Open letter to all TDs

rozeboosje

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nTlJsK4fBw

rozeboosje

1) Liz McManus, Labour:

Thank you for your email.

I fully support your view. Its farcical to have such legislation. The Labour Party Spokesperson on Justice, Pat Rabbitte TD has voiced our strong opposition to it in the Dáil.

Regrettably the government refused to listen.

Yours sincerely,

Liz.

Liz McManus, T.D.
Spokesperson on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

oscarBravo

Why post a few paragraphs of text in video form? Why not just post the text?

galwayrush

tl:dr :rolleyes:

rozeboosje

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why post a few paragraphs of text in video form? Why not just post the text?

I participate primarily on YouTube, sorry

But I have now posted the text of the letter in the Video Description. Cheers.;)

oscarBravo

Any chance you could post it here? Seeing as this is a discussion forum, like.

Max Power1

rozeboosje from youtube wrote:

Dear TD,

I am writing you to protest against the Blasphemous Libel legislation that was recently passed by the Justice Committee.

This arcane piece of legislation has no place in a modern western society that values basic human rights such as freedom OF and freedom FROM religion, and that enshrines Western civilisation's ideal of separating Church and Stage.

Whilst I appreciate that the current Irish constitution does criminalise the act of blasphemy, and that the constitution must be supported by law, the fact that the constitution contains this throwback to an archaically theocratic Irish society should prompt the Minister to re-evaluate the constitution, and to ask the Irish people by referendum to remove this aberration from the most important legal document of the State.

The "solution" that Mr. Ahern is in the process of enacting is farcical at best, introducing into the Irish statute books a law that is unenforcable and that will make Ireland once again the laughing stock of Europe.

Please join all freedom loving people on this island in opposition to this law. Ireland must move forward into the 21st century, not back into the 19th.

I am counting on your support.

Yours faithfully,

Quoted from youtube on behalf of the OP.

I for one suport this matter.

That is all.

Mario007

Max Power1 wrote: »

Quoted from youtube on behalf of the OP.

I for one suport this matter.

That is all.

thanks for posting it. i dont support the OP, because at least Ahern is defining the blasphemy in a way that it cannot be abused in the court. its unfortunate that we should tackle such a problem, however, but a referendum is just too costy at the moment. this opens up the whole discussion of being able to change the constitution by parliamentary means, which of course, is a different matter.

still fair play to the OP, if she wants to actually send this letter to all TDs for taking some action!

Max Power1

To clarify, i support the OP's stance on this matter, i am totally against the blasphemy law.

TBH i dont see how anyone (religious people included) could support such a law

dresden8

Mario007 wrote: »

but a referendum is just too costy at the moment.

Well print some new sheets and lump them in with the other referendum. If it needs to be fixed it needs to be goddamned fixed!

Also, I think it's fair to say this is the governments real response to clerical child sex abuse and the Ryan report, and it's screw you!

Mario007

dresden8 wrote: »

Well print some new sheets and lump them in with the other referendum. If it needs to be fixed it needs to be goddamned fixed!

Also, I think it's fair to say this is the governments real response to clerical child sex abuse and the Ryan report, and it's screw you!

those few papers, along with counting all of them separately,with establishing a commission, getting a group together to push forward a government's position and of course there will be the fear that it will attract many voters who would have the tendency to vote no in lisbon and the government can't simply afford that.
so as much as i would like to see it fixed, with the system of referendums right now, at time of recession, its not possible. the question is though, how come they didnt make a referendum about this during the boom?

dresden8

Mario007 wrote: »

those few papers, along with counting all of them separately,with establishing a commission, getting a group together to push forward a government's position and of course there will be the fear that it will attract many voters who would have the tendency to vote no in lisbon and the government can't simply afford that.
so as much as i would like to see it fixed, with the system of referendums right now, at time of recession, its not possible. the question is though, how come they didnt make a referendum about this during the boom?

Not believable.

Apart from the bolded bit where the government will be afraid of getting peoples real feelings on Lisbon and hope a lot of the no vote would stay home. But that's for the Lisbon discussions and off topic.

Mario007

dresden8 wrote: »

Not believable.

Apart from the bolded bit where the government will be afraid of getting peoples real feelings on Lisbon and hope a lot of the no vote would stay home. But that's for the Lisbon discussions and off topic.

i agree, i was just putting out the arguments against having the two referenda together. but you see, even if lisbon is off topic, having two referenda on the same day will bring people to say the blasphemy referendum from the lisbon referendum that really have no stance on the issue but since they're there, they might as well vote. that is why it is important to have referenda on two different days

dresden8

Mario007 wrote: »

i agree, i was just putting out the arguments against having the two referenda together. but you see, even if lisbon is off topic, having two referenda on the same day will bring people to say the blasphemy referendum from the lisbon referendum that really have no stance on the issue but since they're there, they might as well vote. that is why it is important to have referenda on two different days

You want the referenda on two different days to keep people away and stop them voting?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight!

freedom of info

The problem with this legislation is this, it will send Ireland back 50 years, it is designed to keep the peoples eye of the ball as regards the corruption and ineptitude of this the worst govt in the history of the state, the biggest threat to democracy is not Sinn Fein but is FF and it is about time that we realised it. freedom of info has already been curtailed, this is merely another step upon the way to a neo Fascist future under the leadership of a bunch of gangsters, the people spoke at the council and Euro elctions but the vermon in govt refuse to go, their election manifesto wasnothing more than a smokescreen after they the traitors party had already ruined this country, the time has come to remove them for good, by whatever means at hand, and a full return to the principal of democracy can then take place, dont be fooled by these crooks again, their actions are the reason that revolutions take place, what would Lemass, Lynch and Collins have thought? these parasites are nothing more than self seving conniving liars and traitors, for gods sake lets organise and show them the power of the people

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mario007

dresden8 wrote: »

You want the referenda on two different days to keep people away and stop them voting?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight!

you backspinned what i was trying to say, please dont do that again. i want a referendum on one issue one day and on a second issue a different way, because it allows for greater debate on both issues and it also gets only the people who are interested in the issue thats being voted on voting, people who most likely did some research etc. i mean seeing one guy going to vote yes on the blasphemy bill, for example, who would have no interest in lisbon whatsoever and still he'd take the lisbon paper and just ticked whichever option he just happened to randomly like that moment without any consideration is really shooting democracy in the head

dresden8

Mario007 wrote: »

you backspinned what i was trying to say, please dont do that again. i want a referendum on one issue one day and on a second issue a different way, because it allows for greater debate on both issues and it also gets only the people who are interested in the issue thats being voted on voting, people who most likely did some research etc. i mean seeing one guy going to vote yes on the blasphemy bill, for example, who would have no interest in lisbon whatsoever and still he'd take the lisbon paper and just ticked whichever option he just happened to randomly like that moment without any consideration is really shooting democracy in the head

Actually what you said is you didn't want the blasphemy referendum because we couldn't afford it and therefor there shouldn't be one at all.

Having them on the one day would solve that problem.

Both issues are un-related. I would like to think that most people could hold 2 ideas in their heads occasionally.

Mario007

dresden8 wrote: »

Actually what you said is you didn't want the blasphemy referendum because we couldn't afford it and therefor there shouldn't be one at all.

Having them on the one day would solve that problem.

Both issues are un-related. I would like to think that most people could hold 2 ideas in their heads occasionally.

yes we can't afford them, because even with both of them on the say day it would still require

those few papers, along with counting all of them separately,with establishing a commission, getting a group together to push forward a government's position

and trust me, there will be people, quite a few, who could give a damn about blasphemy laws but cared a lot for lisbon and vice versa.

dresden8

Mario007 wrote: »

yes we can't afford them, because even with both of them on the say day it would still require .

The government doesn't need a position, it can ask a question. If the government in the guise of little Dermo feels that the constitutional question is so urgent it can afford to pay to sort it out once and for all rather than waste parliamentary time in the midst of our crisis.

Mario007 wrote: »

and trust me, there will be people, quite a few, who could give a damn about blasphemy laws but cared a lot for lisbon and vice versa.

Good. High turnouts are good for democracy.

And this is not about cost of referenda or anything else. It's about little Dermo and FF putting the catholic church first, they way they always have.

Mario007

dresden8 wrote: »

The government doesn't need a position, it can ask a question. If the government in the guise of little Dermo feels that the constitutional question is so urgent it can afford to pay to sort it out once and for all rather than waste parliamentary time in the midst of our crisis.

to be honest its much faster and cheaper to get it through the dail than to waste our time and money in the midst of our crisis....

dresden8 wrote: »

Good. High turnouts are good for democracy.

not good if those high turnouts tend to be votes on the spot rather than someone who is interested on the issue.

dresden8 wrote: »

And this is not about cost of referenda or anything else. It's about little Dermo and FF putting the catholic church first, they way they always have.

look if FF electorate are mostly catholic then its FF's right to go for catholic church first. but thats not the issue. the blasphemy law talks about any religion so discussing the catholic church alone here is not at all relevant

dresden8

Mario007 wrote: »

to be honest its much faster and cheaper to get it through the dail than to waste our time and money in the midst of our crisis....

It may have been cheaper but this isn't the kind of leadership we need as the ship is sinking.

Mario007 wrote: »

not good if those high turnouts tend to be votes on the spot rather than someone who is interested on the issue.

A good turnout is always a good turnout.

Mario007 wrote: »

look if FF electorate are mostly catholic then its FF's right to go for catholic church first.

Jesus H Christmas, we're screwed. Again.

For the last fifty years (and probably longer) the catholic church has presided over, facilitated and covered up physical abuse and butt-fncking of children. We have a chance of putting them in their place once and for all and you come out with that.

The government is not there to govern FF voters. It is there to govern us all. I don't remember this being in their election manifesto.

Mario007

dresden8 wrote: »

It may have been cheaper but this isn't the kind of leadership we need as the ship is sinking.

no right now, we need to save, save, save, and cut, cut, cut...simple as...

dresden8 wrote: »

A good turnout is always a good turnout.

no, i dont agree with you for the reasons stated above.

dresden8 wrote: »

Jesus H Christmas, we're screwed. Again.

For the last fifty years (and probably longer) the catholic church has presided over, facilitated and covered up physical abuse and butt-fncking of children. We have a chance of putting them in their place once and for all and you come out with that.

The government is not there to govern FF voters. It is there to govern us all. I don't remember this being in their election manifesto.

look i'm not defending FF, far from, but there are there to govern people, true, but when they got in power 42% of those people were FF people. In fact since they have a majority with the greens and independents they represent most of ireland...
its really a cheap shot to bring up the Ryan report here to be fair. yet again we're talking about intentional abuse to anyreligion no just catholic church, so please discuss the law itself or this protest but not something that is far removed from it, we have enough of that in the lisbon discussions

dresden8

Mario007 wrote: »

look i'm not defending FF, far from, but there are there to govern people, true, but when they got in power 42% of those people were FF people. In fact since they have a majority with the greens and independents they represent most of ireland...
its really a cheap shot to bring up the Ryan report here to be fair. yet again we're talking about intentional abuse to anyreligion no just catholic church, so please discuss the law itself or this protest but not something that is far removed from it, we have enough of that in the lisbon discussions

I don't remember it being in the Greens manifesto either. And as far as representing most of Ireland, they represent that percentage of turn-out.

I don't think this was brought in to please the Iranian mullahs.

Little Dermo was kissing the bishop's ring.

Mario007

dresden8 wrote: »

I don't think this was brought in to please the Iranian mullahs.

Little Dermo was kissing the bishop's ring.

wow you must really hate religion as a whole if you're willing to insult both the catholic and the islamic faiths...and to be frank i have no time for an argument with someone who has his opinion set like that with no consideration(if i'm wrong, then i am sorry, but this is what comes across from your posts)

dresden8

Mario007 wrote: »

wow you must really hate religion as a whole if you're willing to insult both the catholic and the islamic faiths...and to be frank i have no time for an argument with someone who has his opinion set like that with no consideration(if i'm wrong, then i am sorry, but this is what comes across from your posts)

Where did I insult the Islamic faith?

I didn't even insult the catholic church. I just pointed out what we all know and has been proven, they've facilitated and covered up the physical and sexual abuse of children for over 50 years.

That's not an insult, it's a proven fact, even the church and all the congregations accept it. Time you should too.

Mario007

dresden8 wrote: »

Where did I insult the Islamic faith?

I didn't even insult the catholic church. I just pointed out what we all know and has been proven, they've facilitated and covered up the physical and sexual abuse of children for over 50 years.

That's not an insult, it's a proven fact, even the church and all the congregations accept it. Time you should too.

i suppose insult catholic church was not the right word, but with regards to the islamic faith:

I don't think this was brought in to please the Iranian mullahs.

i know a few islamic people who'd find that offensive. i accept the fact with regards to the catholic church, but yet again we're wondering off point here. there is a thread about the damage done by catholic institution here already

dresden8

Mario007 wrote: »

i know a few islamic people who'd find that offensive.

Well then I withdraw the words but not the sentiment.

Little Dermo is not protecting Islam here. He's letting the church know he's really on their side and they're back on the up.

Mario007

dresden8 wrote: »

Well then I withdraw the words but not the sentiment.

Little Dermo is not protecting Islam here. He's letting the church know he's really on their side and they're back on the up.

ok thanks.

why would ahern do that, though? right after ryan report, what would be the political capital from that for FF?

i still hold onto the view that its for any faith...it can be a protestant church as well, not just catholic....

dresden8

Mario007 wrote: »

ok thanks.

why would ahern do that, though? right after ryan report, what would be the political capital from that for FF?

i still hold onto the view that its for any faith...it can be a protestant church as well, not just catholic....

Why would FF sign an indemnity with the church where their liabilities are capped but we're totally exposed for the rest of the bill? No reason, any attempt leads you into the wacky world of conspiracy theories.

But then again, conspiracies do exist in the real world.

Suffice to say, FF's dealings with the church make no sense to a rational and reasonable person.

As regards the other faiths, I'm afraid we're going to be stuck with a whole crap-load of un-intended consequences, it's the FF way.

Dan I Am

dresden8 wrote: »

I don't think this was brought in to please the Iranian mullahs.

Mario007 wrote: »

i know a few islamic people who'd find that offensive.

I don't mean to derail your interesting debate here, but I can't see how any Muslim could find this statement offensive within this context, and the point of the statement seems perfectly valid. (I mean dresden8's statement here, although a pedantic Muslim could take offence at being referred to as an Islamic person I suppose)

dresden8

Dan I Am wrote: »

I don't mean to derail your interesting debate here, but I can't see how any Muslim could find this statement offensive within this context, and the point of the statement seems perfectly valid. (I mean dresden8's statement here, although a pedantic Muslim could take offence at being referred to as an Islamic person I suppose)

What can you do? People take offence. There's no escaping it these days.

In fact I feel left out, I think people should be free to say what they want, when's my turn to take offence, eh?

Dan I Am

dresden8 wrote: »

What can you do? People take offence. There's no escaping it these days.

In fact I feel left out, I think people should be free to say what they want, when's my turn to take offence, eh?

I agree. Free speech is right at the 'bedrock' of a free society, and any messing with that AT ALL is very very dodgy ground.

Zambia

To me this seems like a very very silly little side matter that can be addressed at a later date. I don't hear of anyone being charged with blasphemy on a regular basis or at all, is this like a big fight for the right of men to have babies.

Glad to see that this sort of legislation is floating around, it like arguing over the dinner menu on the f**king Titanic :rolleyes:

rozeboosje

Arguments that a referendum is "too costly" are frankly absurd. By the same token, changing the law to introduce an unenforceable law that will only cause the State at some point in the future to have to fight a costly legal battle in a European court (because, seriously, do you think that ANYBODY who gets prosecuted through this crazy law would take it lying down?) would be equally "too costly". In that case Dermot should have just continued to stick his head in the sand and pretend that everything is hunky dory. There was no "blasphemy" law in Ireland for decades without anybody throwing a serious wobbly about it, regardless of what it said in the constitution. Why introduce such nonsense now? So there is a hole in Irish legislation. It's a hole that doesn't need filling.

I also see many people responding to this by making arguments like "so you think it is ok to gratuitously fling insults at religious people"?

What sort of an argument is that? Just because something is not "ok" doesn't mean that it must necessarily be made illegal. It should be perfectly legal to say something that somebody who is a member of some religion might find insulting, without having to worry about having to face legal repercussions as a result. Even if doing this purposely just in order to piss off as many people as possible makes you quite an asshole, being an asshole isn't illegal. It just leaves you rather unpopular. So what? You choose to be unpopular, and some religious people choose to be "outraged" over any fart in the wind. Do what you like, but don't try and turn the law into an ass by filling the statute books with such trivialities.

GlobalStranger

rozeboosje wrote: »

1) Liz McManus, Labour:

Thank you for your email.

I fully support your view. Its farcical to have such legislation. The Labour Party Spokesperson on Justice, Pat Rabbitte TD has voiced our strong opposition to it in the Dáil.

Regrettably the government refused to listen.

Yours sincerely,

Liz.

Liz McManus, T.D.
Spokesperson on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

http://www.carobit.com/Forum/ShowThread/YouTube%20Discussions/20090704130605Pino%20Carafa.html

Letter for Copy & Paste & all TD & Senator emails for same

GlobalStranger

All Tds & Senators E-mail addresses & Open Letter to Copy & Paste regarding the Blasphemous Libel Legislation & replies from govt so far.

Klingon Hamlet

The new blasphemy law being rished through at the last minute smacks of a reaction to the sudden outpuring of hate towards the religious sexual abuses of children, i.e. media will be much more hesitant to question religious groups regarding their in-house behaviour when the threat of blasphemous accusations hang over their heads.

Why else would they rush this in at the last minute?

conchubhar1

that bill is so 1765 - should never pass in this day and age

oscarBravo wrote: »

Any chance you could post it here? Seeing as this is a discussion forum, like.

can you not read text on that video, like?

GlobalStranger

http://www.carobit.com/Forum/ShowThread/YouTube%20Discussions/20090704130605Pino%20Carafa.html

everything you need ,, letter & email addresses