01/01/2010 Blasphmey Law in Effect.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I don't think fitna could be done -

(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive
or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion,

Don't think this is the case from what remember. He simply pointed out the translations of some violent verses. Can't see how that could be construed as insulting to matters held sacred by Muslims.

thereby causing outrage among a substantial
number of the adherents of that religion, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the
matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

Wilders is a reasonable guy, I think he could easily argue he had no intention of outraging anyone.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this
section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would
find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value
in the matter to which the offence relates.

He could also claim political value here.

Just need someone in the public eye to read out my signature!

Flamed Diving

Jesus was [insert slur here*]?

I'm just asking questions!

MOD NOTE
*This forum ain't the place to "test" blasphemous comments - as our charter is more restrictive about insulting religion than any legislation.*

CDfm

What has slagging off another persons religous or spiritual beliefs in a way that causes offence to do with free speech.

Thats the reason why the blasphemy laws are there.

Not acknowledging that an atheists comments can be offensive is part of the drill and maybe it needs a certain law to focus peoples minding.

pH

CDfm wrote: »

What has slagging off another persons religous or spiritual beliefs in a way that causes offence to do with free speech.

Everything.

Thats the reason why the blasphemy laws are there.

I think we understand why some people want them there.

Not acknowledging that an atheists comments can be offensive is part of the drill and maybe it needs a certain law to focus peoples minding.

And we disagree. People can say offensive things about lots of things, the question is does religion deserve a special protection above and beyond the rest?

Or should religion's protection from offence be covered by legislation that protects other groups and ideas from offence?

CDfm

pH wrote: »

And we disagree. People can say offensive things about lots of things, the question is does religion deserve a special protection above and beyond the rest?

Yes we do.Of course, the meeting of Atheist Irelands AGM being a case in point. Big difference betweening saying you dont believe and ridiculing the concept of a belief and attacking or insulting a belief someone holds.

You wouldnt attack travellers or feminists the same way.

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

You wouldnt attack travellers or feminists the same way.

I don't have to send my kids to a traveller or feminist school.

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

I don't have to send my kids to a traveller or feminist school.

Nah - your just a big scaredycat:D

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pH

CDfm wrote: »

Yes we do.Of course, the meeting of Atheist Irelands AGM being a case in point. Big difference betweening saying you dont believe and ridiculing the concept of a belief and attacking or insulting a belief someone holds.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, of course there's a big difference between merely mentioning you don't agree with something and ridiculing it, I still don't understand why your religious beliefs need more or less protection than any other set of beliefs.

You wouldnt attack travellers or feminists the same way.

I possibly wouldn't, but others do all the time. Many writers and commentators have ridiculed feminism in the past, and continue to do so. Parts of the teachings of Christianity and Islam could be viewed as offensive to someone with strong feminist beliefs.

I agree that freedom of speech has limits, direct incitement to hatred and violence should be prohibited for everything.

However, and it coincides with something I think is another major weak point in the law, I agree that you probably have the right to go about your daily life without being offended.

That means that I probably shouldn't have the right to display images, or make utterances offensive to you that you have no reasonable means of avoiding.

However if you knowing the content of Jerry Springer the Opera, go and see it and get offended, well tough, if you download and watch Fitna, again tough, if you visit Atheist Ireland's AGM and end up offended, well doubly tough.

robindch

Dades wrote:

MOD NOTE *This forum ain't the place to "test" blasphemous comments - as our charter is more restrictive about insulting religion than any legislation.*

Our charter and mod policy if very sticky about insulting people, but a poster can insult ideas as much as they like, as long as they avoid four-lettery.

Petrovia

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Wilders is a reasonable guy, I think he could easily argue he had no intention of outraging anyone.

Oh he would argue that. He's not completely stupid. And he's cunning. I'll give you that, too. But reasonable?

He's being prosecuted for defamation. His case* starts on the 20th. I do wonder what will come out of that.

*That's his own blog, so it's obviously somewhat - no, make that VERY - biased. It's hard to find a detailed description of it in English elsewhere though.

CDfm

Petrovia wrote: »

Oh he would argue that. He's not completely stupid. And he's cunning. I'll give you that, too.

and he has Jedwards hair.;)

Petrovia

CDfm wrote: »

and he has Jedwards hair.;)

Now you mention it! It's becoming a trend! Nooooooooooooo

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

as long as they avoid four-lettery.

GODS

lugha

FYI, Primetime are doing a feature on the blasphemy law tonight at 9:30

Bottle_of_Smoke

Petrovia wrote: »

Oh he would argue that. He's not completely stupid. And he's cunning. I'll give you that, too. But reasonable?

He's being prosecuted for defamation. His case* starts on the 20th. I do wonder what will come out of that.

*That's his own blog, so it's obviously somewhat - no, make that VERY - biased. It's hard to find a detailed description of it in English elsewhere though.

He's strongly critical of Islam. That doesn't make him unreasonable. Watch youtube videos of him and you'll see he's one of the most reasonable guys going.

Turtwig

lugha wrote: »

FYI, Primetime are doing a feature on the blasphemy law tonight at 9:30

Just saw it.

Muslims support this law?:eek: Seriously, like wtf?? What that guy said about how they see their faith as above everything else was scary. Real Scary!:eek:
FF representative probably knew before hand he was going to destroyed. Saying he would be in favour of abolishing such a law pretty much summed up where he stood.
I wonder if we'll see Ireland being hypocritical at the UN and oppose the countries that try to use us as a reference?

Flamed Diving

Malty_T wrote: »

Just saw it.

Muslims support this law?:eek: Seriously, like wtf?? What that guy said about how they see their faith as above everything else was scary. Real Scary!:eek:
FF representative probably knew before hand he was going to destroyed. Saying he would be in favour of abolishing such a law pretty much summed up where he stood.
I wonder if we'll see Ireland being hypocritical at the UN and oppose the countries that try to use us as a reference?

Aren't the UN supportive of such measures?

Turtwig

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Aren't the UN supportive of such measures?

No some countries are trying to push such measures in.:(

Flamed Diving

Malty_T wrote: »

No some countries are trying to push such measures in.:(

Like the United States, bizarrely enough.

CDfm

Here we are as a country/nation trying to adopt a regime about not slagging off others beliefs and putting sectarian behaviour behind us and here we have people criticising laws to prevent it.

Isnt it funny how journalists always support the free speech thing. But free speech should be responsible speech and respectful speech.

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

Here we are as a country/nation trying to adopt a regime about not slagging off others beliefs and putting sectarian behaviour behind us and here we have people criticising laws to prevent it.

Isnt it funny how journalists always support the free speech thing. But free speech should be responsible speech and respectful speech.

Of course it should be responsible. But the street running between free speech and legislation protecting people from "negative stereotyping" runs both ways, and people who wish to criticise religions require protection too, so where is it?

Turtwig

CDfm wrote: »

Here we are as a country/nation trying to adopt a regime about not slagging off others beliefs and putting sectarian behaviour behind us and here we have people criticising laws to prevent it.

Here we have someone who pulled a strawman out of his hat.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk

This video is apt.

CDfm

Malty_T wrote: »

Here we have someone who pulled a strawman out of his hat.

Just a bit of common sense really - no strawman I'm afraid.

Its the same with this forums charter and it has to be moded heavily to ensure its observed. Real life aint much different.

eblistic

CDfm wrote: »

Just a bit of common sense really - no strawman I'm afraid.

Its the same with this forums charter and it has to be moded heavily to ensure its observed. Real life aint much different.

Well it ought to be. There isn't free speech on boards.ie, there are moderators (who vary in the degree to which they interfere). In real life free speech and freedom of expression is supposed to be a basic human right.

Explain why religious ideas deserve greater protection than non-religious ones by the way.

Also, would you be able to give a concrete example of a statement on religion that crosses the line between acceptable criticism and that which is grossly abusive, offensive or outrageous?

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Just a bit of common sense really - no strawman I'm afraid.

No, you have produced a dangerously combustible straw-man.

Implementing the blasphemy legislation makes criticizing or insulting an idea a crime. That is not the same as criticizing or insulting a person, or a person's reputation. Though many religious people, yourself included, do have a hard time distinguishing the three.

CDfm wrote: »

Its the same with this forums charter and it has to be moded heavily to ensure its observed.

Whoosh! That's the point shooting past you.

We moderate this forum to ensure, above most other things, that no poster, or their reputation, are unduly insulted. We do however, permit free commentary upon ideas.

People are not ideas. Do try to remember that

robindch

eblistic wrote: »

Explain why religious ideas deserve greater protection than non-religious ones by the way.

Before somebody produces some religiosu bromide, the real reason is because fewer people would believe the religious ideas concerned if a significant portion of society openly ridiculed them. Hence, with religion frequently fulfilling the role of legitimizer to the state's authority, the state often returns the favour by outlawing criticism of the legitimizer.

It's quite a straightforward exchange really.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

No, you have produced a dangerously combustible straw-man.


We moderate this forum to ensure, above most other things, that no poster, or their reputation, are unduly insulted. We do however, permit free commentary upon ideas.

People are not ideas. Do try to remember that

As I dont understand to concept of strawman I will take it as a compliment.

I think you understand the point I made so I will leave it at that.

Turtwig

CDfm wrote: »

As I dont understand to concept of strawman I will take it as a compliment.

Straw-man.