The Blasphemy Law: is it a con job?

Arcus Arrow

Well now there's worldwide attention and heaps of articles, meetings self righteous protests (in nice hotel rooms) and lots of hot air on the air waves. Irelands Blasphemy law has been passed but nobody has had the presence of mind or the intelligence to ask the bigger questions.

Was Irelands Blasphemy Law a brilliant example of mis-direction and did Atheist Irelands leadership along with lots of "expert" commentators and media hacks fall hook line and sinker for it?

Does the core of the campaign and the wimpy blasphemy exhibition in James Joyce Street reveal more than a modicum of hypocritical cowardice on the part of Irelands artists and Atheist Irelands leadership?

Nobody got arrested and nobody ever will. The law will eventually be left to rot or eventually be removed as a pseudo concession and a sop blocking some greater concession in the future. But media careers are being launched on the back of it and meanwhile no mention is made of ghostly victims trapped within the pages of Ferns, Ryan and Murphy or the fact that the perpetrators are passing you by everyday or watching through the school railing. Even worse the some of the cover up merchants might even be the exalted patron of your child's school.

bnt

The Blasphemy Law is Political, and the response from AI was appropriately Political, I thought. So, if it's a Con Job, that would be because Politics is a Con Job. My personal theory is that Dermot Aherne (peas be upon him) is looking for an upgrade to Taoiseach, and needed to do something to show he was a Man of Action. :rolleyes:

allisbleak

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Well now there's worldwide attention and heaps of articles, meetings self righteous protests (in nice hotel rooms) and lots of hot air on the air waves. Irelands Blasphemy law has been passed but nobody has had the presence of mind or the intelligence to ask the bigger questions.

Was Irelands Blasphemy Law a brilliant example of mis-direction and did Atheist Irelands leadership along with lots of "expert" commentators and media hacks fall hook line and sinker for it?

Does the core of the campaign and the wimpy blasphemy exhibition in James Joyce Street reveal more than a modicum of hypocritical cowardice on the part of Irelands artists and Atheist Irelands leadership?

Nobody got arrested and nobody ever will. The law will eventually be left to rot or eventually be removed as a pseudo concession and a sop blocking some greater concession in the future. But media careers are being launched on the back of it and meanwhile no mention is made of ghostly victims trapped within the pages of Ferns, Ryan and Murphy or the fact that the perpetrators are passing you by everyday or watching through the school railing. Even worse the some of the cover up merchants might even be the exalted patron of your child's school.

How would you ever prove blasphemy?

bnt

It's only been in effect for about 6 weeks - what did you think was going to happen in that time? An immediate spate of arrests, raids on art galleries, or the like? The Garda already have enough to do, but that doesn't tell us anything about the future.

As for "how do you prove blasphemy": well, before this new law, it wasn't even properly defined, and couldn't be prosecuted, according to the Irish Supreme Court. Aherne pushed this new law to remedy that "problem", so it contains a definition of blasphemy. As you probably guessed it's a very woolly definition, so: how do you prove blasphemy? The answer, according to the law is: you don't have to, you just have to be offended. The onus is pushed back on the artist / writer / speaker to show that what he or she said has "artistic merit" and is thus not blasphemy.

Regardless of your particular beliefs: does that sound right to you? Do you have a right to not be offended, when a person can be offended by just about anything?

The OP is just muck-raking. There's no confusion about who's doing what. Of course this new law is an opportunity for Atheist Ireland to engage a wider audience, but so what? They didn't start all this blasphemy nonsense, they're merely reacting to it. If Dermot Aherne is now facing a backlash against his law, he has only himself to blame for pushing it through.

Arcus Arrow

bnt wrote: »

The Blasphemy Law is Political, and the response from AI was appropriately Political, I thought. So, if it's a Con Job, that would be because Politics is a Con Job. My personal theory is that Dermot Aherne (peas be upon him) is looking for an upgrade to Taoiseach, and needed to do something to show he was a Man of Action. :rolleyes:

Everything is political. Covering up child rape and torture by engineering an inquiry is political.

How would passing a law that there was no demand for show he was an man of action? When all the dust settles what actual effect tactically did the whole hullaballoo leading up to it achieve? I mean that from the point of view of Dermot Ahearn and whoever else was behind it.

The response from Atheist Ireland was more about getting the chairman on the radio than anything else as far as I can see.

If the ideas is to grossly insult religious believers I don't see anyone outside a mosque insulting Mohammed or parading outside Mass on Sunday morning depicting Jesus as the founder of a child abuse ring.

It can't be that hard to insult religious believers.

Daftendirekt

bnt wrote: »

It's only been in effect for about 6 weeks - what did you think was going to happen in that time? An immediate spate of arrests, raids on art galleries, or the like? The Garda already have enough to do, but that doesn't tell us anything about the future.

As for "how do you prove blasphemy": well, before this new law, it wasn't even properly defined, and couldn't be prosecuted, according to the Irish Supreme Court. Aherne pushed this new law to remedy that "problem", so it contains a definition of blasphemy. As you probably guessed it's a very woolly definition, so: how do you prove blasphemy? The answer, according to the law is: you don't have to, you just have to be offended. The onus is pushed back on the artist / writer / speaker to show that what he or she said has "artistic merit" and is thus not blasphemy.

Not offended; outraged. And a significant number (whatever that is) of people have to be outraged. And it has to be demonstrated that you intended to cause said outrage.

If you somehow manage to tick those boxes, you can then mount a defense on the grounds of your blasphemous statement having artistic, literary, political, scientific or academic merit.

I'm not defending the law here, but there seems to be a lot of scaremongering and misunderstanding about what's actually in it. In reality, I can't see anyone being charged under it, since it seems to be written in such a way as to make it incredibly difficult or impossible to get a conviction from it.

I hope I'm not wrong anyway.

allisbleak

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Not offended; outraged. And a significant number (whatever that is) of people have to be outraged. And it has to be demonstrated that you intended to cause said outrage.

If you somehow manage to tick those boxes, you can then mount a defense on the grounds of your blasphemous statement having artistic, literary, political, scientific or academic merit.

I'm not defending the law here, but there seems to be a lot of scaremongering and misunderstanding about what's actually in it. In reality, I can't see anyone being charged under it, since it seems to be written in such a way as to make it incredibly difficult or impossible to get a conviction from it.

I hope I'm not wrong anyway.

It would be impossible to convict someone of offending somebodies ficticious beliefs. The fact that the fcukin church are still in our primary schools shows what a useless gov we have.

THE Catholic Church, the best at what it does in so many areas.

No 1. (largest paedophile network in the world)
No 1. (largest and most valuable art collection in the world)
No 1. (Vatican, largest private state in the world)
No 1. (stealing children and selling them to the highest bidder)
No 1. (getting away with murder)

Antbert

It got everyone talking about Atheists Ireland, and makes people rant about the Catholic Church. Maybe it was all a conspiracy started by them.

allisbleak

Antbert wrote: »

It got everyone talking about Atheists Ireland, and makes people rant about the Catholic Church. Maybe it was all a conspiracy started by them.

This is a good thing. That church is imploding slowly. hopefully they will be gone very soon.

iUseVi

allisbleak wrote: »

This is a good thing. That church is imploding slowly. hopefully they will be gone very soon.

It seems unlikely. Religion is here to stay for a while considering that it is probably part of human nature.

*(off topic)*

My pet theory is that religious inclinations are stronger in some people than in others. I can't understand religion at all, but I know some really smart people that truly believe so I think genetic and brain wiring plays a part.

*(off topic)*

bnt

I don't expect Churches (Mosques, Synagogues, Temples, Ashrams) to go away any time soon, but that's not the real issue here. The issue is the intrusion of religion in to government, and this Blasphemy law is an example of a law that simply has no reason to exist. There are laws that keep smoking out of the workplace, so that non-smokers do not have to inhale someone else's smoke. The Blasphemy law is a law that brings religion in to public places, so that everyone gets exposed to it, whether they like it or not.

If I get taken to court to defend myself against Blasphemy charges, do you understand how "innocent" or "guilty" will have very little to do with the effect on me? I'll be forced to defend my views in the media, bankrupted financially, and at risk of physical assault by the "righteous". When "non-crimes" like this go to court, only the lawyers come out ahead. :mad:

Arcus Arrow

bnt wrote: »

It's only been in effect for about 6 weeks - what did you think was going to happen in that time? An immediate spate of arrests, raids on art galleries, or the like? The Garda already have enough to do, but that doesn't tell us anything about the future.

Well like I said it's not like they are been given an opportunity. No one is outside a Mosque slagging Mohammed (Muslims being rather over sensitive about the oul superstition). For a bunch of supposedly rational people (atheists) who are wont' to lecture believers on not being able to see the big picture I don't see anybody looking for the bigger picture.
You have one after another going on about how unenforceable this law is and how it does not make sense. Then at the same time making the dangerously silly assumption that people who have ruled this country for most of it's history are just stupid clowns. Being underestimated must be a very comforting gift in their eyes.

bnt wrote: »

As for "how do you prove blasphemy": well, before this new law, it wasn't even properly defined, and couldn't be prosecuted, according to the Irish Supreme Court. Aherne pushed this new law to remedy that "problem", so it contains a definition of blasphemy. As you probably guessed it's a very woolly definition, so: how do you prove blasphemy? The answer, according to the law is: you don't have to, you just have to be offended. The onus is pushed back on the artist / writer / speaker to show that what he or she said has "artistic merit" and is thus not blasphemy.

So why pass this law at this particular time?

bnt wrote: »

The OP is just muck-raking. There's no confusion about who's doing what. Of course this new law is an opportunity for Atheist Ireland to engage a wider audience, but so what? They didn't start all this blasphemy nonsense, they're merely reacting to it. If Dermot Aherne is now facing a backlash against his law, he has only himself to blame for pushing it through.

It’s an opportunity for one very minor activist type to get himself a platform on top of Atheist Ireland. Atheist Ireland is only one spokesman bar almost everyone else in the organisation.

Those who think such things don't happen are those most likely not to see them happening. The best audience for a con man are people who think there are no con men. There is no logical reason to assume atheism like religion does not have its bandwagon jumpers and opportunist who use others as a platform to air their own version of atheism. To think otherwise is just naive.

FXR

bnt

If you have a specific gripe with Atheist Ireland or any of its members, why not take it up with them? I fail to see what they did to encourage Aherne or otherwise encourage this law. So, now you see a conspiracy in anything they say in response: sounds like you'd prefer atheists to sit down and shut up. If Aherne & co want to make them go away, the solution is to have a referendum, offering the Irish people a chance to take all religious references out of the Constitution. It's an embarrassment to Ireland, one more reason for other countries to make Irish jokes. :rolleyes:

Arcus Arrow

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Well like I said it's not like they are been given an opportunity. No one is outside a Mosque slagging Mohammed (Muslims being rather over sensitive about the oul superstition). For a bunch of supposedly rational people (atheists) who are wont' to lecture believers on not being able to see the big picture I don't see anybody looking for the bigger picture.
You have one after another going on about how unenforceable this law is and how it does not make sense. Then at the same time making the dangerously silly assumption that people who have ruled this country for most of it's history are just stupid clowns. Being underestimated must be a very comforting gift in their eyes.

So why pass this law at this particular time?


It’s an opportunity for one very minor activist type to get himself a platform on top of Atheist Ireland. Atheist Ireland is only one spokesman bar almost everyone else in the organisation.

Those who think such things don't happen are those most likely not to see them happening. The best audience for a con man are people who think there are no con men. There is no logical reason to assume atheism like religion does not have its bandwagon jumpers and opportunist who use others as a platform to air their own version of atheism. To think otherwise is just naive.

FXR

So what do you think Atheist Ireland should have done?
Do nothing, and completely miss the propose of having an atheist organisation?
Run about screaming the most offensive things we can think of outside of churches, when they are trying to be the rational ones in the issue?
Send someone other than the chairperson and spokesman out on the media because of silly conspiracy theory you have?

Sounds to me you've some butthurt about AI and Michael Nugent.

Glenster

Just because a law is political doesnt mean that it isn't real. If it passes it still becomes law.

So, if you disagree with it, oppose it.

The trick is to not ignore all the other issues going on at the same time.

I have no truck with people saying that the "government distracted us from the issue".

Dont allow yourself to be manipulated.

Zombrex

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

meanwhile no mention is made of ghostly victims trapped within the pages of Ferns, Ryan and Murphy or the fact that the perpetrators are passing you by everyday or watching through the school railing

Define "no mention"?

The child abuse reports got more coverage in a day than the blasphemy law got in it's entire existence.

Arcus Arrow

bnt wrote: »

If you have a specific gripe with Atheist Ireland or any of its members, why not take it up with them? I fail to see what they did to encourage Aherne or otherwise encourage this law. So, now you see a conspiracy in anything they say in response: sounds like you'd prefer atheists to sit down and shut up. If Aherne & co want to make them go away, the solution is to have a referendum, offering the Irish people a chance to take all religious references out of the Constitution. It's an embarrassment to Ireland, one more reason for other countries to make Irish jokes. :rolleyes:

You've got the wrong end of the stick. It's possibly more a case of what Ahearne and his handlers thought they saw coming. They could have had a referendum so why did'nt they. They claimed it would only have been confusing if they added it to Lisbon (if memory serves me correctly).

Nobody seems to have tried to figure out what might Mr. Ahearn's motivation been besides those he states in public. If the idea was to distract what they perceived as problems coming from the least religious people in the country it worked. Mr. Ahearn belongs to the same gang who oversaw on behalf of their religion, the cover up of the child rape and torture of children.

Arcus Arrow

King Mob wrote: »

So what do you think Atheist Ireland should have done?
Do nothing, and completely miss the propose of having an atheist organisation?
Run about screaming the most offensive things we can think of outside of churches, when they are trying to be the rational ones in the issue?
Send someone other than the chairperson and spokesman out on the media because of silly conspiracy theory you have?

Sounds to me you've some butthurt about AI and Michael Nugent.

Atheist Ireland is Michael Nugent so I think it's fair he carries the blame rather than blame people collectively. If you're so naive and gullible at this stage as to cling faithfully to the idea that our cunning politicians don't conspire you need to have your mammy get more newspapers delivered to your pram.

Ask why Justice Mary Laffoy resigned. Ask why Ryan (educated by the Christian brothers) was made a high court judge even though the legislation did not require. Ask why Bertie and Woods signed an Indemnity Deal giving the bill for child rape to the taxpayers. Ask why the religious orders were allowed to move valuable lands into trusts. Ask why Mary McAleese had the same PR man advise her while advising CORI. Ask why the Christian Brothers have moved their assets into a vehicle called the Edmund Rice International and are right at minute applying for accreditation from the UN as a child rights advocacy group.

If you think politics and organised religionism (or anything else) is exactly as it is based on PR statements and what you see on the media surface you're an eejit.

Arcus Arrow

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Atheist Ireland is Michael Nugent so I think it's fair he carries the blame rather than blame people collectively. If you're so naive and gullible at this stage as to cling faithfully to the idea that our cunning politicians don't conspire you need to have your mammy get more newspapers delivered to your pram.

Ask why Justice Mary Laffoy resigned. Ask why Ryan (educated by the Christian brothers) was made a high court judge even though the legislation did not require. Ask why Bertie and Woods signed an Indemnity Deal giving the bill for child rape to the taxpayers. Ask why the religious orders were allowed to move valuable lands into trusts. Ask why Mary McAleese had the same PR man advise her while advising CORI. Ask why the Christian Brothers have moved their assets into a vehicle called the Edmund Rice International and are right at minute applying for accreditation from the UN as a child rights advocacy group.

If you think politics and organised religionism (or anything else) is exactly as it is based on PR statements and what you see on the media surface you're an eejit.

So then you're dodging the question so you can have a nice conspiracy theory rant then?

What do you, in your obviously enlightened position, think Michael Nugent should have done?

Or are you claiming that he's in on it too?

Arcus Arrow

Glenster wrote: »

Just because a law is political doesnt mean that it isn't real. If it passes it still becomes law.

So, if you disagree with it, oppose it.

The trick is to not ignore all the other issues going on at the same time.

I have no truck with people saying that the "government distracted us from the issue".

Dont allow yourself to be manipulated.

I think it's possible that is what happened. I also think from Atheist Ireland to the Glenroe Ladies Knitting club to anyone walking the street in Ireland everyone should be demanding justice for the victims of such a tsunami of child abuse and doing all possible to tear down the Church and it's network of organisations. Instead you have the Blasphemy Law campaign providing a platform for opportunists and a safe little gallery exhibition for a few artists. I dont think they were in any danger of being raided.

Dades

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

you need to have your mammy get more newspapers delivered to your pram.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

If you think politics and organised religionism (or anything else) is exactly as it is based on PR statements and what you see on the media surface you're an eejit.

Leave the personal remarks out of your replies. It should be possible to get your point across without resorting to attacking the poster.

Arcus Arrow

Dades wrote: »

Leave the personal remarks out of your replies. It should be possible to get your point across without resorting to attacking the poster.

Then perhaps you should read what I was responding to before you pontificate. I don't see moderator next to you name.

Arcus Arrow

Wicknight wrote: »

Define "no mention"?

The child abuse reports got more coverage in a day than the blasphemy law got in it's entire existence.

I meant from AI but I don't think that's clear from the way I put it.

robindch

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Then perhaps you should read what I was responding to before you pontificate. I don't see moderator next to you name.

Check again:



One yellow card for being rude to another forum poster.

Arcus Arrow

King Mob wrote: »

So then you're dodging the question so you can have a nice conspiracy theory rant then?

King Mob wrote: »

What do you, in your obviously enlightened position, think Michael Nugent should have done?

Stayed on his self indulgent blog instead of using AI as his personal media springboard.

King Mob wrote: »

Or are you claiming that he's in on it too?

The con man never informs the conned.

So answer the question: if no one is going to be fined under the blasphemy law why bring it into being?

If you were serious about testing the law what would you do? Put out statements from dead people, non residents, fictitious people and the minister who wrote the law?

Of the 25 supposedly blasphemous statements how many are made by Nugent? (Answer; none)

Ain't that more than a bit cowardly to be puffing your self up as the great crusader against the blasphemy law but forget to make a blasphemous statement yourself?

What other possible purpose could the blasphemy law have?

Why did it coincide with the scandals breaking about the CCL?

Why are a lot of people not asking questions outside the bubble?

Arcus Arrow

robindch wrote: »

Check again:

Sorry I did'nt see that.

Dades

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Of the 25 supposedly blasphemous statements how many are made by Nugent? (Answer; none)

Actually I agree with that. I made the point before that nothing on that list stood anything other than a very fleeting chance of getting someone convicted.

That's as far as we agree here, though.

Arcus Arrow

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Stayed on his self indulgent blog instead of using AI as his personal media springboard.

So then who should AI have put out in the media if not the chairperson/spokesman?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The con man never informs the conned.

Aha, so baseless accusations it is!
In that case you have been paid by... let's say... Opus dei (they are a regular feature in conspiracy theories) to discredit AI and Mick Nugent, because....... let's say..... they were too close to the truth.

The con man never informs the conned.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

So answer the question: if no one is going to be fined under the blasphemy law why bring it into being?

Because the blasphemy bit was already in the constitution and to remove it would require a referendum.
Such a referendum is not high on the governments priority list.
So rather than remove that part illegally they chose to define what counts as blasphemy.
Why they didn't set the fine to something trivial like a euro or something, in my opinion comes down to Dermot Ahren being a short sighted twat.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

If you were serious about testing the law what would you do? Put out statements from dead people, non residents, fictitious people and the minister who wrote the law?

Because they were examples of quotes which could be banned under the law?
That it shows how ridiculous the law is?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Of the 25 supposedly blasphemous statements how many are made by Nugent? (Answer; none)

Ain't that more than a bit cowardly to be puffing your self up as the great crusader against the blasphemy law but forget to make a blasphemous statement yourself?

So publicly denying God and the Holy Spirit don't count then?
Even though they are blasphemy?

And again I have to ask, what do you think they should have done?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

What other possible purpose could the blasphemy law have?

The short sighted pet project of a twatty politician?
Why is your paranoid theory any better?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Why did it coincide with the scandals breaking about the CCL?

It didn't.
It actually coincided more with the NAMA stuff, so the blasphemy law was sure to be a non issue to the public by comparison.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Why are a lot of people not asking questions outside the bubble?

Because we're not paranoid?

Arcus Arrow

King Mob wrote: »

So then who should AI have put out in the media if not the chairperson/spokesman?

Its members, all of whom pay the membership fee and many of whom are more than intelligent and articulate enough. There are 35 threads almost all posted by Nugent announcing Nugent on Radio/TV/debating. There are no threads looking for people to be put forward. An organisation dominated by one supreme leader is a religion.

When a successful or significant new organisation becomes associated with just one person if you neutralise that person you neutralise the organisation. It’s happened in history time and time again. Jesus might be an exception but he's supposed to have risen again in that fairy tale.

King Mob wrote: »

Aha, so baseless accusations it is!
In that case you have been paid by... let's say... Opus dei (they are a regular feature in conspiracy theories) to discredit AI and Mick Nugent, because....... let's say..... they were too close to the truth. The con man never informs the conned.

That's just confused.

King Mob wrote: »

Because the blasphemy bit was already in the constitution and to remove it would require a referendum.

The old law was on the books since 1961 and they wait till 2009 to do something about it? Do you think maybe it was just a quiet year with not much happeing so Dermo was delving into the statute books looking for something to do?

King Mob wrote: »

Such a referendum is not high on the governments priority list.
So rather than remove that part illegally they chose to define what counts as blasphemy.
Why they didn't set the fine to something trivial like a euro or something, in my opinion comes down to Dermot Ahearn being a short sighted twat.

How are the 25 statements supposed to test the law when they are quotes from dead, fictitious or non resident people? The fine is not a euro it's €25000. If it was going to be used and a successful prosecution was brought that’s more than a big enough fine to finish off a small organisation but that is not so far looking like the intention.

King Mob wrote: »

So publicly denying God and the Holy Spirit don't count then?
Even though they are blasphemy?

Has anyone been fined for that one yet?

King Mob wrote: »

And again I have to ask, what do you think they should have done?

Ask questions before chasing off after a headless chicken who wants to get on the media airwaves.

King Mob wrote: »

The short sighted pet project of a twatty politician?

King Mob wrote: »

Why is your paranoid theory any better?

So Dermot Ahearn is just some dingbat in an office making up legislation off the top of his head while being a senior member of a party that has managed to stay in power despite incompetence and scandal. That's just foolish.

King Mob wrote: »

It didn't.

King Mob wrote: »

It actually coincided more with the NAMA stuff, so the blasphemy law was sure to be a non issue to the public by comparison.

The God Squad, the Ferns Report, the Indemnity Deal, Laffoy, The Redress scheme, Ryan, The Murphy report? The bishops were taking out insurance in preparation for what they knew was on the way. The economic crash was not seen coming by most of the so called experts. The revelations about the Catholic Church's rape and torture of children was.

The blasphemy law is a non issue with the public. Exactly.

Who was it likely to be an issue with? The very people who went off on a wild goose chase banging on about a law that no one will get arrested for?
To top that getting all self righteous but being careful enough not to do anything that might actually get anyone arrested for blasphemy. Did they think the minister was going to send an extradition order looking for Mohammed, Jesus or Herr Ratzinger?

King Mob wrote: »

Because we're not paranoid?

"We" ?

Arcus Arrow

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Its members, all of whom pay the membership fee and many of whom are more than intelligent and articulate enough. There are 35 threads almost all posted by Nugent announcing Nugent on Radio/TV/debating. There are no threads looking for people to be put forward.

Yea what a bastard.
Imagine a spokesperson of an organisation speaking for the organisation.

Why do I get the feeling we'd be hearing bitching about Mick Nugent if he did the opposite of what he did. "Why isn't he doing his job?" Etc.

I also seem to remember discussing the Blasphemy law at some of the pub meetings and that the floor was open to input and suggestions.
Oh and this:
http://www.atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2315

But I suppose it's easier to bitch and moan about imagined conspiracies than actually contribute.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

An organisation dominated by one supreme leader is a religion.

One, no it's not, there's no dogma, ethics, rituals, holy days, tithing, clergy worship of a deity or saints and no belief in a life after death.

But sweeping hyperbolic statements do sound more convincing than fact.

Two, I fail to see how you can interpret Mick Nugent doing his job as him being a supreme leader.
Well, general butthurt would be a reason to make silly statements like that.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

When a successful or significant new organisation becomes associated with just one person if you neutralise that person you neutralise the organisation. It’s happened in history time and time again. Jesus might be an exception but he's supposed to have risen again in that fairy tale.

The hell you talking about?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

That's just confused.

No it's a baseless accusation.

You should be able to recognise them.
What with you slinging them about so much.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The old law was on the books since 1961 and they wait till 2009 to do something about it? Do you think maybe it was just a quiet year with not much happeing so Dermo was delving into the statute books looking for something to do?

Because they were reforming libel laws and they were constitutionally obliged to define blasphemy as a crime.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

How are the 25 statements supposed to test the law when they are quotes from dead, fictitious or non resident people?

Because it's an example of the type of things that could be banned or avoided by publishers etc. fearing prosecution under the law.

What statement should have AI released?

Some big obsence rant about the virgin Mary committing horrible sex acts?
That would certain make them seem rational alright.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The fine is not a euro it's €25000.

Yes I know that's the point I made.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

If it was going to be used and a successful prosecution was brought that’s more than a big enough fine to finish off a small organisation but that is not so far looking like the intention.

Because just the threat of prosecution might stop editors from publishing articles because it might be deemed "blasphemous libel"?
Because groups could use it to threaten people with legal action?
Because fundamentalism groups could use the example of Ireland to gain support for more oppressive religious laws?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Has anyone been fined for that one yet?

Well it's blasphemous, and it's what atheists believe pretty much by definition.

Perhaps you can suggest a statement that would lead to a fine, yet is an accurate representation of atheists and still makes us seem rational?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Ask questions before chasing off after a headless chicken who wants to get on the media airwaves.

And that does answer the question at all.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

So Dermot Ahearn is just some dingbat in an office making up legislation off the top of his head while being a senior member of a party that has managed to stay in power despite incompetence and scandal. That's just foolish.

That's a very nice strawman you've built there.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The God Squad, the Ferns Report, the Indemnity Deal, Laffoy, The Redress scheme, Ryan, The Murphy report? The bishops were taking out insurance in preparation for what they knew was on the way. The economic crash was not seen coming by most of the so called experts. The revelations about the Catholic Church's rape and torture of children was.

So if the Church were in cahoots with the government, why were there reports at all?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The blasphemy law is a non issue with the public. Exactly.

Who was it likely to be an issue with? The very people who went off on a wild goose chase banging on about a law that no one will get arrested for?

To top that getting all self righteous but being careful enough not to do anything that might actually get anyone arrested for blasphemy. Did they think the minister was going to send an extradition order looking for Mohammed, Jesus or Herr Ratzinger?

It's an example of religious belief influencing government policy, the very damn thing most atheist groups are set up to oppose.
AI needed to do something about this bill.
The only thing the could do was draw public attention to it.
They did this by publishing the list of quotes.
These quotes where an honest representation of atheist's positions as well as highlighted the absurdity of the bill.

You've completely misinterpreted what they did and why the did it because you've got this silly dislike of Mick Nugent.

So what should AI have done?
Ignored the main propose for which they exist and harp on about something everyone else was harping on about, which they could exert no influence on at all and would only draw bad press onto them?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

"We" ?

The people who don't buy into ridiculous conspiracies and personal gripes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dades

Let's not forget that there is also an organisation dedicated to the rights of those who have encountered abuse - One in Four - who have bombarded the government and the church with letters and protests. They were never going to be 'deflected' by other news, and have consistently been in the media since.

It makes the idea that a Blasphemy Law was enacted to deflect attention away from those reports very unconvincing.

If anything it shows the lack of foresight of Ahearne in enacting something that the relatively newly-formed Atheist Ireland would have a field day with. He basically ended up taking flak on all sides.

Arcus Arrow

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Then why spend time and money bringing out a law that the public were hardly demanding and why wait until 2009 to fix a little know problem that was gathering dust since 1961?

The Blasphemy law and the Reports in common with each other are all focused on protecting a religion.

Arcus Arrow

Dades wrote: »

Let's not forget that there is also an organisation dedicated to the rights of those who have encountered abuse - One in Four - who have bombarded the government and the church with letters and protests. They were never going to be 'deflected' by other news, and have consistently been in the media since.

It makes the idea that a Blasphemy Law was enacted to deflect attention away from those reports very unconvincing.

There are actually between 10 and 14 groups of different sizes supposedly representing or claiming to represent the victims. I didn't say they were the possible target at any time.

Dades wrote: »

If anything it shows the lack of foresight of Ahearne in enacting something that the relatively newly-formed Atheist Ireland would have a field day with. He basically ended up taking flak on all sides.

I'd like to think he was a laughing stock in his own political circle but that's hardly the case. I doubt if internationally among other political classes its the case either. The new president of the EU is said to be a devout Catholic. All the other countries know the value of kow towing to the Vatican by sending ambassadors and granting its clerics diplomatic immunity. On that score I doubt if he gives a flying duck what a tiny organisation with €4000 in the bank thinks of anything. If the idea was to divert a possible source of threat he's sleeping well at this stage.

spacetweek

Apologies for the bump. Back in March Dermot Ahern stated that there may be an "autumn" referendum on repealing the blasphemy law. Since it is now September, has anyone heard anything more about this? I've tried googling but the issue has been silent ever since. I've also contacted the Department for Justice and am awaiting a reply.

Since absolutely no one is in favour of the law, its repeal would presumably be a shoo-in.

drkpower

If it happpens it will be with the chldrens right refs and by-elections - looks like early this year at this stage.

mrodub

hey guys i made a video on the law and gave my thouhts if you want to see it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT66IfxOAfY

Galvasean

mrodub wrote: »

hey guys i made a video on the law and gave my thouhts if you want to see it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT66IfxOAfY

Your voice sounds very familiar.

mrodub

Galvasean wrote: »

Your voice sounds very familiar.

Maybe you seen one of my other vids on YouTube i always though it was pretty monotone and nondescript and hardly worth remembering lol. Thanks for watching it hope you enjoyed it

bnt

Dermot Aherne has now left the government, and when the next lot of politicians waltzes in, I suspect they'll have bigger things on their minds than a silly law. The thing is, I don't think it would be as simple as repealing it, since the Constitutional question is still unresolved, so if there's going to be a Referendum about anything, this should be one of the questions.

Dades

bnt wrote: »

Dermot Aherne has now left the government, and when the next lot of politicians waltzes in, I suspect they'll have bigger things on their minds than a silly law. The thing is, I don't think it would be as simple as repealing it, since the Constitutional question is still unresolved, so if there's going to be a Referendum about anything, this should be one of the questions.

I'm not sure it'd be a good idea to have a referendum about decriminalising abortion and blasphemy at the same time.

The crazies would be crawling out from under every rock.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

I'm not sure it'd be a good idea to have a referendum about decriminalising abortion and blasphemy at the same time.

The crazies would be crawling out from under every rock.

Indeed. There is already a stereotype that all atheists are in favour of abortions for all. Plus, we wouldn't want people thinking that abortion and blasphemy are the same issue.

mrodub

mrodub wrote: »

hey guys i made a video on the law and gave my thouhts if you want to see it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT66IfxOAfY

Some of your statements on laws are completely incorrect. You are unnecessarily emotive and the idea that there is freedom of speech in this country is laughable.

You come to some fallacious conclusions and while I totally agree that the law is ridiculous the Government had 2 choices: 1. Have a referendum to revoke the Blasphemy provision of the Constitution or; 2. Re-write the law to comply with the Constitution. They were never going to have a religious referendum if they could avoid it so they did the other legally necessary course of action. It was the Government absolutely complying with constitutional procedure. I'm not saying it was a good idea, I'm just saying that it was what had to be done considering we were never going to have a referendum.

Also, I had to laugh at you saying that putting the provision in was a waste of money. That law is NEVER going to yield a conviction. Not ever. Creating a totally redundant law that has no effect on anyone is a lot cheaper than having a national plebiscite to determine if we should remove a part of the Constitution that really has never had a purpose at all. I am an atheist myself and I have to say that I am not so fragile in my own view of the world that I am threatened by this.

Your argument that our law gives Islamic nations a weapon to restrict free speech and that we should change our law for that reason is nonsense. I can use atheism to justify murder if I use enough false assumptions and baseless arguments. That is what the Islamic countries are, according to you, actually doing. Just because they point to us doesn't mean we should change as a result. That's a totally ridiculous argument. There are plenty of reasons why we should scrap that law. The example you give is not among them.

None of the foregoing should suggest that I agree with the law whatsoever. It's a horrid section in an otherwise quite well drafted Act. I just think your reasoning is absolutely awful and I detest the use of emotive imagery and arguments. Religions have used those tricks for centuries.

Michael Nugent

Removing the blasphemy law remains an important issue, so I would like to briefly address some of of Kayroo's points on mrodub's video.

Deleted User wrote: »

While I totally agree that the law is ridiculous the Government had 2 choices: 1. Have a referendum to revoke the Blasphemy provision of the Constitution or; 2. Re-write the law to comply with the Constitution. They were never going to have a religious referendum if they could avoid it so they did the other legally necessary course of action. It was the Government absolutely complying with constitutional procedure. I'm not saying it was a good idea, I'm just saying that it was what had to be done considering we were never going to have a referendum.

Firstly, those were not the only two options that the government had. Another option, that was put forward at committee stage, was to pass the Defamation Bill without including a penalty for blasphemy (there is no constitutional requirement for the blasphemy issue to be addressed within a specific defamation act), and announce an intention to hold a referendum to address the constitutional issue.

Secondly, even if those were the only only two options that the government had, I assume from your view that the law is ridiculous that you believe that the right option would be to hold a referendum. You then simply let the Government off the hook on that option. You are in effect arguing that the Government were never going to do the right thing, so they had to do the wrong thing. That brings not only this law, but the process of lawmaking generally, into disrepute.

Deleted User wrote: »

That law is NEVER going to yield a conviction. Not ever. Creating a totally redundant law that has no effect on anyone is a lot cheaper than having a national plebiscite to determine if we should remove a part of the Constitution that really has never had a purpose at all.

We don't know whether or not the law will yield a conviction. We certainly don't know whether or not it will be used to charge somebody. On the face of it, it seems unlikely, but it seemed unlikely when the "pro-life" amendment was passed that the State would seek an injunction to prevent a raped child from traveling to England for an abortion. Once you pass this type of law, you don't know how somebody somewhere will interpret their "duty" to enforce it.

It was not designed as a law with no purpose. The original version had a €100,000 fine, and no safeguards. The final version came about in a haphazard manner, with a myth later promulgated that the law was never intended to be used. Indeed, if it was true that it was never intended to be used, it would not satisfy the supposed constitutional requirement to enact it.

Also, it is not correct to say that the law "has no effect on anyone". I have already been told before several live broadcast interviews that the producers want me to avoid making statements that could be interpreted as blasphemous under this Act (with print and pre-recorded interviews the media has editing options). This Act causes the media to self-censor itself for fear of expensive legal cases, however unlikely you or I or they may feel it to be that the cases may materialise.

Deleted User wrote: »

Your argument that our law gives Islamic nations a weapon to restrict free speech and that we should change our law for that reason is nonsense. I can use atheism to justify murder if I use enough false assumptions and baseless arguments. That is what the Islamic countries are, according to you, actually doing. Just because they point to us doesn't mean we should change as a result. That's a totally ridiculous argument. There are plenty of reasons why we should scrap that law. The example you give is not among them.

If it was a good law that was being misinterpreted by others, I would agree. But it is not. It is a bad law that is being accurately represented by others who like that type of law. This is not being wise after the event. We specifically warned the legislators before the law was passed that this would be a consequence.

We do not exist in a vacuum. We are part of the international community, with legal, political and moral obligations to people in other countries. We have signed international human rights conventions that oblige us to respect freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. The Irish State has opposed defamation laws being proposed at the UN by Islamic States, as recently as months before Dermot Ahern introduced the blasphemy section into the Defamation Bill.

Deleted User wrote: »

None of the foregoing should suggest that I agree with the law whatsoever. It's a horrid section in an otherwise quite well drafted Act.

We agree on this. Hopefully the ongoing campaign to have it repealed will succeed. Whether or not you agree with the style of mrodub's video, it and initiatives like it will help to maintain the momentum of the campaign.

Michael Nugent

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Removing the blasphemy law remains an important issue

Why?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Firstly, those were not the only two options that the government had. Another option, that was put forward at committee stage, was to pass the Defamation Bill without including a penalty for blasphemy (there is no constitutional requirement for the blasphemy issue to be addressed within a specific defamation act), and announce an intention to hold a referendum to address the constitutional issue.

The Government is under a positive obligation to uphold and give force to the Constitution. Even though they have ignored this obligation in the past I'd rather they didn't make a habit out of it.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Secondly, even if those were the only only two options that the government had, I assume from your view that the law is ridiculous that you believe that the right option would be to hold a referendum. You then simply let the Government off the hook on that option. You are in effect arguing that the Government were never going to do the right thing, so they had to do the wrong thing. That brings not only this law, but the process of lawmaking generally, into disrepute.

No, that is not what I am arguing. I am drawing a distinction between legal and political realities. No Government wants to appear anti-religion (which is how they will be painted) as the overwhelming majority of people who are still practicing Christians in particular tend to also be the most active voting group in the country, the elderly.

No Government will commit political suicide like that. There is zero upside for them. To quote a former politico, it's an Irish solution to an Irish problem. This way we have our silly little law and we don't have to worry about a conviction. I'm not letting the Government off the hook, I am simply recognising the reality of the situation.

Law making, to mis-quote Bismark, is like making sausages. You should never let people see how do either of them.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

We don't know whether or not the law will yield a conviction. We certainly don't know whether or not it will be used to charge somebody. On the face of it, it seems unlikely, but it seemed unlikely when the "pro-life" amendment was passed that the State would seek an injunction to prevent a raped child from traveling to England for an abortion. Once you pass this type of law, you don't know how somebody somewhere will interpret their "duty" to enforce it.

OK, first off the proofs are almost perfectly unattainable. Almost impossible to prove in fact. However that is not the real point.

Atheists should be LINING UP to be charged under this law. The case would have massive media attention and the accused would have the defence outlined in Sub-Section 4 of the provision that:

4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—

(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or

(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—

(i) of its followers, or

(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

So, in essence, you can adduce evidence that the "religion" you have blasphemed has used oppressive psychological manipulation to gain new followers or upon its own followers. Say, for example, inducing consent for the indoctrination of minor's from their parents by threatening the child with eternity in hell should they not be baptised.

[I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR PEOPLE TO BREAK THIS LAW]

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It was not designed as a law with no purpose. The original version had a €100,000 fine, and no safeguards. The final version came about in a haphazard manner, with a myth later promulgated that the law was never intended to be used. Indeed, if it was true that it was never intended to be used, it would not satisfy the supposed constitutional requirement to enact it.

That's a political answer. In reality it's not that it can't be used but rather that any attempt to use it would only yield a conviction if the person was manifestly being offensive for the sole purpose of offending a huge number of people and doing so without any artistic, political, literary or other justification.

Surely we can all agree that someone who comes under that description has gone out of their way to be offensive.

I mean, genuinely, trying to break this law to show how ridiculous it is might even constitute a defence to this law as it is a political purpose, arguably. How can someone get convicted under it??

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Also, it is not correct to say that the law "has no effect on anyone". I have already been told before several live broadcast interviews that the producers want me to avoid making statements that could be interpreted as blasphemous under this Act (with print and pre-recorded interviews the media has editing options). This Act causes the media to self-censor itself for fear of expensive legal cases, however unlikely you or I or they may feel it to be that the cases may materialise.

They're 100x more concerned about defamation than they are blasphemy. I cannot comment on the type of areas you would be discussing in your interviews or the motivation behind it within the stations beyond the Act but overall if they are self-censoring and you are allowing them to censor you then that is your choice. I don't think people should blaspheme but that's because I don't think people should upset other people if they can avoid it or unless it is necessary to do so. I know many atheists feel it is their obligation to wake the religious up from their theistic day-dream but surely we can do that without being grossly abusive or insulting? This Act only covers those sort of comments.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If it was a good law that was being misinterpreted by others, I would agree. But it is not. It is a bad law that is being accurately represented by others who like that type of law. This is not being wise after the event. We specifically warned the legislators before the law was passed that this would be a consequence.

We do not exist in a vacuum. We are part of the international community, with legal, political and moral obligations to people in other countries. We have signed international human rights conventions that oblige us to respect freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. The Irish State has opposed defamation laws being proposed at the UN by Islamic States, as recently as months before Dermot Ahern introduced the blasphemy section into the Defamation Bill.

Ireland has always operated a dualist system. International human rights treaties are binding on the State internationally but not domestically unless they are incorporated into Irish law. We can respect other people's freedom of expression but we are not obliged to respect it at home. That other people point to us and use our laws as justification for their own is a pity. We should change that. Saying that our law is more than a cosmetic argument to justify a tyrannical regime in another State is simply false.

magicbastarder

from the programme for government, published today:

Broader constitutional review
We will establish a Constitutional Convention to consider comprehensive constitutional reform, with a brief to consider, as a whole or in sub-groups, and report within 12 months on the following:
...
• Removing blasphemy from the Constitution

can be downloaded from the labour website.

Arcus Arrow

This week Dublin City Council banned a number of users after several arguments on different threads in which the Catholic Church was discussed.

The Dublin City Council Law Agent has viewed material posted by you and in his opinion much of the content of your statements on the Catholic Church and the terminology you use is defamatory, indecent, blasphemous and ethnically objectionable.

Dades

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

This week Dublin City Council banned a number of users...

Users of what?

Arcus Arrow

Dades wrote: »

Users of what?

They have a discussion forum. They had a politics section which they have now closed completely or at least for now, on dublin.ie

They have even disabled registrations to the site for some reason.

Arcus Arrow

Unacceptable comments include using the term child rape and torture in place of abuse or paedophilia.

vBulletin Message
You have been banned for the following reason:
Repeated posting of unacceptable comments in relation to the Catholic religion and the use of derogatory, inflamatory and indecent terminology in expressing the posted opinions.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

Dades

To be fair, without knowing what you posted - how can we judge?

Besides, this a government forum that no doubt is a very tight ship.