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

24567…12

Comments

  • #52
    Gambler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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?


  • #53
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #54
    Mena
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭Mena


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


  • #55
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #56
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


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


  • #57
    ceret
    Registered Users Posts: 189 ✭✭ceret


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


  • #58
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


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

    Dermot Aherne - Cat Herder :pac:


  • #59
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    +1
    Email sent.

    That'll show 'em!


  • #60
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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
  • #61
    murrayp4
    Registered Users Posts: 969 ✭✭✭murrayp4


    Firm but fair letter sent...


  • #62
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    Thank you for your email.

    As I am no longer a member of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Law Reform I will pass on your views to our parliamentary representatives on the Committee.


    Yours sincerely,

    Brendan Howlin, TD
    Leas-Cheann Comhairle


  • #63
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Ditto. Fair dues to him for quick response. Oireachtas site still lists him as a member of said committee.


  • #64
    murrayp4
    Registered Users Posts: 969 ✭✭✭murrayp4


    p.s.- Blasphemy is a victimless crime... :-)


  • #65
    hamonrye
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭hamonrye


    Thought crime anyone? didn't orwell warn us about this?

    im pretty certain this will never pass, mainly because it wouldnt hold up to supreme court or European scrutiny, even if it was pass through the dail.

    If the government think they can even propose this sort of legislation it shows severe incompetence on their part. Blasphemy? how can someone even consider that a crime in a civilised society. Its time to completely separate church from state. Religion does not deserve the current pedistal it sits on, let alone laws to protect it.

    Have to say i was very disappointed by pat rabbitts response, this should have been abhorred by other politicians. Do none of them have any balls?


  • #66
    Shacklebolt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Shacklebolt


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Thank you for your email.

    As I am no longer a member of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Law Reform I will pass on your views to our parliamentary representatives on the Committee.


    Yours sincerely,

    Brendan Howlin, TD
    Leas-Cheann Comhairle

    I got that as well. The others still havn't replied at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,847 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Link to the podcast of the liveline show.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #68
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Sent a letter to the Irish Times.

    Little worried about possible ramifications at work. (My atheism isn't explicit, but it's certainly implied, and I'd rather not lose students of religiously-minded parents over this. On the other hand, I don't like hiding.)


  • #69
    Handsome Bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    This wasn't exactly what I wanted. I don't think religion deserves to be shielded from criticism where it is warranted. What I wanted was for people of any race, sexuality, gender and religion to be able to live their lives without being made feel inferior by others. So yeah, I am in favour of people not being ridiculed for having beliefs that are central to how they live their life, and indeed, beliefs that give them strength to handle all of life's tough situations. However I don't think religion deserves protection when criticism is warranted. All I can say is that I hope religion will not be protected when it comes to criticising people for how they live their lives.


  • #70
    ceret
    Registered Users Posts: 189 ✭✭ceret


    hamonrye wrote: »
    im pretty certain this will never pass, mainly because it wouldnt hold up to supreme court or European scrutiny, even if it was pass through the dail.

    Well free speech can be limited to prevent blashphemy in the constitution...


  • #71
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,031 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    In the papers this morning, the Independent just reports the planned law (so far), but in the Irish Times, Carol Coulter comes out strongly against the plans.

    There's a thread about this on the Christianity forum, where they don't seem to like the idea either. The Islam forum doesn't appear to have noticed ... yet. :cool:

    Death has this much to be said for it:
    You don’t have to get out of bed for it.
    Wherever you happen to be
    They bring it to you—free.

    — Kingsley Amis



  • Advertisement
  • #72
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    bnt wrote: »
    In the papers this morning, the Independent just reports the planned law (so far), but in the Irish Times, Carol Coulter comes out strongly against the plans.

    There's a thread about this on the Christianity forum, where they don't seem to like the idea either. The Islam forum doesn't appear to have noticed ... yet. :cool:

    There's also a letter


  • #73
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    Might as well email this numpty too.

    pat.rabbitte@oireachtas.ie
    head_office@labour.ie


  • #74
    excaliburhc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 128 ✭✭excaliburhc


    wouldnt this law make "the passion of the Christ" a prime target , remember the outroar from the jewish community when this came out ?


  • #75
    Yoda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,853 ✭✭✭Yoda


    Zamboni wrote: »
    dermot@dermotahern.ie

    Get to work folks.

    Dear Minister Ahern,

    It was troubling, to say the least, to read today that legislation setting out penalties for "blasphemy" will soon be introduced. By you.

    Can you possibly be serious?

    Your party and its government have done NOTHING to protect sexual minorities in Ireland, like, for instance, introducing the Civil Partnership legislation which has been promised again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

    Of course, we are used to Fianna Fáil reneging on its promises.

    But now you want to return Ireland to the Dark Ages, by legislating against "blasphemy"?

    Can you possibly be serious?


  • #76
    Yoda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,853 ✭✭✭Yoda


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

    As would Frank Zappa. :(


  • #77
    toiletduck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    No reply from Ahern. Maybe I should bebo him :pac:

    "Lolz u cant stop ppl 4m mockn relign r u rob us ov d rite 2 scrutinise"


  • #78
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    I only found out this morning that apparently the Attorney General requested legislation as it's required by the constitution.

    Sounds like a band-aid when it's stitches that are required.


  • #79
    getz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    Yoda wrote: »
    Dear Minister Ahern,

    It was troubling, to say the least, to read today that legislation setting out penalties for "blasphemy" will soon be introduced. By you.

    Can you possibly be serious?

    Your party and its government have done NOTHING to protect sexual minorities in Ireland, like, for instance, introducing the Civil Partnership legislation which has been promised again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

    Of course, we are used to Fianna Fáil reneging on its promises.

    But now you want to return Ireland to the Dark Ages, by legislating against "blasphemy"?

    Can you possibly be serious?
    mr ahern-we are getting a lot of stick lately from press you will need to stop this quickly so bring out blasphemy laws asap or we may have to report you to


  • #80
    Yoda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,853 ✭✭✭Yoda


    Dades wrote: »
    I only found out this morning that apparently the Attorney General requested legislation as it's required by the constitution.

    Sounds like a band-aid when it's stitches that are required.

    More like a band-aid when it's amputation that is required.


  • #81
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Oh... I didn't realize we where sending serious emails :o. Here's what I sent

    "Dear Minister Ahern,

    God has to be the suckiest Sims player EVAR!!!!

    Attached: Ceiling_Cat.jpg
    Attached: Danish_Mohammed_Cartoon.jpg

    In before the lock!!! w00t!!!

    Sincerely: The Popes boyfriend"


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    I got a reply from Charlie Flanagan Fine Gael spokesperson for Justice.
    He said he will oppose it.


  • #83
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    I sent Ahern another e-mail, this is farcical, I will leave this country if this goes through, it is effectively a law against atheism.


  • #84
    20goto10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    As they were saying on the radio this morning, Jedi Knight was classified as a religion in the last census...so those bible bashers better not dis the force :D


  • #85
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    I sent Ahern another e-mail, this is farcical, I will leave this country if this goes through, it is effectively a law against atheism.
    I really hope you didn't put that in your email.


  • #86
    CrazyStraighty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 28 ✭CrazyStraighty


    Dear Member of the Oireachtas Committee of Justice,

    I wish to register my opposition to the definition of Blasphemy put
    forward by Minister Ahern to your committee.

    The issue is the wording of how to define what is Blasphemy. It was
    stated in the Irish times (30th April 2009) that

    “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 would urge the committee to consider what is Religion and how you
    will define that concept. As an Irish citizen, will I be prosecuted
    for pointing out that God does not exist and that in my opinion people
    who believe in an all seeing, all knowing omnipotent presence who
    defines morality for all human kind and shows us this morality through
    the bible, a book that has been edited, re-edited and translated
    dozens of time, are in fact naive and intellectually unstimulated?
    Will a Catholic be prosecuted for calling me a godless heathen and
    refusing to allow my children attend the local primary school and shun
    me due to my beliefs? Will members of the Church of the Flying
    Spagetti Monster be able to sue a journalist, a priest, a reverend, a
    rabbi, an atheist for pointing out that their religion seems a tad
    ridiculous?

    This amendment seeks to prosecute Irish citizens for expressing their
    opinions and offending other people. It is freedom of speech that
    allows us to hold an opinion, however obnoxious and ill informed, and
    tell anyone we wish. It is the freedom of speech that allows the
    person listening to object to what they hear. People hold prejudiced,
    biased, hateful opinions and I would prefer for them to be spoken
    aloud and argued against with evidence rather than to ask people to be
    silent.

    If this is passed, I will be checking how may members of the Church of
    the Flying Spaghetti Monster are based in Ireland. I will then insult
    them at every opportunity until a case is brought in front of an Irish
    court and then I will to have the state argue that I should be fined
    for not believing in the sanctity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's
    noodly appendage.

    This is bad law based on a ridiculous standard. If free speech causes
    real harm, that can be taken up in other areas of the law. However,
    the law should not impede free speech and the freedom to express an
    opinion.


  • #87
    threeleggedhors
    Registered Users Posts: 178 ✭✭threeleggedhors


    Kind of ironic that if this law had been around when J.C. was telling everyone what was what that the Irish government could've nipped it in the bud and saved him all the persecution....:D


  • #88
    aineolach
    Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭aineolach


    hamonrye wrote: »
    Thought crime anyone? didn't orwell warn us about this?

    Not in my double-plus good edition of 1984.


  • #89
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Dades wrote: »
    I really hope you didn't put that in your email.

    No, it was far less over the top :P

    But I am livid at the moment.


    Besides, it is a valid point, If I were to express my opinions on organised religion through writing or speech, they would likely offend some religion or all of them, surely all religions consider my opinion that they are all wrong, and their deity does not exist as blasphemy.

    Atheist standpoints are blasphemous to these religions, and the proposed law brings in a 100,000 euro fine for that.

    A religious standpoint regarding other religions would be more defensible, wrongly but true, there is more precedent of religious views being protected, over an atheist, or non-religious expression of blasphemy, so I stand by that point, if it was a little sensational.


  • #90
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    threeleggedhors wrote: »
    Kind of ironic that if this law had been around when J.C. was telling everyone what was what that the Irish government could've nipped it in the bud and saved him all the persecution....:D

    Haha, indeed..Jesus caused his own share of outrage in his time. And I'm sure an Irish judge could easily have found him to have intended to cause that outrage.

    Oh good Lord, we need new politicians. Not just new government, but new politicians, period. Our political class seems to have an unhappy knack of attracting some of the most unthinking and vacantly-minded people.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    20goto10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    The irony is this law is in itself an act of blashphemy because it prevents and mocks all religions which require you to purge false gods and other religions. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is all of them.

    It also has political rammifications. Next time we see the foreign minister criticise the Talibans religious ethics we should slap a €100,000 fine on his gob.

    As well as the obvious, if I want to get anything done, like say rid the world of Jews and take over Europe, I can do so in the name of religion and anyone who speaks out against me will be prosecuted :rolleyes:


  • #92
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    LookingFor wrote: »
    Haha, indeed..Jesus caused his own share of outrage in his time. And I'm sure an Irish judge could easily have found him to have intended to cause that outrage.

    I'm pretty sure that the story goes that Jesus was executed for beliefs and statements - mainly against religious doctrine (that is if you believe he actually existed and all that), who knows maybe many Jews at the time Jesus' words offensive in regard to things they held sacred in their religion, and the Irish government is saying he's just as wrong today as he was 2,000 years ago?


  • #93
    cls
    Closed Accounts Posts: 92 ✭✭cls


    Jesus is a b@stard. Even the bible proves it. How ironic is that?


  • #94
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    LookingFor wrote: »
    Oh good Lord, we need new politicians. Not just new government, but new politicians, period. Our political class seems to have an unhappy knack of attracting some of the most unthinking and vacantly-minded people.

    Funny, Gareth (is that his name?) Fitzgerald wrote an article in the Times about just that last week. He said that to get a better class of politician, we'll have to reduce their pay. Don't think anyone will argue with him on that point.


  • #95
    threeleggedhors
    Registered Users Posts: 178 ✭✭threeleggedhors


    How do we go about reducing their salaries ??


  • #96
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    20goto10 wrote: »
    It also has political rammifications. Next time we see the foreign minister criticise the Talibans religious ethics we should slap a €100,000 fine on his gob.
    Unless he says it in the Dail under privilege - which would then mean that in a sense, the Dail ranked higher than any Church, which has got to be blasphemy in and of itself for some at least :D


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    threeleggedhors wrote: »
    How do we go about reducing their salaries ??
    Don't vote them in in the first place...


  • #98
    Undergod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    As for this law effectively outlawing atheism, that would only apply if a significant number of religious people got outraged by the expression of an atheist viewpoint, and it could be proven in court that that viewpoint had been expressed with the intent of causing outrage.
    20goto10 wrote: »
    As they were saying on the radio this morning, Jedi Knight was classified as a religion in the last census...so those bible bashers better not dis the force :D

    Not in Ireland it wasn't.


  • #99
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Undergod wrote: »
    As for this law effectively outlawing atheism, that would only apply if a significant number of religious people got outraged by the expression of an atheist viewpoint, and it could be proven in court that that viewpoint had been expressed with the intent of causing outrage.

    IMO, that shouldn't even come close to being an offence, all it takes is a prominent lecturer on pro-choice issues to instantly fall foul of this legislation, remember, the pro-lifers hide behind the bible.

    This is a dangerous proposal, no matter how you approach it.


  • #100
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Undergod wrote: »
    As for this law effectively outlawing atheism, that would only apply if a significant number of religious people got outraged by the expression of an atheist viewpoint, and it could be proven in court that that viewpoint had been expressed with the intent of causing outrage.
    Yes, and libel can be defended by showing that a statement was true (and that it wasn't said purely to injure the libelled party and wasn't sedition and so forth); but you have to go to court to prove that. And while your day in court may settle such a case, it's an expensive day so you have to wonder if this wouldn't become a stick that groups with money could use to beat individuals who don't, the way the rest of the libel laws have been and are being used these days.


  • #101
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It seems to be a protection against incidents such as the Muhammad cartoons arising here.

    Nothing wrong with those cartoons. Are we to ban caricatures of politicians too?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement