-in-militant-clear-thought-and-logic/
    vile? they called her a nutjob but.. vile?


  • Options
    #50
    Adamas
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 66 ✭✭Adamas


    expectationlost wrote: »
    vile? they called her a nutjob but.. vile?


    I wonder if she is playing some sort of spoof to make it look like she is a nut-job. If she really does believe that praying fills potholes and empty bins, then she is actually insane by any reasoned and accepted meaning of the word. At the same time that website is a satirical one, as it clearly states.


    [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]One thing where she was 100% accurate, was when she is quoted as saying that religion has brought mankind massive wars, terrorism, brutal totalitarian states, oppression, torture, divided communities and Aled Jones – however she also believes it gives people hope.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It did give massive wars and all the other things, no doubt, and it did indeed give people hope, and still does - except she doesn't clarify that it's false hope. False hope is based on beliefs, and as beliefs are based on lack of fact, then the vital factor to make them even possibly realisable, is absent. Religion can't give realistic hopes, as it's not based on anything real, but merely imagined to be real, under the guise of confusion and misdirection.[/FONT]


Advertisement