Proposed Blasphemy Law

Goduznt Xzst

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

If the referendum fails, the law is still unenforceable.

How so? I guess this is the point that I'm missing. How, in its current state, is this blasphemy law unenforceable?

The Mad Hatter

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

How so? I guess this is the point that I'm missing. How, in its current state, is this blasphemy law unenforceable?

Because it doesn't explain what blasphemy means. That came up in the blasphemy case in 1999. Ahern is introducing a definition (grossly abusive and the intent to cause outrage) - he made that point clear in his Irish Times article. 'If that article is not to be removed from the Constitution by referendum, then it is necessary to ensure that it is operable,' as he wrote. The implication is that it is inoperable now.

Goduznt Xzst

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

'If that article is not to be removed from the Constitution by referendum, then it is necessary to ensure that it is operable,' as he wrote. The implication is that it is inoperable now.

The law, as I read it, is still currently operable, is it not? What he is saying is that his hands are tied in that he can't change it so that it is no longer operable. He has to work within the constraints of changes to the constitution that don't require a referendum.

Perhaps if I had more information on this "1999 Corway case". I can't find any detailed information on it regarding the "blasphemy action" taken in it. Was it proven at this that the current Blasphemy law is not operable?

Gambler

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why so many people are adamantly against Aherns proposals?

Lets say we hold a referendum, and it fails. Without Aherns amendments we still have a law in place that says you can serve jail time for blasphemy. I agree it needs to be removed, but I don't see why people are so against Aherns idea in the first place.

If a referendum was held and it failed then while I would be disgusted that it has failed I would still have to respect the wishes of the electorate and agree that there is a need for a law to punish the crime of blasphemy because it is in the constitution and the electorate has supported its continued presence there.

Stercus Accidit

Gambler wrote: »

If a referendum was held and it failed then while I would be disgusted that it has failed I would still have to respect the wishes of the electorate and agree that there is a need for a law to punish the crime of blasphemy because it is in the constitution and the electorate has supported its continued presence there.

People are stupid en masse, and elections are won and lost on marketing and spin.

This is a categorically wrong law, regardless of how its spun and it eventual acceptance of rebuttal.

Homosexuality, womens right to vote, these weren't within law, but thats a flaw of the legal system and democracy.

A constitution is all well and good, until it is completely out of touch. Bear in mind, it is written by men, and men are fallible no matter their intentions, no mans word should be held in reverence and regarded as infallible, because you end up with a bible, not a set of laws.

Gambler

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

People are stupid en masse, and elections are won and lost on marketing and spin.

This is a categorically wrong law, regardless of how its spun and it eventual acceptance of rebuttal.

Homosexuality, womens right to vote, these weren't within law, but thats a flaw of the legal system and democracy.

A constitution is all well and good, until it is completely out of touch. Bear in mind, it is written by men, and men are fallible no matter their intentions, no mans word should be held in reverence and regarded as infallible, because you end up with a bible, not a set of laws.

Heh, I'm all for a new form of government that isn't based on a fixed constitution and improves on the current party and political structures but that's just not going to happen in my lifetime..

AARRRGH

Otaku Girl wrote: »

At this stage I expect stupidity to be the norm' rather than the exception.

Unfortunately I'm the same.

The majority of people in the world (let alone Ireland) appear to be stupid and deluded.

I don't know if this is on purpose or what, i.e. if there is a god he/she decided to make 80% of the world a bunch of dumbasses, but even if it is it still bothers me.

normar

I wrote the following letter to Minister Dermot Ahern. I strongly urge every person (and not just athiests) who values freedom of speech as a vital part of democracy, to do the same. ..........Micnor.


Dermot Ahern TD,
Minister for Justice, Equality
& Law Reform,

Dear Minister,

I am writing to appeal to you not to proceed with the intended legislation that would make the notion of Blasphemous Libel a criminal offence.

I am making this appeal as an atheist. As such, I am a person who is secure in the knowledge that the rational by which I live my life, and the scientific knowledge that underpins my values and beliefs, will when publicly expressed, almost certainly be deemed by someone to be deeply offensive. This will put me firmly in the category of suspected criminal.

The right to freedom of speech is an absolute essential in a free and healthy Democracy. I cannot accept that there can be any “sacred” areas where the right to freedom of speech is to be curtailed and diminished. A limited Freedom of Speech is no freedom at all but a mockery, for it puts one person above that of another.

I gave up all belief in things superstitious and irrational as a young man. I wish to express to you my horror at the idea that someone who still adheres to beliefs which are utterly unverifiable, utterly untestable and which constitute an assault on my critical faculties, can use these “personal beliefs” as a basis to make me a criminal for expressing mine.

This is especially so because I base my ideas on the rational, on facts which are verifiable, testable and which in the light of future knowledge can be amended to encompass a greater understanding of life. No religious belief will ever entertain this principle and nor can it, for I believe that greater understanding and knowledge is the death knell of superstition.

As a consequence I fear that your proposed legislation will in time and soon at that, make criminals of those of us who defend the rational.

.
.
.
.
.

Bard

Dunno if it's said already, but the solution, plain and simple as it may be - is probably more complicated than adding provision for blasphemy to the Irish Statute Book and it is this:

Remove the line “The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent material is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.” from the Irish Constitution.

Presumably, this would require a referendum.

[EDIT]: Sorry, am only reading back now and realising this has been mentioned. Guess it was obvious, eh?

marti8

It would be SO simple to hold a referendum the same days as the Lisbon Treaty or if they really rushed it the Local and European Elections. Simple. Job done.

Dades

marti8 wrote: »

It would be SO simple to hold a referendum the same days as the Lisbon Treaty or if the really rushed it the Local and European Elections. Simple. Job done.

I, and others, have suggested that although perfect in theory - in practice this could damage our chances of passing Lisbon II.

Yes, the two areas of amendment have nothing to do with one another, but with the scaremongering about the effects of Lisbon II having little bearing on reality, IMO we can't afford to sit a perceived anti-religious amendment beside an already endangered one for fear of guilt by association.

marti8

Dades wrote: »

I, and others, have suggested that although perfect in theory - in practice this could damage our chances of passing Lisbon II.

Yes, the two areas of amendment have nothing to do with one another, but with the scaremongering about the effects of Lisbon II having little bearing on reality, IMO we can't afford to sit a perceived anti-religious amendment beside an already endangered one for fear of guilt by association.

Well, I don't want Lisbon passed in any case! I'm voting NO to Lisbon. By pressing us to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty they are in effect subverting the democratic will of the Irish people. But I'd support a referendum to remove any mention of blasphemy from the Constitution. Btw, I am actually pro-EU but for an EU based upon democracy, accountability and the rule of law.

Flamed Diving

marti8 wrote: »

Well, I don't want Lisbon passed in any case! I'm voting NO to Lisbon. By pressing us to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty they are in effect subverting the democratic will of the Irish people. But I'd support a referendum to remove any mention of blasphemy from the Constitution. Btw, I am actually pro-EU but for an EU based upon democracy, accountability and the rule of law.

Indeed. Which is why we should leave the constitution as it is, with blasphemous offences being criminalised. For anything else would be subverting the democratic will of the Irish people. I'm sure you will agree, for anything else would be pure hypocrisy.

marti8

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Indeed. Which is why we should leave the constitution as it is, with blasphemous offences being criminalised. For anything else would be subverting the democratic will of the Irish people. I'm sure you will agree, for anything else would be pure hypocrisy.

Sorry, I don't get ya like? How can putting a question on blasphemy to the Irish people by way of referendum be a subversion of the will of the Irish people?

We already voted NO to Lisbon, just last year btw. We never even had a referendum on the blasphemy laws. In a modern, supposedly progressive, supposedly secular country blasphemy laws are outdated and have no place in our society. So, hypocrisy is not a word I'd use.

I wonder if this so-called blasphemy law came into effect would it not limit say a Catholic priests ability to "attack" say "Satan" aka "da divil"......couldn't Satanists then seek protection from clergy who attack their "God"................Just wondering.

Flamed Diving

marti8 wrote: »

Sorry, I don't get ya like? How can putting a question on blasphemy to the Irish people by way of referendum be a subversion of the will of the Irish people?

Or, how can putting a question of an amended Lisbon (keeping our commissioner, no atomic soldier babies, etc) to the Irish people by way of referendum be a subversion of the will of the Irish people when recent polls have shown a surge of support for this amended treaty?

Anyway, this is getting off topic, so I will give you the last word.

Gambler

What about lumping the referendum in with local elections? Or waiting till the next General election?

marti8

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Or, how can putting a question of an amended Lisbon (keeping our commissioner, no atomic soldier babies, etc) to the Irish people by way of referendum be a subversion of the will of the Irish people when recent polls have shown a surge of support for this amended treaty?

Anyway, this is getting off topic, so I will give you the last word.

Listen, no offence but a few tweeks of the Lisbon referendum doesn't do much. And as far as I know there are NO legal guarrantees just some vague pronouncements. Ireland voted no, that's that, as far as I see it. Anyway, yep, this is getting way off topic. I just hope that blasphemy law can be stopped before the government make another fine cock up.

robindch

marti8 wrote: »

By pressing us to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty they are in effect subverting the democratic will of the Irish people.

Not at all. If the people -- misled, lied to, scared out of their pants and all -- want to reject the Treaty with a few updated Annexes, then that's their right. But before they do that, I (for one) would certainly like to see people actually read the document first and reject it from a position of knowledge and understanding instead of green-inking the thing from a position which frequently seemed to derive from a weird mixture of ignorance, paranoia, fear and stupidity.

marti8 wrote: »

I am actually pro-EU but for an EU based upon democracy, accountability and the rule of law.

From that soundbite, I must assume that you've had time only to hear Ganley's interpretation of the Treaty, rather than read the Treaty itself (full text here). Do read it. It's not at all what you think.

However, LTII is off topic here. Back to blasphemy, please!

marti8

Gambler wrote: »

What about lumping the referendum in with local elections? Or waiting till the next General election?

Yeah, that would be a great idea, as has already been suggested (myself included) But for some unknown reason it seems the government doesn't want to do that.

Mena

robindch wrote: »

Back to blasphemy, please!

Theres a signature waiting to happen in that quote!

marti8 wrote: »

Yeah, that would be a great idea, as has already been suggested (myself included) But for some unknown reason it seems the government doesn't want to do that.

A referendum on this issue would scare the pants off me, and that in itself is a scary thought. I'd have little to no ... uhm.... faith, that such a referendum would go "our" way, at all.

People, as a group, are just far too stupid I am afraid.

marti8

robindch wrote: »

Not at all. If the people -- misled, lied to, scared out of their pants and all -- want to reject the Treaty with a few updated Annexes, then that's their right. But before they do that, I (for one) would certainly like to see people actually read the document first and reject it from a position of knowledge and understanding instead of green-inking the thing from a position which frequently seemed to derive from a weird mixture of ignorance, paranoia, fear and stupidity.From that soundbite, I must assume that you've had time only to hear Ganley's interpretation of the Treaty, rather than read the Treaty itself (full text here). Do read it. It's not at all what you think.

However, LTII is off topic here. Back to blasphemy, please!

Europe have been telling the Irish people that Ireland will not be allowed to stop the Lisbon process, it is Brussels who are in effect threatening the Irish electorate with being left behind should we again vote NO. We voted already, we rejected it. I would love to see the legal renegotiated text that they are going to put in front of us again. As far as I know, and yes I could be wrong but as far as I know none of the "promises" we have recieved are legaly binding.

But yes, this aint about Lisbon this is about Blasphemy laws. So, I suggest we move on from that....;)

Zamboni

An alternative option for Dermot Aherne...

Leave the damned thing alone. It is a good thing that it is currently inoperable.

Referendum to expensive?
Leave the damned thing alone until we have the money then.

Why the fup is Aherne working on this now is the real question? It's years after that case. It is not an urgent issue. It is not even an issue.

I might go for a less eloquent letter tham most and just tell the idiot to LEAVE THE DAMNED THING ALONE

Flamed Diving

robindch wrote: »

Back to blasphemy.

The new track from Amy Winehouse.

marti8

Mena wrote: »

Theres a signature waiting to happen in that quote!



A referendum on this issue would scare the pants off me, and that in itself is a scary thought. I'd have little to no ... uhm.... faith, that such a referendum would go "our" way, at all.

People, as a group, are just far too stupid I am afraid.

Yeah, I know what you mean but surely there must be some way to stop the religious from voting? Maybe if they have the referendum for an hour only, on a Sunday between 11am and noon, they'd be at mass and we'd be voting...that's a great idea!

I don't want any blasphemy laws but if the government are going to try and introduce them I don't see how we can just ignore it? The only way to counter that is by a referendum and well, fingers cossed (or un-crossed?, lol) I just don't know what else could be done.

Of course simply leaving it alone would probably be the best and safest thing to do.

Edit: But religious folks also need to be aware that their priests, ministers, preachers or whatever, sermons could be seen as blasphemy by some other "religions" It'd cut both ways. Religious folks wouldn't have the freedom they now have if we did have a blasphemy law. They need to remember that too. As I said before how could a priest preach that Satan (for example) was evil or bad or whatever......they would under such an act be guilty of blasphemy in such a scenario would they not? Some folks, albeit a tiny minority see "Satan" as their "God"......So, in a way I'd say bring it on, lets have a referendum, I think we would be wrong to take it as a foregone conclusion that we'd lose.....hey, and if we did, simply tweek it and put it up for another referendum the following year! Lisbon style!...lol What's that saying: What's good for the goose is good for the gander?.....

Gambler

If we loose a referendum then that's that. We tried our best and failed, the electorate has spoken and if we don't like it our only other option is to move to a country that fits our beliefs better..

However I don't think that we should give up the idea of a referendum on the basis that we are afraid that it could be lost. To be honest this is a poor attitude that assumes that religious types can't see the stupidity of the law and come to an intelligent decision for themselves..

Dades

marti8 wrote: »

By pressing us to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty they are in effect subverting the democratic will of the Irish people.

marti8 wrote: »

Yeah, I know what you mean but surely there must be some way to stop the religious from voting?

The A&A Lisbon II thread should be fun! *

* There are to be no threads before definitive dates annouced!

marti8

Dades wrote: »

The A&A Lisbon II thread should be fun! *

* There are to be no threads before definitive dates annouced!

Alcoholics Anonymous? :rolleyes: Ah hell, what'd they care!...lol

Sleazus

A referendum on this issue would scare the pants off me, and that in itself is a scary thought. I'd have little to no ... uhm.... faith, that such a referendum would go "our" way, at all.

Do you mind if I ask why people presume that all religious individuals think the law is a good idea? I believe (god, I hate just stating that verb, like the equally pretentious-sounding "I have faith"), but I still think it's a really, really, really bad idea.

Belief (or lack thereof) is a personal matter, not the state's. Besides, I'd like to think that most deities worth believing in have better things to worry about than what somebody somewhere said about them.

So, yep, I hate the idea of the law and I hold some of the views that it seeks to protect. My opinions don't hold value because anyone who disagrees can be fined or locked away, and I'm a little insulted that anyone might think that way. And sure, I'm relatively liberal with this stuff (I choose to ignore a great deal of catechism), but I know more stoic Christians and people of other faiths who feel the same way.

The problem is that the referendum will likely bring out the 0.01% of the crazies. I don't doubt that a moderately phrased (ie remove blasphemy, keep religion) amendment would pass, but an attempt to do anything more than that (eg amend the preamble, the recognition of religion) might get bitter.

Just my two cents.

Sam Vimes

marti8 wrote: »

As far as I know, and yes I could be wrong but as far as I know none of the "promises" we have recieved are legaly binding.

That's mostly because the vast majority of reasons for voting no weren't actually in the treaty. There's nothing to change so all they can realistically do is "promise" to us that it was all scare mongering. If people read the treaty for themselves the promises wouldn't even be necessary.

so the promises are not legally binding but they don't have to be because all they do is confirm what's already in the treaty or, more importantly, what's not in the treaty. Just think of all the people who voted no for neutrality reasons or because of abortion, neither of which are affected by the treaty. When they voted no they were voting to keep neutrality and keep abortion illegal but this time we're going to try something new and ask them to vote on the Lisbon treaty instead

Now back to blasphemy: God damn it!!

Mena

Sleazus wrote: »

Do you mind if I ask why people presume that all religious individuals think the law is a good idea?

Because, based on experience, the only people that would vote would be the secularists and the right wing christians. The matter, at the end of the day, will have little to do with what moderates think about it. The moderate, run of the mill religious types would probably stay at home as this is probably not such a big deal for them.

All I do is think about what the census states, regarding 80 or 90% of the population being "catholic". What people say and do is usually very different from what they declare on official forms, and this, I think, would skew the vote in the wrong direction.

I don't for a second "presume all religious individuals think the law is a good idea", I do however presume they don't care very much either way.