Referendum-watch - Remove "blasphemy" from the Constitution?

Banbh · 14-10-2014 10:52am

In other words, religion doesn't get any favours. The non-religious enjoy the same protection as the religious.

I assume you don't live in Ireland and know little or nothing of its Constitution, laws, educational system.

If you meant that comment solely in the context of the blasphemy laws then you are also very wide of the mark. The very existence of anti-blasphemy or anti-'religious hatred' legislation sets religions up as entities requiring state protection. There is no creed or belief system of non-religion - just plain citizenship.

robindch · 14-10-2014 1:26pm

Clare Daly on removing prayer from the Dail:

http://claredaly.ie/saying-prayers/#more-4174

Nick Park · 14-10-2014 3:41pm

Banbh wrote: »

If you meant that comment solely in the context of the blasphemy laws then you are also very wide of the mark. The very existence of anti-blasphemy or anti-'religious hatred' legislation sets religions up as entities requiring state protection. There is no creed or belief system of non-religion - just plain citizenship.

No, anti-religious hatred laws are proposed to protect individuals with shared views, not entities.

So, for example, under such laws it should still be OK to say, "I hate the Catholic Church (or any other such institution), I think it is bad for society and look forward to the day when it ceases to exist."

But if you were to say, "I hate Catholics, I think they are bad for society and I look forward to the day when they are all dead" then you would be definitely into the area of hatred - and the kind of hatred that tends to promote violence.

Nick Park · 14-10-2014 3:45pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

When you legislate to give favours for something as vague and frankly stupid as religion, there's just no end to the recursive dumbness.

Thankfully we live in western Europe rather than North Korea. Here we tend to see the freedom to hold a religious (or non-religious) belief without being subjected to hate speech as a basic human right rather than a favour.

Banbh · 14-10-2014 4:05pm

I think you will find, Nick, that the laws will be similar to those elsewhere so that it will be the religion or its teachings that will be protected.

For example, "Mohamed was a paedophile" is not taken as a comment on the historical figure but as an attack on Islam and yet "Marx ran a crack house in Baden-baden" is not considered an attack on scientific socialism.

Peregrinus · 15-10-2014 1:55am

Banbh wrote: »

I assume you don't live in Ireland and know little or nothing of its Constitution, laws, educational system.

If you meant that comment solely in the context of the blasphemy laws then you are also very wide of the mark. The very existence of anti-blasphemy or anti-'religious hatred' legislation sets religions up as entities requiring state protection. There is no creed or belief system of non-religion - just plain citizenship.

No, I don't mean that in the context of the blasphemy laws. I mean it in completely the opposite context.

The proposal here, remember, is that the blasphemy law be repealed and the reference to blasphemy in the Constitution, be deleted, and that they should be replaced with a Constitutional provision, and a law, dealing with incitement to hatred on grounds which include, but are not limited to, religion. As I understand it, the idea is that the new measures would criminalise incitment to hatred on the grounds of religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. We won't know for sure the precise scope of the new measures until detailed proposals are published.

Right. Hotblack objects to this, in so far as it deals with religion, on the basis that it is a proposal to to "give favours for something as vague and frankly stupid as religion". But if the prohibition applies equally to incitement to hatred on the grounds of someone's religious belief and incitment to hatred on the grounds of someone's lack of religious belief, there will be no favours being given to religion - irreligion will receive exactly the same protection. And we have good reason to think that the prohibition may well apply in this way, since existing anti-discrimination legislation does apply this way. The existing Equal Treatment deals with discrimination on (among other grouns) the "religion ground". And the "religion ground" is defined in such a way that discriminating against somebody because he lacks a religious belief is illegal in the same circumstances in which discriminating against somebody because he has a religious belief that you disagree with would be illegal. No favours for religion there.

Hotblack Desiato · 15-10-2014 9:33pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

The proposal here, remember, is that the blasphemy law be repealed and the reference to blasphemy in the Constitution, be deleted, and that they should be replaced with a Constitutional provision, and a law, dealing with incitement to hatred on grounds which include, but are not limited to, religion.

Why is a constitutional provision necessary?
If we have learned anything from the 8th amendment debacle, it is that writing legislation into the constitution is a very, very bad idea and bound to produce regret later. Especially when it's intended to prevent the Oireachtas from having to make a hard decision about a contentious issue.

This is really nothing more than a feel-good sop to the religious lobby in the hope they won't mobilise against the amendment.

We already have legislation covering this.

Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989 wrote:

“hatred” means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation;

If that is regarded as inadequate then other legislative measures can be brought. There is already an explicit right in the constitution allowing the state to regulate free speech when necessary in the public interest. There is no need to remove one measure pandering to religion in the constitution and replace it with another.

As I understand it, the idea is that the new measures would criminalise incitment to hatred on the grounds of religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. We won't know for sure the precise scope of the new measures until detailed proposals are published.

See above.

Right. Hotblack objects to this, in so far as it deals with religion, on the basis that it is a proposal to to "give favours for something as vague and frankly stupid as religion".

What's stupid about it is that (like the RSA and driving licence applications allowing religious headgear) it gets the state involved in passing judgement on what is a 'valid' religion and what is not.
I can set up a religion, who is to say that it's not as valid as any other?
Cue the appeals to populism and tradition, saying that 'real' religions have been around a long (undefined) time and have a lot (undefined) of followers. So now the state is giving special rights to some people professing a religion, but not others, on entirely arbitrary grounds.

But if the prohibition applies equally to incitement to hatred on the grounds of someone's religious belief and incitment to hatred on the grounds of someone's lack of religious belief, there will be no favours being given to religion - irreligion will receive exactly the same protection. And we have good reason to think that the prohibition may well apply in this way, since existing anti-discrimination legislation does apply this way. The existing Equal Treatment deals with discrimination on (among other grouns) the "religion ground". And the "religion ground" is defined in such a way that discriminating against somebody because he lacks a religious belief is illegal in the same circumstances in which discriminating against somebody because he has a religious belief that you disagree with would be illegal. No favours for religion there.

Nonsense. I can't claim that because I am an atheist, some guy claiming that god exists is blaspheming against my beliefs.
If the current law applied equally to religion and non-religion then John Waters, David Quinn and others could be in rather a lot of trouble indeed, as they have openly denigrated the morals and character of non-believers as a group simply because they do not believe.

Hotblack Desiato · 15-10-2014 9:47pm

Nick Park wrote: »

Thankfully we live in western Europe rather than North Korea. Here we tend to see the freedom to hold a religious (or non-religious) belief without being subjected to hate speech as a basic human right rather than a favour.

Re: Vague-
See my reply to Peregrinus above. Like the old saw about pornography and a US judge, are judges to know what is a 'valid' religious belief 'when they see it'? How do you think legislators should define it, if they can define it at all?

Re: Stupid-
Religions can't all be true and many openly and directly contradict each other. That doesn't make them or their followers stupid, but it is stupid to legislate against blasphemy when nobody knows which, if any, religion is true.

Blasphemy is not the same thing as incitement to hatred. I don't think anyone is seeking US First Amendment-style protection for hate groups like WBC and neo-nazis, but that doesn't mean that an idea should receive special protection simply because it is a religious idea.

Please substantiate your claim that all of Western Europe has blasphemy laws. also if you would clarify the relevance of North Korea to a discussion on the Irish constitution it'd be great.

Nick Park · 15-10-2014 10:51pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Re: Vague-
See my reply to Peregrinus above. Like the old saw about pornography and a US judge, are judges to know what is a 'valid' religious belief 'when they see it'? How do you think legislators should define it, if they can define it at all?

Re: Stupid-
Religions can't all be true and many openly and directly contradict each other. That doesn't make them or their followers stupid, but it is stupid to legislate against blasphemy when nobody knows which, if any, religion is true.

Blasphemy is not the same thing as incitement to hatred. I don't think anyone is seeking US First Amendment-style protection for hate groups like WBC and neo-nazis, but that doesn't mean that an idea should receive special protection simply because it is a religious idea.

Please substantiate your claim that all of Western Europe has blasphemy laws. also if you would clarify the relevance of North Korea to a discussion on the Irish constitution it'd be great.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. I am vehemently opposed to anti-blasphemy laws.

I was referring to legislation against hate speech. The relevance of North Korea is that it is only such crackpot regimes that would think protection from hate speech is a favour towards either religious people or those who advocate atheism.

Hotblack Desiato · 15-10-2014 11:14pm

Agreement!!!

recedite · 16-10-2014 1:27am

We'll have to wait and see what the proposed wording is.
If the existing incitement to hatred legislation mentions "persons" as in

Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989
“hatred” means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation;

...and the review recommended

“a general provision to include incitement to religious hatred”.

...to be inserted in the Constitution, then the latter could end up being a ban on speaking out against a religion, as opposed to the followers of a religion. Then it would be a blasphemy law.

But maybe we are reading too much into the statement. Is it possible that the review group did not appreciate that we already had the legislation banning incitement to hatred against persons based on their religion?

I wasn't very impressed with the work of the convention. They skipped over some of the bigger and more contentious issues such as the separation of church and state, despite numerous submissions calling for implementation of that. They were mostly randomers, not particular experts in the issues being discussed or expert in law. Like the members of a jury, but that has its pros and cons.

From the website

the CC Chairman wrote:

The Convention is a decision-making forum of 100 people, made up of 66 citizens, randomly selected and broadly representative of Irish society; 33 parliamentarians, nominated by their respective political parties and including an elected representative from each of the political parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly which accepted an invitation from the Government; and myself as independent Chairman.

Peregrinus · 16-10-2014 3:46am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why is a constitutional provision necessary?
If we have learned anything from the 8th amendment debacle, it is that writing legislation into the constitution is a very, very bad idea and bound to produce regret later. Especially when it's intended to prevent the Oireachtas from having to make a hard decision about a contentious issue.

I’m not saying it is necessary, and I completely agree with you that the Eighth Amendment schemozzle should teach us to be wary of sticking stuff into the Constitution.

But the Convention recommended constitutional, and not merely statutory, entrenchment of incitement to hatred legislation.

And, if I had to hazard a guess, I’d say tht the reason for this is not . . .

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

. . . This is really nothing more than a feel-good sop to the religious lobby in the hope they won't mobilise against the amendment.

Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Convention, I honestly don’t get the sense that they were really preoccupied with providing feel-good sops to the religious lobby.

I suspect what’s at the bottom of the recommendation is this: We already have explicit constitutional recognition of a right to free speech. Any incitement to hatred legislation is, almost by definition, a limitation on this right. Obviously what is going on here is the reconcilation of a tension between the right to free speech and other rights. There may be a feeling that finding the right balance will be difficult if one of these rights - free speech - enjoys constitutional recognition and protection while the others do not. Hence, the scope for reconciling the tension optimally is maximised by giving constitutional recognition both to free speech and to the need for incitement to hatred legislation.

I’m not sure that I’m convinced by this argument; I’d have to hear more about it, and give it a bit of thought. But at least it’s worth considering.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If the current law applied equally to religion and non-religion then John Waters, David Quinn and others could be in rather a lot of trouble indeed, as they have openly denigrated the morals and character of non-believers as a group simply because they do not believe.

What I said was that the current Equal Treatment legislation applies to religious belief and lack of religious belief in the same way. And so it does.

The current Incitment to Hatred legislation does not. But - no offence - you’re the one who says that the current Incitement to Hatred legislation is good enough, not me.

Hotblack Desiato · 16-10-2014 9:27am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m not saying it is necessary, and I completely agree with you that the Eighth Amendment schemozzle should teach us to be wary of sticking stuff into the Constitution.

Good. The recommendation of a bunch of amateurs isn't in itself a good enough reason.

Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Convention, I honestly don’t get the sense that they were really preoccupied with providing feel-good sops to the religious lobby.

Despite a large number of public submissions, they refused to discuss the glaring issues with separation of church and state, and that our constitution is explicitly christian. They kicked to touch.

I suspect what’s at the bottom of the recommendation is this: We already have explicit constitutional recognition of a right to free speech. Any incitement to hatred legislation is, almost by definition, a limitation on this right. Obviously what is going on here is the reconcilation of a tension between the right to free speech and other rights. There may be a feeling that finding the right balance will be difficult if one of these rights - free speech - enjoys constitutional recognition and protection while the others do not. Hence, the scope for reconciling the tension optimally is maximised by giving constitutional recognition both to free speech and to the need for incitement to hatred legislation.

That ignores Article 40.6

6 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –

i The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

I’m not sure that I’m convinced by this argument; I’d have to hear more about it, and give it a bit of thought. But at least it’s worth considering.

It's a 'something for everyone in the audience' move.

What I said was that the current Equal Treatment legislation applies to religious belief and lack of religious belief in the same way. And so it does.

Yes but we do have a blasphemy law in place currently too which is explicitly favouring religion.

The current Incitment to Hatred legislation does not. But - no offence - you’re the one who says that the current Incitement to Hatred legislation is good enough, not me.

I don't want to shut them up, it shows them up for what they are.
What's unfair is that they expect their religion to have special protection other ideas don't enjoy.

Peregrinus · 16-10-2014 9:39am

I don't want to do a point-by-point, since we are in agreement about a good deal. I'll just say that I await evidence that the Constitutional Convention wanted religion to have special protection that other ideas don't enjoy. Their recommendation was to delete the constitutional provision on blasphemy (and the current blasphemy law) and replace it with a broader provision which would include, but not be confined to, religion. And they clearly aren't satisfied with the existing Incitement to Hatred law, which bans incitement on the grounds of someone's religion, but not incitement on the grounds of someone's irreligion. All in all, their stance looks to me pretty much like the opposite of wanting special protection for religion.

robindch · 12-06-2018 1:22am

Well, three years and eight months after the last post ^^^ Charlie Flanagan seems to be about to move on this:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/flanagan-pushes-for-vote-on-blasphemy-law-36996329.html

Irish Indo wrote:

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan is tomorrow expected to seek Government support for moves paving the way for a referendum on ending the crime of blasphemy. If Cabinet agrees, it is likely that a referendum on this issue, and another proposed constitutional change, ending the cited special place of women in the home, could happen next October.

Not all Government ministers are keen to follow last month's landmark vote on ending the abortion ban with another string of referendums. But others argue that the Government is already committed to holding these referendums and these votes may also have a tactical role in filling an already fraught political agenda.

One option being looked at is holding the two referendums on the same day as a presidential election, if such a contest materialises, in late October. But if there is no presidential election, the referendums could go ahead anyway. Mr Flanagan will move a general scheme of a bill to amend the Constitution to be called the Removal of Blasphemy Bill.

Some in Government circles hope the referendums can help defuse public tensions between Fine Gael and Fianna F over the Budget.

expectationlost · 15-06-2018 10:08am

robindch wrote: »

Well, three years and eight months after the last post ^^^ Charlie Flanagan seems to be about to move on this:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/flanagan-pushes-for-vote-on-blasphemy-law-36996329.html

how likely is this to happen in October?, Flanagan suggested it could happen along side the presidential election and he has been most vocal in not wanting a presidential election.

robindch · 15-06-2018 10:30am

expectationlost wrote: »

how likely is this to happen in October?

The Irish Times seems to think it's fairly likely:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-on-blasphemy-expected-to-be-held-in-october-1.3528286

Irish Times wrote:

The Cabinet has agreed that a referendum should be held later this year on removing the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution. Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan brought a proposal to Tuesday’s meeting seeking approval to proceed with the referendum, which is expected to be held in October.

It would likely take place at the same time as a referendum on changing a constitutional clause that prioritises a woman’s domestic role over work. The votes on the two topics and may coincide with a presidential election, if one takes place.

Voters will be asked whether Article 40.6.1 (i) should be retained in the Constitution. Blasphemy 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”.

The Defamation Act 2009 made blasphemy a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. As far back as 1991, the Law Reform Commission recommended that the offence of blasphemy be removed from the Constitution. The law came to prominence last year when a Garda inquiry began after a complaint was made over British actor and comedian Stephen Fry making critical comments about God during an interview on RT No prosecution was brought in the case.

“By removing this provision from our Constitution, we can send a strong message to the world that laws against blasphemy do not reflect Irish values and that we do not believe such laws should exist,” Mr Flanagan said. Article 41.2 of the Constitution prioritises a woman’s domestic role over work with the Constitution saying the State “recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home,” it continues.

The Constitutional Convention examined this issue and reported to the government in 2013. Some 88 per cent of members voted against its inclusion in the Constitution. Meanwhile, 98 per cent voted in favour of amending the wording to render it gender-neutral. It was also proposed to include other carers both “in the home” and “beyond the home”.

Planning for a referendum on that issue is less advanced but the proposal is also expected to be put to voters in October.

Akrasia · 15-06-2018 10:42am

I doubt there'll be any campaigning on this. Even Iona and the likes know that they haven't a hope in hell of blocking the change.

A few lone voices like John Waters giving non committal appeals for tradition and culture and respect followed by a landslide victory for secular democracy

oscarBravo · 15-06-2018 11:02am

Akrasia wrote: »

I doubt there'll be any campaigning on this. Even Iona and the likes know that they haven't a hope in hell of blocking the change.

A few lone voices like John Waters giving non committal appeals for tradition and culture and respect followed by a landslide victory for secular democracy

A bizarre side effect of that is that it will make it harder to campaign in its favour. The broadcast media are required to give "balanced" coverage, which means if they can't find anyone to argue against it, they won't be able to give airtime to anyone arguing for it.

We had something similar with the referendum to introduce the Court of Appeal. Nobody really thought it was a bad idea, so there was pretty much no coverage of it at all.

Hotblack Desiato · 15-06-2018 6:57pm

BAI really need to rethink their rules - or rather the government really needs to tell them to rethink their rules, or else

expectationlost · 15-06-2018 8:42pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

A bizarre side effect of that is that it will make it harder to campaign in its favour. The broadcast media are required to give "balanced" coverage, which means if they can't find anyone to argue against it, they won't be able to give airtime to anyone arguing for it.

We had something similar with the referendum to introduce the Court of Appeal. Nobody really thought it was a bad idea, so there was pretty much no coverage of it at all.

the main problem here is the broadcasters abandoning their duty to report the news in favour of having to sides have a barney about it, they can do factual balance reporting on the subject to give coverage, if they arn't enough (sane) people to argue either way.

Peregrinus · 16-06-2018 4:37am

robindch wrote: »

The Irish Times seems to think it's fairly likely:

Be interesting to see whether the referendum put forward follows the Constitutional Convention recommendation of replacing the blasphemy provision with something more broad-based, or simply proposes to delete it entirely.

Peregrinus · 16-06-2018 5:30am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

BAI really need to rethink their rules - or rather the government really needs to tell them to rethink their rules, or else

Difficult one.

In a case where the amendent is uncontroversial, no amount of coverage is going to generate a controversy, and so there won't be a huge amount of coverage.

Where its controversial, yeah, both sides of the controversy must be covered. It doesn't matter that one side enjoys huge support and the other little support. Nor, really, does it matter that one side is talking sense built on facts and the other side is talking nonsense built on lies; the whole point of the coverage is so that you can evaluate the arguments and identify that one side is talking nonsense built on lies. If someone else does that evaluation and decides not to broadcast the material, you are deprived of the opportunity to make your own judgment.

I get that it's immensely frustrating to have to listen to repeated exposure of nonsense built on lies, even after it has been debunked. But it does have at least this merit; the nonsensical liars cannot impugn the outcome of the referendum by claiming that their views were censored or excluded.

recedite · 16-06-2018 10:10pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

A bizarre side effect of that is that it will make it harder to campaign in its favour. The broadcast media are required to give "balanced" coverage, which means if they can't find anyone to argue against it, they won't be able to give airtime to anyone arguing for it.

We had something similar with the referendum to introduce the Court of Appeal. Nobody really thought it was a bad idea, so there was pretty much no coverage of it at all.

Maybe somebody could volunteer to play the devil's advocate (or angel's advocate?)
Like that guy who reported Stephen Fry for blasphemy, but then he turned out to be more of a Fry fan than "an injured party".

Nick Park · 17-06-2018 9:07am

If it's a straight proposal to remove any reference to blasphemy from the Constitution, then I'll vote yes in a heartbeat.

I just hope they don't try to insert some half-assed replacement about incitement of religious hatred or something else. Such laws are often worded in ways that actually limit criticism of a religion. So I would vote no to any such insertion in the Constitution.

Simply remove the reference to blasphemy, and then let everyone put their big-boy pants on and realise that religions should be as open to criticism as any other ideology.

smacl · 17-06-2018 9:25am

Nick Park wrote: »

If it's a straight proposal to remove any reference to blasphemy from the Constitution, then I'll vote yes in a heartbeat.

I just hope they don't try to insert some half-assed replacement about incitement of religious hatred or something else. Such laws are often worded in ways that actually limit criticism of a religion. So I would vote no to any such insertion in the Constitution.

Simply remove the reference to blasphemy, and then let everyone put their big-boy pants on and realise that religions should be as open to criticism as any other ideology.

It would seem unlikely to be replaced with incitement to religious hatred as prohibition of incitement to hatred is already on the statute books independent of specific qualifiers.

Akrasia · 17-06-2018 7:48pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Be interesting to see whether the referendum put forward follows the Constitutional Convention recommendation of replacing the blasphemy provision with something more broad-based, or simply proposes to delete it entirely.

Replacing it would be worse than leaving it there given that it's extremely toxic to bring charges of blasphemy but a constitution prohibition against religious intolerance could open a hornets nest.

I'd vote no to remove and replace, but yes to remove

Peregrinus · 18-06-2018 5:21am

smacl wrote: »

It would seem unlikely to be replaced with incitement to religious hatred as prohibition of incitement to hatred is already on the statute books independent of specific qualifiers.

I don't think there would be any suggestion of replacing the blasphemy ban with a wider provision, except that this is what the Constitutional Convention recommended. It's possible that a government fearing a toxic debate might seek some cover from political fall-out by pointing out that they are implementing the recommendation of the Convention.

SFAIK the government hasn't yet said whether it will propose an amendment reflecting the recommendation of the Convention, or a simple amendment deleting the existing blasphemy provision and not replacing it. FWIW, I predict the latter.

A possible compromise course of action might be to put forward two amendments in the same referendum; one to delete the provision dealing with blasphemy, and one to insert a provision dealing with incitement to hatred.

expectationlost · 17-07-2018 8:39pm

wonder if having the a blasphamey referendum on same say on presidential election on the same (neither certain) Joan Freeman has put her name about, she has associated with the Iona institute. Im a correct in thinking Iona havn't opposed it being dropped

expectationlost · 17-07-2018 8:44pm

draft bill out regarding repealing the legislation thats reated to blasphemyhttp://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/General_Scheme_of_the_Repeal_of_Offence_of_Publication_or_Utterance_of_Blasphemous_Matter_Bill_2018.pdf/Files/General_Scheme_of_the_Repeal_of_Offence_of_Publication_or_Utterance_of_Blasphemous_Matter_Bill_2018.pdf thejournal article indicating that the referendum will simpley be about removing the word blasphemy http://www.thejournal.ie/blasphemy-amendment-referendum-4133133-Jul2018/

constitutional amendment bill https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2018/87/eng/initiated/b8718d.pdf

smacl · 17-07-2018 10:28pm

expectationlost wrote: »

wonder if having the a blasphamey referendum on same say on presidential election on the same (neither certain) Joan Freeman has put her name about, she has associated with the Iona institute. Im a correct in thinking Iona havn't opposed it being dropped

Maria Steen is her niece but a brief search didn't show any other connections to iona. While I've huge respect for the work pieta house has done I'd be loathe to vote for an ionanist in any shape or form.

expectationlost · 17-07-2018 11:55pm

smacl wrote: »

Maria Steen is her niece but a brief search didn't show any other connections to iona. While I've huge respect for the work pieta house has done I'd be loathe to vote for an ionanist in any shape or form.

well she spoke at same event as iona https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/the-sligo-champion/20140923/285164356570821 the knock and liseiux thing is the particularily wooey end of catholicism

Hotblack Desiato · 18-07-2018 1:59am

smacl wrote: »

Maria Steen is her niece but a brief search didn't show any other connections to iona. While I've huge respect for the work pieta house has done I'd be loathe to vote for an ionanist in any shape or form.

Her sister is Theresa Lowe who spoke on one of the TV3 referendum programmes.

smacl · 18-07-2018 8:19am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Her sister is Theresa Lowe who spoke on one of the TV3 referendum programmes.

I wouldn't tend to judge someone based on who their siblings are, it isn't exactly something you choose or have control over. Similarly, I don't have a huge problem with a person being a strong Catholic or Christian, just so long as they don't try to foist their religious beliefs on others. That said, if the likes of Ronan Mullen and Co start campaigning for Lowe as the pro-Catholic candidate it would tend to put me off her. tbh I know very little about the woman other than what I've read over the past couple of days. I'd imagine if she stands as a candidate we'll see a fair bit more of her.

expectationlost · 18-07-2018 12:16pm

smacl wrote: »

I wouldn't tend to judge someone based on who their siblings are, it isn't exactly something you choose or have control over. Similarly, I don't have a huge problem with a person being a strong Catholic or Christian, just so long as they don't try to foist their religious beliefs on others. That said, if the likes of Ronan Mullen and Co start campaigning for Lowe as the pro-Catholic candidate it would tend to put me off her. tbh I know very little about the woman other than what I've read over the past couple of days. I'd imagine if she stands as a candidate we'll see a fair bit more of her.

Independent TD Mattie McGrath has said he will support Senator Joan Freeman if she contests the presidential election, because “a good Catholic president would be refreshing”. [As opposed to McAleese?] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/catholic-support-for-joan-freeman-tackling-the-presidency-78vt525d9

smacl · 18-07-2018 12:31pm

expectationlost wrote: »

Independent TD Mattie McGrath has said he will support Senator Joan Freeman if she contests the presidential election, because “a good Catholic president would be refreshing”. [As opposed to McAleese?] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/catholic-support-for-joan-freeman-tackling-the-presidency-78vt525d9

Well, I'd guess an endorsement from Mattie McGrath, Ronan Mullen and Maria Steen should be more than enough to scupper any candidates hopes for election regardless of their merits. I'll reserve judgement on Freeman herself until I've seen a bit more of her when and if she decides to run. If she starts spouting any fundy religious nonsense, do feel entirely free to post an 'I told you so'

Hotblack Desiato · 18-07-2018 1:13pm

Well you pointed out who her niece is, I pointed out who her sister is. Both hardline anti-choice fundies. She has spoken at fundie catholic events. So unless and until I hear her stating she is pro-choice/pro-secularism I'm going to assume the opposite is far more likely.

expectationlost · 18-07-2018 1:34pm

smacl wrote: »

Well, I'd guess an endorsement from Mattie McGrath, Ronan Mullen and Maria Steen should be more than enough to scupper any candidates hopes for election regardless of their merits. I'll reserve judgement on Freeman herself until I've seen a bit more of her when and if she decides to run. If she starts spouting any fundy religious nonsense, do feel entirely free to post an 'I told you so'

Joan Freeman during the Knock Novena 2015 "I made Our Lord the financial manager of Pieta House"

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/1016816481089327104 think somebody needs to look into the Pieta house financials

I been reading about the McAleese campaign I didn't realise the Patricia Casey's husband was her long time campaign manager, it kinda goes to show how limited the President is in what they can do, but also that one needs to be aware and not just think ah she does stuff for charideee she must be ok.

smacl · 18-07-2018 1:38pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well you pointed out who her niece is, I pointed out who her sister is. Both hardline anti-choice fundies. She has spoken at fundie catholic events. So unless and until I hear her stating she is pro-choice/pro-secularism I'm going to assume the opposite is far more likely.

Fair enough, and you could very well be right. She's also been involved in some very commendable work with Pieta House. I'll wait until I've heard her speak a few times myself before forming an opinion.

Michael Nugent · 18-07-2018 11:29pm

Atheist Ireland had a very constructive meeting with the Department of Justice today about the coming blasphemy referendum. Here's a quick video explaining why we support the Minister’s approach to removing this anachronistic law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndpn6grwMLg

expectationlost · 19-07-2018 1:33pm

Catholic Bishops recent statement

Proposal by the Government to hold a referendum to remove blasphemy from theConstitution of Ireland

Regarding yesterday’s decision by the Government to hold a referendum in October to remove blasphemy from the Constitution of Ireland, bishops reflected on the November 2013 submission of the Irish Council of Churches and the Irish Inter-Church Meeting to the Convention on the Constitution which considered this issue.

Bishops reaffirmed their position that the current reference to blasphemy in the Constitution, under article 40.6.1.i, is largely obsolete, and may give rise to concern because of the way such measures have been used to justify violence and oppression against minorities in other parts of the world. Bishops reiterated that the promotion of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience for all in society greatly enriches the social fabric of a country, and is one aspect of respect for the dignity of human persons. The human right of faith communities to contribute to public life, including public debate on issues that are of importance to everyone, without being subjected to attack or ridicule, needs to be acknowledged and respected.

Bishops stressed that it is vital to ensure that the rights of individuals and communities to practice and live out their faith openly are protected by law. In this context bishops, once again, expressed their solidarity with all those, throughout the world, who are experiencing persecution, and human rights abuses, because of their faith or beliefs.

https://www.catholicbishops.ie/2018/06/13/statement-of-the-summer-2018-general-meeting-of-the-irish-catholic-bishops-conference/ so are they for or agin? https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/catholic-bishops-to-set-up-council-for-life-following-yes-vote-1.3529581 for removing.

https://www.catholicireland.net/reference-blasphemy-constitution-largely-obsolete-say-bishops/

Agreeing with the bishops, David Quinn from the Iona Institute said he would not “fight the removal of it from the Constitution”.

looks like we'll be seeing alot more of Ali Selim and other conservative catholic groups.

interesting that gov cite foreign governments citing our law to justify theirs (where there are more visible consequences) as reason to remove ours, something AI were saying for a while

recedite · 19-07-2018 9:28pm

expectationlost wrote: »

looks like we'll be seeing alot more of Ali Selim ...

It could be awkward for him if he turns out to be the only spokesman for the No side in this referendum.

Michael Nugent · 19-07-2018 9:54pm

recedite wrote: »

It could be awkward for him if he turns out to be the only spokesman for the No side in this referendum.

I would say that the broadcast media, who have to demonstrate balance, will approach academics or legal experts and ask them to articulate the case for retaining the offence. Also, that they won't give it much coverage, and will focus more on the Presidential election.

Hotblack Desiato · 20-07-2018 1:26am

It'd be a bit of a nightmare for broadcasters if a presidential election didn't happen, and blasphemy went to a vote on its own.

Now it's debatable whether the problem is the BAI rules or the broadcasters' interpretation of them, but giving 50% of the airtime to possibly 1% of the vote is not rational by any measure.

It might give Selim and Iona more rope to hang themselves with though

actually Iona are too media savvy and I expect them to not touch this with a bargepole.

Hotblack Desiato · 20-07-2018 1:27am

Who is the other dude in the video Michael? I went to youtube but it doesn't say.

Hector Savage · 20-07-2018 1:32pm

Remove the blasphemy law!
Except when it's Mohammed, then we should throw anyone in prison who dares insult the prophet.

expectationlost · 20-07-2018 2:15pm

order establishes a Referendum Commission https://www.irisoifigiuil.ie/currentissues/Ir200718.pdf

Hotblack Desiato · 20-07-2018 3:02pm

Hector Savage wrote: »

Remove the blasphemy law!
Except when it's Mohammed, then we should throw anyone in prison who dares insult the prophet.

Poor effort. 1/10.

Hector Savage · 20-07-2018 5:46pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Poor effort. 1/10.

It's not far from the truth though, look at the amount of public figures after Charlie Hebdo basically saying that they shouldn't have drawn the cartoons in the 1st place.

robindch · 20-07-2018 6:27pm

Hector Savage wrote: »

It's not far from the truth though, look at the amount of public figures after Charlie Hebdo basically saying that they shouldn't have drawn the cartoons in the 1st place.

A useful point to make, and much better made as here than in your previous post.

Referendum-watch - Remove "blasphemy" from the Constitution?

Comments