Heard this on the radio this morning and couldn't believe it. It's like we're heading back in time in this country.
I'd be very worried if this went ahead.
dude, this isnt for A&A, politics or AH more likely.
but fuuuuuuuuuuuck. that's pretty nuts, a part of me can't imagine it going through... another part almost expects it.
The text you quoted is part of the constitution, which won't be changed unless a referendum is held. That's not the issue here.
I think It's suitable for this forum.
Waste of time, effort and money. And Ahern can go blaspheme himself with his little suggestion.
Actually Nodin, it could be quite an earner at €100,000 a pop for blasphemy
I don't think this is the correct course of action mind.
It seems to be a protection against incidents such as the Muhammad cartoons arising here.
fair enough, i gotta re-read it later when there's less talking around me.
It's already in the constitution. The minister is trying to define it in the Defamation Bill (not the constitution) therefore no referendum is needed.
The problem is that it leaves the definition of what's grossly offensive wide open.
Everything should be fair game. If a theory is valid it should be more than capable of defending itself against criticism, it shouldn't need the government to legislate protection for it.
Since it's already in the constitution, which relies on legislation to define it, it seems to be a matter of clarification.
The definition in the proposed bill is interesting, in that it makes it quite difficult for something to fall into the definition:
"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".
So there must be clear intent to cause outrage, which is very difficult to prove.
All things being equal, however, why legislation is even necessary I do not know. It's not as if we have a huge population of outraged theists shouting for it, and libel laws serve their purpose in cases of attacks on an individual.
Regardless of if and how it might actually be used, the very fact it is even up for discussion is illiberal, disturbing and disgraceful. Religion does not deserve protection, and I will alway insist on the right to treat it with ridicule and contempt.
Utterly digusted with this.
First job for the new UCD Humanist society, ChocolateSauce?
I hope Tommy Tiernan's got a good lawyer
I feel outraged that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin. All the current evidence points to a given person being born gay, just as they are born Irish or Indian. Thus there is, in my eyes, no difference between homophobia and racism. The Church are guilty in my eyes of racism.
I feel outraged by the treatment of women in some Muslim countries, where they live in fear of God and society if they dare not submit to Allah. (see Ayann Hirshi Ali)
I feel outraged by these things but I do not feel that people should not be able to believe them. Why should someone who supports these views have to protection of the law when they get outraged at my beliefs?
**** this bull5hit. What's the best way to let the minister know how we feel about this?