Proposed Blasphemy Law

pH · 30-04-2009 1:00pm

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?

cls · 30-04-2009 1:17pm

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

The Mad Hatter · 30-04-2009 1:22pm

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.

threeleggedhors · 30-04-2009 1:24pm

How do we go about reducing their salaries ??

Sparks · 30-04-2009 1:25pm

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

Sparks · 30-04-2009 1:26pm

threeleggedhors wrote: »

How do we go about reducing their salaries ??

Don't vote them in in the first place...

Undergod · 30-04-2009 1:32pm

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

Not in Ireland it wasn't.

Stercus Accidit · 30-04-2009 1:37pm

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.

Sparks · 30-04-2009 1:40pm

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.

Flamed Diving · 30-04-2009 1:41pm

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?

Flamed Diving · 30-04-2009 1:44pm

My email:

Your proposed choking and suppression of free speech worries me. Just what is held to be blasphemy is an entirely subjective notion, just like religion in its entirety. How can this be the basis for legislation? Should we also have a law for denying the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? For me, the Abrahamic god is one of the most vile characters ever created. Should I be fined and jailed for expressing that view? I must ask you minister, do you wish for this country to return to being a backward, superstitious basket case of a country, or are we willing to catch up with the finest minds of the 18th century and seperate church and state, once and for all? How can you possibly justify this proposed law?

Zamboni · 30-04-2009 1:44pm

I am surprised there is not more of an uproar about this.

The fecking pensioners put up a better show.

jtsuited · 30-04-2009 1:47pm

of all the things the FF governments have ever done (and that includes everything from running the country arseways, being corrupt beyond belief, and displaying ingnorance of the highest level in all areas),

this is the thing that has made me genuinely angry. Like physically angry. Like the type of angry, where you're grinding your teeth and clenching your fists.

In other words, I'm pretty angry.

LookingFor · 30-04-2009 1:50pm

Zamboni wrote: »

I am surprised there is not more of an uproar about this.

The fecking pensioners put up a better show.

I'd like to think there's been a torrent of mail to various politicians over this, but..who knows..

I've spoken to some people about this who have a very "well, it wouldn't affect me, so I don't really care" attitude about it. As if you have to be a blaspheming outrager to see that this should be challenged

faceman · 30-04-2009 1:58pm

CrazyStraighty wrote: »

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?

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.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Should we also have a law for denying the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? For me, the Abrahamic god is one of the most vile characters ever created.

Be wary if using analogies like this when contacting the powers that be. The new law would only cover official recognised religions therefore that point isnt entirely valid. But it is, if you know what I mean!

Ultimately the big issue here is the stranglehold on freedom of speech. It would also present major issues given the laxidaisy wording as to what defines blasphemy. If for example you disagree with a view point of a religious body, are you blaspheming.

I dont think it will be just atheists raging with this law, many religious heads will be too.

IvyTheTerrible · 30-04-2009 1:59pm

eightyfish wrote: »

These are the email addresses of the members of the oireachtas committee of justice who will be voting on the issue:

sean@ardagh.org
brendan.howlin@oir.ie
niall.blaney@oireachtas.ie
finian.mcgrath@oireachtas.ie
gerard.murphy@oireachtas.ie
sean.ofearghail@irlgov.ie
Denis.ODonovan@oireachtas.ie
Peter.Power@Oireachtas.ie
Tony.Kett@oireachtas.ie
Maurice.Cummins@oireachtas.ie
joanna.tuffy@oireachtas.ie
Jim.Walsh@oireachtas.ie

Tony Kett is dead, no?

Flamed Diving · 30-04-2009 2:02pm

faceman wrote: »

Be wary if using analogies like this when contacting the powers that be. The new law would only cover official recognised religions therefore that point isnt entirely valid. But it is, if you know what I mean!

That is exactly my point and it is why I included it. Just what is an 'officially recognised religion'. How do you gauge that? Do you need a bare minimum of crazy old guys with beards?

It's nonsense. Either you give all religions, no matter how small, protection under this law or you have no law at all.

Not only is the 'official' religion law immoral, it is consitutionally illegal.

Undergod · 30-04-2009 2:07pm

Yeah, going into territory of which religions are officialy recognized is all kinds of dangerous.

eightyfish · 30-04-2009 2:18pm

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Tony Kett is dead, no?

Is he?

I got the list of names from here here and the email addresses from here.

IvyTheTerrible · 30-04-2009 2:19pm

eightyfish wrote: »

Is he?

I got the list of names from here here and the email addresses from here.

He died around April 20th I believe. I'll go find a link.

Et voila:

http://news.ie.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=16199896

20goto10 · 30-04-2009 2:21pm

Undergod wrote: »

Not in Ireland it wasn't.

BLASPHEMER!!!

DapperGent · 30-04-2009 2:24pm

threeleggedhors wrote: »

How do we go about reducing their salaries ??

Vote Labour.

Goduznt Xzst · 30-04-2009 2:33pm

Undergod wrote: »

and it could be proven in court that that viewpoint had been expressed with the intent of causing outrage.

Yeah that could never happen. I mean I'm sure there are loads of Judges that side with Atheists, you know, all the ones who chose not to take a religious oath... oh wait.

eightyfish · 30-04-2009 2:41pm

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

He died around April 20th I believe. I'll go find a link.

Et voila:

http://news.ie.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=16199896

Well I guess now he knows if there is a God.

Dades · 30-04-2009 2:44pm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yeah that could never happen. I mean I'm sure there are loads of Judges that side with Atheists, you know, all the ones who chose not to take a religious oath... oh wait.

Oh please. It'll almost certainly never be used.

And this isn't an "atheist" thing anyway. You don't have to be an atheist to 'blaspheme'.

cavedave · 30-04-2009 2:52pm

galileo galilei

E pur si muove!

I have not seen a list of specific actions that would have been illegal under this law. Theo Van Gogh's film, the danish cartoons, the book the satanic verses. Which of these would be illegal?

LookingFor · 30-04-2009 2:54pm

Dades wrote: »

Oh please. It'll almost certainly never be used.

Given recent history, I don't know if I'd be so sure.

And if a law isn't going to be enforced it should be taken off the books.

cavedave wrote: »

galileo galilei

I have not seen a list of specific actions that would have been illegal under this law. Theo Van Gogh's film, the danish cartoons, the book the satanic verses. Which of these would be illegal?

I think the key 'up for debate' point in these cases would be whether there was intent to outrage or not. Doubtless they all created outrage so they fulfil that part of this law's definition of blasphemy. The remaining bit would be whether it was intended.

Something that would be very difficult to pin down..but a court ultimately would make the decision. I don't think courts should be within spitting distance of making decisions like that in matters like this. Even if someone did intend to outrage, pissing people off has had its uses in fighting theocracy and the like..and religion doesn't need any more protection from incitement to hatred or violence etc. than already exists for everything else.

Dades · 30-04-2009 2:58pm

LookingFor wrote: »

And if a law isn't going to be enforced it should be taken off the books.

The problem is because it's in the constitution - it is required to be in legislation.

Yes - it should be removed from the constitution but with the state of the country at the moment they can hardly justify a referendum on the issue.

They could consider lumping it in with Lisbon II, only that would give the crazies an excuse to claim Lisbon was anti-religion etc - even though the two had nothing to do with one another.

Malari · 30-04-2009 2:59pm

Dades wrote: »

Oh please. It'll almost certainly never be used.

Beside the point I would have thought.

It impacts free speech and if it was brought in to discourage the printing of mohammed caricatures in papers, then it displays cowardice and I think the opposite is needed.

LookingFor · 30-04-2009 3:04pm

Dades wrote: »

The problem is because it's in the constitution - it is required to be in legislation.

My understanding is that though it would be..desireable to have clarification on it from the court's POV, the minister was not obliged to address it, and could have let sleeping dogs lie. It's ten years since the first and only relevant case..there was no need to all-of-a-sudden provide clarification on this.

He could have left things as they are or were and we could have dealt with it constutionally down the road when there was less on the agenda.

Proposed Blasphemy Law

Comments