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

Proposed Blasphemy Law

2456720

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....the Patron saint of the Perpetuation of Ignorance....

    How would he be perpetuating ignorance if he discusses this issue? He's going to have an atheist guest speaker on. A guy from atheist.ie:

    http://www.atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=23200#p23200


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Overblood wrote: »
    How would he be perpetuating ignorance if he discusses this issue?

    It's a show which often assumes an hysterical tone.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,816 ✭✭✭Acacia


    This has to be a piss-take. We're not living in the Dark Ages. Does this include taking 'the Lord's' name in vain? Cause it would be rather difficult for Irish people to stop saying ''For the love of Jaysus!" "Well Holy God!", etc, etc.:pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Tis on the radio now.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    yeah, everyone on duffy is being disgustingly reasonable so far.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    I miss Canada...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    Really amazed at what I was reading in the times.

    Yeah, let's not amend this out of our constitution..let's provide the criminal law to prop it up!

    WTF?

    Anyway, I popped an email to Ahern expressing my opposition as best I can. I'm sure others could do a much more coherent and better job of it, so please, mail him all you can. Maybe it won't do any good, but it's the first thing in a long time where I've felt I've had to say something directly to the government!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,816 ✭✭✭Acacia


    I've a feeling this is a rather cynical ploy to get some extra money into the government coffers...


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    My angry e-mail has been sent.
    For all the good it will do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 969 ✭✭✭murrayp4


    LookingFor wrote: »

    Anyway, I popped an email to Ahern expressing my opposition as best I can. I'm sure others could do a much more coherent and better job of it, so please, mail him all you can. Maybe it won't do any good, but it's the first thing in a long time where I've felt I've had to say something directly to the government!!
    I'll be doing the same myself


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭Phototoxin



    “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 consider YORE MA* grossly abusive to my relgion of Phototoxinism. Therefore we should kill YORE MA*

    *Delete and replace as appropriate : judaism, christianity, islam, paganism, athiests, agnostics, deists, scientists, scientologists blahblahblah

    **** this bull5hit. What's the best way to let the minister know how we feel about this?

    But they cried all the more 'Crucify him, crucify him!'


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    My angry e-mail has been sent.
    For all the good it will do.

    Same as. He can't possibly ignore the A&A forum!


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    I thought you could only be blasphemous if you belonged to a religion. I mean if you don't believe in a god it's not blasphemous if you ridicule the idea is it?

    Sean Moncrieff discussing it on Newstalk too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Blasphemous to any religion...... oooooh fun.
    I can see some of the radical pagans abusing this every which way they can.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    Yeah.

    Religious tolerance: "Tolerance is living as WE want you to live and by OUR rules. If you don't, you're being religiously intolerant!"

    The state can't consider something blasphemous unless the state believes in all religions. Hmm. Blasphemy is an offence to religious authority, so unless the state fancies itself as a religious authority now, believing in all religions you care to introduce to it, the very idea of it is ridiculous.

    Oh good googly moogly, this government is really becoming a joke. Although I cannot believe Labour is simply suggesting the fine be lowered rather than opposing the bill amendment altogether! I'm very disappointed by that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Nodin wrote: »
    It's a show which often assumes an hysterical tone.

    Well we should be feckin' hysterical about this!


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    Overblood wrote: »
    Well we should be feckin' hysterical about this!

    Something tells me the hysteria won't be on the side of the blasphemers, but the blasphemed-against!! :P


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 924 ✭✭✭Elliemental


    Religion does not deserve protection, and I will alway insist on the right to treat it with ridicule and contempt.

    +1.

    This has the potential to be a damaging retrograde step, that undermines freedom of speech.


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




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,825 ✭✭✭Gambler


    Just an FYI - Email to gerard.murphy@oireachtas.ie bounced as an invalid address

    [Edit]And another one -
    <sean.ofearghail@irlgov.ie>: mail for irlgov.ie loops back to myself
    [/Edit]


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,825 ✭✭✭Gambler


    Out of interest I did a quick search online and found this quote from Dermot Ahern:
    Ireland, together with our EU partners, continues to have concerns about human rights issues in Pakistan, including the situation of the Ahmadis. Promoting religious tolerance remains a key EU objective in Pakistan and we have urged the government there to make every effort to promote effectively the rights of minorities and to improve their current conditions. Regular human rights demarches are carried out by the EU at official level with the Pakistani authorities. The situation of minorities was among the issues raised at the most recent demarche, which took place in June 2007. The EU expressed its continued concerns over abuses of the blasphemy laws, which are often used to harass members of minority communities as well as Muslims.
    He does seem to understand that a law like this is open to abuse so why try to implement it here?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    That sure is an interesting quote.

    I'm not sure why there's a reluctance to simply amend our constution in line with the European convention on Human rights.

    Does anyone think they'll possibly hold up the caveats of "outraging significant numbers" and "intent to outrage" as defenses against abuse?

    I honestly don't think that's enough, both are very open to interpretation. And besides, it skirts the fundamental issue of why religious beliefs should be afforded special protection from opposing commentary/insult/mocking etc. And if dependent on a given religion's definition of insult, that's even more dangerous. Some folks might be insulted and outraged in significant numbers at even reasonable opposing commentary or critical analysis of their religion, whatever about mocking and insulting.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭Mena


    George Carlin would have had a field day with this :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    What I fail to understand is why religion is a special case.
    "It must be 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".

    If you replace "any religion" with "anyone", why does that not also hold true? If I publish something which causes outrage and offends a substantial number of a particular group, and I intended to do it, why is that any different?

    I mean other people and groups can be also deeply offended by things published, why is religious hurt and offence a special type of hurt?

    Anyway, it's good to know that the government have their finger on the pulse and dealing with the important issues of the day.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,554 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Sent my feelings on the matter to Aherne, and the IT.


  • Registered Users Posts: 189 ✭✭ceret


    I think this is terrible. I hope to hell this doesn't pass.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    If ever there was a subject to mobilise we of little faith this is it.

    Dermot Aherne - Cat Herder :pac:


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,515 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    +1
    Email sent.

    That'll show 'em!


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    pH wrote: »
    What I fail to understand is why religion is a special case.



    If you replace "any religion" with "anyone", why does that not also hold true? If I publish something which causes outrage and offends a substantial number of a particular group, and I intended to do it, why is that any different?

    I mean other people and groups can be also deeply offended by things published, why is religious hurt and offence a special type of hurt?

    Anyway, it's good to know that the government have their finger on the pulse and dealing with the important issues of the day.

    I was talking to a lawyer friend about this, and he says that at least way back when it was already an offence to provoke public disorder, for example..so even if people shouldn't get upset and up in arms about something - be it religious or anything else - if you knowingly incite them and provoke them to that public disorder, it is an offence.

    Of course, that being the case, if it still is the case, it still leaves the question of why religious belief requires further special protection.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 969 ✭✭✭murrayp4


    Firm but fair letter sent...


Advertisement