Atheist Ireland protect Free Speech in Ireland again.

nozzferrahhtoo

In the last 24 hours a pressure campaign against venues planning to host the Exit International (Assisted Suicide) workshops succeeded in having those venues cancel the meetings.

The last of these venues had promised that nothing would cause the cancellation of the meeting, but the sheer pressure of protests changed this and they cited the sheer volume of the anti meeting pressure as their reasons (though the venue before that gave no reasons at all).

Thankfully Atheist Ireland protected free speech and stepped up with an appeal for a venue. The Irish Times reported on This Today and the Press Release below has been released by Exit International.

Regardless of whether you agree with Exit International or not, it is wonderful to see that the pressure of ANY group in their attempts to silence another's right to air their views with a campaign of intimidation has failed utterly. Well done all involved and well done Atheist Ireland who have protected free speech in Ireland a second time this week, after earlier this week causing Dermot Ahern to fold on the Blasphemy law, citing as he did the "incredibly sophisticated campaign [against me], mainly on the internet.”

Of course anyone can support Atheist Ireland by Joining Up, using their forum, or even financially by using the PayPal options to either join Atheist Ireland formally or engage in once off or ongoing donations.

Dublin Exit Meeting to Go Ahead

After third and then fourth venues - the Macro Building and the Carmichael Centre - buckled under church pressure and cancelled bookings, almost preventing the planned meeting of the Australian, pro-choice voluntary euthanasia group Exit International to go ahead, the organisation's director, Dr Philip Nitschke, announced that the meeting would go ahead at independent Seomra Spraoi.

"In the space of 5 hours today, we had no fewer than 2 venues (4 in total) cancel our bookings which is quite extraordinary. While in other countries we have occasionally had venues withdrawn from us because those leasing the premises disagreed with our ideas, we have never had 4 separate venues refuse to host a meeting" said Dr Nitschke from Dublin tonight.

When we came to Ireland we understood that there may be some opposition, but we did not expect such a well orchestrated campaign of censorship. It is simply unacceptable in a civilised, western country such as Ireland to have one section of the population threaten everyone else in this way."

"Voluntary Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide are important cutting edge social issues. It is only right that they be discussed by the community. Silencing one's right to free speech is the most cowardly way of keeping people in the dark. We are extremely grateful to Seomra Spraoi and Ciaran Mac Aoidh at the Irish Atheists for their support and preparedness to defend free speech on this issue.

"I fully respect the Churchs' right to hold their opinions but I take issue with those who try to ram their opinions down the throats of non-believers and people who elect to reconcile their faith with their right to know about safe suicide."

The Exit International meeting will now be held at 3 - 5.30pm on Friday 19 March. Seomra Spraoí is located at 10 Belvedere Court, Dublin 1.

Xluna

Without getting into the issue itself,I think it's a good thing that such a topic is allowed to be publically discussed. However- I remember David Irving was pressured into silence regarding his controversial views on the Holocause in many Universities. Though I disagree with Irvings opinions I think he should have been allowed to speak. I wonder if A.I. would have been morally and logically consistant and supported Irvings free speech. I hope it's not a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend,as it alludes to athiesm being more than just the disbelief in deities.

ChocolateSauce

So the only place that'll take them is " an autonomous social centre in Dublin city centre. It is run by a non-hierarchical, anti capitalist collective on a not-for-profit basis."

Yikes....

If my landlord wasn't a religious nutter, I'd have invited them to my place. (At least then they could have known the joys of being in a for-profit venue )


But seriously, it's atrocious that an organised anti-free speech cartel of anti-choice Catholic fundamentalists would try and stifle even discussion on the topic. More disgraceful, under-handed tactics from the religious right.

Galvasean

I'm not sure where my opinion lies in regards to Exit International's policies, but the way certain people (oh who am I kidding? Catholic fundies) are systematically trying to stiffle open debate by causing a racket is pretty damn low - gutter level politics.

seamus

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm not sure where my opinion lies in regards to Exit International's policies, but the way certain people (oh who am I kidding? Catholic fundies) are systematically trying to stiffle open debate by causing a racket is pretty damn low - gutter level politics.

+1

Regardless of your opinion on the topic at hand, you can't pretend that it doesn't need to be discussed by preventing discussion of it. Of course, every major religion believes that if you don't allow discussion of something, that's as good as saying that it doesn't exist.

Newstalk this morning said that they were expecting 20 people to attend the meeting. I would be very surprised if the number wasn't *much* higher and the vested interests have been trying to play down interest in such a discussion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Well despite the failed but persistent efforts of groups like "Youth Defence" the meeting went ahead and was actually very successful. The small room was filled beyond expectations and it was covered by a lot of media presence.

The infamous "Dr. Death" actually came across as a lovely man and after the talks and workshops he gave a lot of his time to talking to attendees who had further issues and questions.

So "Youth Defence" have completely failed in their efforts to have us, the Public, kept in the dark about what the "Pro" side has to say on these matters. They will want to change their approach in future if they think they can win a debate by attempting to silence the other side(s).

Free Speech: 1
Youth Defense: 0

devilsad

Xluna wrote: »

I wonder if A.I. would have been morally and logically consistant and supported Irvings free speech. I hope it's not a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend,as it alludes to athiesm being more than just the disbelief in deities.

That's just a little bit daft. The stated aim of Atheist Ireland is an effort to build a 'rational, ethical & secular society, free from superstition and supernaturalism'. Part of the agenda therefore is the separation of church and state. If Atheist Ireland had assited devil worshipper's to find a place to carry out a live sacrifice you might have a point.

But it was for the very reason that it was difficult for Exit International to even hold the meeting in Ireland that Athiest Ireland helped out. (Sorry, I'm assuming this because I was not involved nor was I at the meeting.)

Xluna

devilsad wrote: »

That's just a little bit daft. The stated aim of Atheist Ireland is an effort to build a 'rational, ethical & secular society, free from superstition and supernaturalism'. Part of the agenda therefore is the separation of church and state. If Atheist Ireland had assited devil worshipper's to find a place to carry out a live sacrifice you might have a point.

But it was for the very reason that it was difficult for Exit International to even hold the meeting in Ireland that Athiest Ireland helped out. (Sorry, I'm assuming this because I was not involved nor was I at the meeting.)

Me daft? Never:P. Plenty of non religious people have their reservations against assisted suicide. Hell, anti theist Chris Hitchens is anti abortion.
In fact the Irving example is even more of an example of religion attacking free speech. In this case Jewish sensitivities vs free speech.

CatHerder

Xluna wrote: »

However- I remember David Irving was pressured into silence regarding his controversial views on the Holocause in many Universities. Though I disagree with Irvings opinions I think he should have been allowed to speak. I wonder if A.I. would have been morally and logically consistant and supported Irvings free speech.

There goes the double edged sword that is free speech. It allows you to speak out where there is a perceived injustice, but it also allows you to make an ass of yourself if you want to deny the holocaust. I doubt Atheist Ireland would help David Irving make an ass of himself. If he wants to speak in Ireland he should head to Temple Bar with a milk crate.
There is nothing like a visit to Auschwitz to impact upon you what happened.

Xluna

CatHerder wrote: »

There goes the double edged sword that is free speech. It allows you to speak out where there is a perceived injustice, but it also allows you to make an ass of yourself if you want to deny the holocaust. I doubt Atheist Ireland would help David Irving make an ass of himself. If he wants to speak in Ireland he should head to Temple Bar with a milk crate.
There is nothing like a visit to Auschwitz to impact upon you what happened.

Exactly. You could go even further and argue that if Hitler was not allowed free speech the Nazi party would have been resigned to the side walks of history. Free speech comes with a grave price.

Sam Vimes

Xluna wrote: »

Exactly. You could go even further and argue that if Hitler was not allowed free speech the Nazi party would have been resigned to the side walks of history. Free speech comes with a grave price.

The problem there is who decides who should be allowed to speak and who shouldn't? Generally the only people who have had both the will and the power to limit free speech are people like Hitler


edit: also Godwin'd. You lose

CatHerder

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem there is who decides who should be allowed to speak and who shouldn't? Generally the only people who have had both the will and the power to limit free speech are people like Hitler

Everyone should be entitled to free speech unless you want to shout "FIRE" in the cinema. I guess free speech only thrives in a democracy.

Funglegunk

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well done all involved and well done Atheist Ireland who have protected free speech in Ireland a second time this week, after earlier this week causing Dermot Ahern to fold on the Blasphemy law, citing as he did the "incredibly sophisticated campaign [against me], mainly on the internet.”

I find it one hell of a stretch to say that Atheist Ireland caused Dermot Ahern to 'fold' on the blasphemy law. The full quote from Ahern you provided in that link is this:

“There was a lot of nonsense about that blasphemy issue and people making me out to be a complete right-winger at the time,” he said. “There was an incredibly sophisticated campaign [against me], mainly on the internet. I was only doing my duty in relation to it, because clearly it is in the constitution. The attorney general said ‘there is this absolute, mandatory thing… it is an offence, punishable by law.”

That's hardly citing the Atheist Ireland campaign as the reason he is now proposing the referendum, which is what you implied. The way Atheist Ireland went about that campaign, with all that smug "Church of Dermotology" tripe, probably did more to hurt their cause than help it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Xluna wrote: »

However- I remember David Irving was pressured into silence regarding his controversial views on the Holocause in many Universities. Though I disagree with Irvings opinions I think he should have been allowed to speak. I wonder if A.I. would have been morally and logically consistant and supported Irvings free speech. I hope it's not a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend,as it alludes to athiesm being more than just the disbelief in deities.

I can not speak for AI, nor where they formed as an association when this event occoured so they were not even THERE to make a decision on this matter, but what I can do is speak for myself.

I myself would have supported the mans right to speak. I would then have supported the right of anyone present to ask questions or voice their opinions on exactly what they thought of the mans theory.

Protecting peoples right to express and idea or attack an idea of someone else’s is not limited to merely protecting those who’s opinion you agree with.

nozzferrahhtoo

Funglegunk wrote: »

That's hardly citing the Atheist Ireland campaign as the reason he is now proposing the referendum, which is what you implied.

Interesting. Are you aware of anyone else who engaged in a sophisticated campaign on the internet on the subject to whom I can also direct my congratulations?

Dades

A sophisticated campaign that listed 25 quotes of which you'd be pushed to find one to qualify for prosecution.

Arcus Arrow

This is no more than a thread promoting an organisation to collect membership fees.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Interesting. Are you aware of anyone else who engaged in a sophisticated campaign on the internet on the subject to whom I can also direct my congratulations?

How about giving Dermot Ahern the credit for what may have been a sophisticated campaign to distract a possible source of problems by throwing out bait for the "atheist community" to rush after like a bunch of headless chickens? Has anyone asked if this was just part of a range of measures meant to protect the Church?

Can you explain who picked the 25 quotes? How many of your fellow members had input? Was the process open to all the members? Was there a vote? Was the decision taken by the curia stuck in the 19th century by its chairman?


Was this mainly a way for your chairman to promote himself while staying safely removed from any of those quotes?

None of the quotes challenged the law since they were made by a combination of dead people, fictitious characters, non residents and people who were never going to be charged. All of the quotes predate the law so none of them qualified as challenging it. Why was that?




FXR

Arcus Arrow

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,5057,Blasphemy-art-exhibition-in-Dublin-this-month,PZ-Myers-amp-Michael-Nugent-YouTube---AtheistIreland,page1#comments

Mauddib wrote: »

There is absolutely no secret behind the user names I use. Maudib and Mauddib are ones I have used since I was very young,

Same thread:

Mauddib wrote: »

So given the commonality of the handle I have since changed to signing up to new sites with the handle Nozzferrahhtoo.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can not speak for AI, nor where they formed as an association when this event occoured so they were not even THERE to make a decision on this matter, but what I can do is speak for myself.

This looks to me like an attempt to mislead people by promoting an organisation while you are actually a member of the curia. According to yourself not only are you a member but you bypass the ordinary members by deciding your preferred spokesman should be the chairman. Why did you not clearly state upfront that you were part of the hierarchy?

PG2 of the thread on Dawkins.net

Mauddib wrote: »

As it happens you have ME as part of both of those issues. Firstly it is I that am approached to do a lot of the media appearances. As the administrator of the blog that, for example, hosted the 25 quotes, I am the one who gets the contact. Internationally (for example when BBC World came to us looking for a media appearance) it is I they sent their names, phone numbers and contact details to.

I however am not arrogant enough to think I have the skills, the head, the voice or the ability to make such appearances. I am also aware of no one else in AI who does have this ability more than Nugent himself. This is why I ask you, and you noticeably avoided the question, who else you would suggest in AI to take the chair or spokesman roles. So I myself choose always to hand these contacts over to Nugent as the only person I know who will do the job to the standards I want to see it done.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I myself would have supported the mans right to speak. I would then have supported the right of anyone present to ask questions or voice their opinions on exactly what they thought of the mans theory.

Protecting peoples right to express and idea or attack an idea of someone else’s is not limited to merely protecting those who’s opinion you agree with.

Good to hear that. I’ll put it to the test soon as I get done with what I’m doing.

Has anyone asked yet that the minutes of the meeting that took place on the 6th of December 2008 be published publicly for all to see? Maybe then potential members will be able to judge the kind of hypocrisy that AI is founded on. An organisation which claims to be campaigning for a “more ethical” society should be open with its member and potential members shouldn’t it?

FXR

Funglegunk

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

How about giving Dermot Ahern the credit for what may have been a sophisticated campaign to distract a possible source of problems by throwing out bait for the "atheist community" to rush after like a bunch of headless chickens? Has anyone asked if this was just part of a range of measures meant to protect the Church?

I agree with, and thanked, most of your post but have to take issue with the part above. Do you really think that was Dermot Ahern's intention? Why is he now proposing a referendum to remove the blasphemy law altogether from the constitution?

Dermot Ahern, Irish Times, May 1 2009 wrote:

My intention is to remove the possibility of prison sentences and private prosecutions for blasphemy, currently provided for in Irish law. The only credible alternative to this move is a blasphemy referendum which I consider, in the current circumstances, a costly and unwarranted diversion.

Dermot Ahern, Sunday Times, March 14 2010 wrote:

“I said [last year] that I didn’t want a wasteful standalone referendum on blasphemy in the middle of an economic crisis,” said Ahern. “My preference was to reform [the blasphemy provision] in the short term and to have a referendum in the medium term when it could be bundled with a number of others.”

A defamation bill was already in preparation when Ahern became justice minister in May 2008.

Ahern then said he had three options: to abandon the bill; to hold a single-issue referendum to remove the constitutional reference to blasphemy; or to update the references in the 1961 Defamation Act.

Opting for reform, he said he had removed the seven-year jail sentence from the old legislation.

That seems like a fairly sane solution to a constitutional problem that could only be solved at the time by a standalone referendum, which would have been prohibitively costly considering there were referendums scheduled for this autumn anyway. The shenanigans of Atheist Ireland look particularly juvenile after a calm assessment of why Ahern actually had to pass the Defamation Bill last summer.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Interesting. Are you aware of anyone else who engaged in a sophisticated campaign on the internet on the subject to whom I can also direct my congratulations?

If you are for congratulating them for engaging in a sophisticated internet campaign, fine by me. If you think that had any effect whatsoever on the law being introduced to the autumn list of referendums, you are living in on a different planet.

Dades

@Arcus Arrow

Can you take your beef with AI/nozzferrahhtoo/Mauddib offline, or off to their forum, thanks.

Arcus Arrow

Dades wrote: »

@Arcus Arrow

Can you take your beef with AI/nozzferrahhtoo/Mauddib offline, or off to their forum, thanks.

Surely if someone is recruting for an organisation and making claims for it while giving the impression he's not a member then people have a right to hear the other side of the story?

The OP is inviting people to pay money to AI.

MikeC101

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Interesting. Are you aware of anyone else who engaged in a sophisticated campaign on the internet on the subject to whom I can also direct my congratulations?

I'm not aware of anyone who engaged in a sophisticated campaign on the internet (copy and paste some fairly tame quotations onto a blog = sophisticated??), or offline, on the subject.

Though in fairness it would be very hard to publish something all that shocking in regards to Christianity - in light of say, Jerry Springer the Opera or Piss Christ and so on.

Arcus Arrow

From the Irish Times
Ahern, who was criticised for increasing the fine for blasphemy to €25,000 last year, said he never regarded the provision in the new Defamation Bill as anything more than a short-term solution.

Funglegunk wrote: »

I agree with, and thanked, most of your post but have to take issue with the part above. Do you really think that was Dermot Ahern's intention? Why is he now proposing a referendum to remove the blasphemy law altogether from the constitution?

There are too many unanswered questions around his actions. Why did he and his fellow mandarins wait so long to decide there was a problem that needed fixing? There was no outcry to fix the situation or demand from the EU.

He may even have been over compensating or miscalculated but one thing is certain: an awful lot of people got involved in what looks like a law that was never going to be enforced anyway. Then on the other side you have a bogus campaign that didn't test the law one way or the other. It got some attention and now it's been used to gather in a few more shekels for the organisation.

Funglegunk wrote: »

That seems like a fairly sane solution to a constitutional problem that could only be solved at the time by a standalone referendum, which would have been prohibitively costly considering there were referendums scheduled for this autumn anyway. The shenanigans of Atheist Ireland look particularly juvenile after a calm assessment of why Ahern actually had to pass the Defamation Bill last summer.

It would have been no more costly or confusing to include the referendum on blasphemy with the vote for Lisbon.

The government is already committed to referendums on children’s rights and establishing a permanent court of civil appeal.
The plebiscites are expected to take place in October, on the same day as the a vote for a new directly elected mayor of Dublin, and three Dail by-elections in Donegal South-West, Dublin South and Waterford.

Now it's going to be included with even more issues and more importantly two country by-elections both of which might be more likely bring out catholics rather than the secular hordes of Donegal or Waterford.

That ordinary Irish people are exercised about the passing of the blasphemy law is just nonsense. The same government signed an Indemnity deal to protect Church child rapists and there was a media furore a few months back.
Now on the streets it's hard to find an average citizen who even knows what the Indemnity deal is! That's despite the fact it’s costing millions of taxpayers money.

drkpower

Dades wrote: »

@Arcus Arrow

Can you take your beef with AI/nozzferrahhtoo/Mauddib offline, or off to their forum, thanks.

Dont want to take the thread off-topic/question modding etc., but Arcus makes a good point. Ive seen people banned for promoting, particularly financially, an organisation of which they could be said to be 'on the board', as such.

Arcus Arrow

MikeC101 wrote: »

I'm not aware of anyone who engaged in a sophisticated campaign on the internet (copy and paste some fairly tame quotations onto a blog = sophisticated??), or offline, on the subject.

Though in fairness it would be very hard to publish something all that shocking in regards to Christianity - in light of say, Jerry Springer the Opera or Piss Christ and so on.

It can't be that hard to insult Muslims. All it takes is a cartoon. There is a mosque on the South side of Dublin full of Allahs touchy subjects!

Dades

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Surely if someone is recruting for an organisation and making claims for it while giving the impression he's not a member then people have a right to hear the other side of the story?

Who's giving the impression he's not a member? I would have thought it fairly bloody obvious from the OP that nozzferrahhtoo is a member - not to mention his other postings here to date.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The OP is inviting people to pay money to AI.

So what? You don't have to support them if you don't want to. The RDF and The Brights look for money too.

Atheist Ireland may not be everyone's cup of tea but their organisation is of much interest to the posters here.

MikeC101

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

It can't be that hard to insult Muslims. All it takes is a cartoon. There is a mosque on the South side of Dublin full of Allahs touchy subjects!

That's probably true - if they really wanted to test the law, or provoke outrage, publishing some Danish style cartoons would probably have a better chance of working. Might be kind of dangerous for the people doing it though.

Arcus Arrow

Dades wrote: »

Who's giving the impression he's not a member? I would have thought it fairly bloody obvious from the OP that nozzferrahhtoo is a member - not to mention his other postings here to date.

It's not obvious from this thread and I'm assuming people who read any thread do not go to the trouble of checking all of the OPs other posts. If you click on the usernames profile it says nothing about being a member of Atheist Ireland.

Dades wrote: »

So what? You don't have to support them if you don't want to. The RDF and The Brights look for money too.

Atheist Ireland may not be everyone's cup of tea but their organisation is of much interest to the posters here.

If someone posted here recruiting for an organisation named CORI and "all the good work they do" I'd think it only right to point out they were in fact the Conference of Religious in Ireland which included the lowlife child rapists scum who signed a pact with their fellow Catholics in government to get away with their crimes.

The members of AI don't know all the facts about AI as it is. If it's of interest to the posters here then all sides of the story should be of interest. It's only my opinion but I think people should ask if an organisation practices what it preaches. If you dislike the hypocrisy of the CCL then you might just not like an atheist organisations hypocrisy either.

Funglegunk

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

There are too many unanswered questions around his actions. Why did he and his fellow mandarins wait so long to decide there was a problem that needed fixing? There was no outcry to fix the situation or demand from the EU.

From the same article I quoted earlier:

Dermot Ahern, Irish Times, May 1 2009 wrote:

Reform legislation in regard to our laws on defamation has been long in the making, dating effectively from the Report of the Law Reform Commission in 1991. The Defamation Bill 2006 is the culmination of that process and it has fallen to me to bring the reform to fruition, which I expect to do before the summer.

I'm not sure how long legislation like this usually takes to get worked through the grinders, but the bill has been in existence since 2006. Your implication that the bill is the result of some dark pact between the Justice department and the Catholic church rests on what evidence? And how exactly does the bill help the church anyway? Is it not widely acknowledged that it is virtually impossible for anybody to be prosecuted under the bill?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

He may even have been over compensating or miscalculated but one thing is certain: an awful lot of people got involved in what looks like a law that was never going to be enforced anyway.

And...?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

It would have been no more costly or confusing to include the referendum on blasphemy with the vote for Lisbon.

I disagree with this. A lot was riding on the government passing Lisbon the second time round and muddling their message with a referendum was probably deemed way too risky, especially one as open to misinterpretation as this.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

That ordinary Irish people are exercised about the passing of the blasphemy law is just nonsense. The same government signed an Indemnity deal to protect Church child rapists and there was a media furore a few months back.

The only people even bothered by the blasphemy law were the international media (oh hur hur look at those backward Irish) and Atheist Ireland. I agree with you about Atheist Ireland. They, and Michael Nugent in particular, are media whores...for lack of a better phrase.

nozzferrahhtoo

Funglegunk wrote: »

If you are for congratulating them for engaging in a sophisticated internet campaign, fine by me. If you think that had any effect whatsoever on the law being introduced to the autumn list of referendums, you are living in on a different planet.

The man is changing the law less than three months after having it brought into law and in his comments on changing the law he directly cited only one campaign against it. They are the only facts I have to go on and based on that I can only congratulate those involved in the campaign for being part of the outcome.

MikeC101 wrote: »

I'm not aware of anyone who engaged in a sophisticated campaign on the internet (copy and paste some fairly tame quotations onto a blog = sophisticated??), or offline, on the subject.

There was a lot more to it than that. This was only the part that got international media attention. There was a lot of Atheist Ireland Members who engaged in blanket and one on one approaches to members of the Justice Committee, members of our government, direct and indirect approaches to our president before she signed it into law, media appearances to raise the conciousness of the general public about this law and what it means and could mean and the effects it is having not just in Ireland but across the world (such as Muslim groups adopting the wording of the Irish law in their attempts to have a much further reaching law on blasphemy implemented across many countries). and much more.

MikeC101 wrote: »

That's probably true - if they really wanted to test the law, or provoke outrage, publishing some Danish style cartoons would probably have a better chance of working. Might be kind of dangerous for the people doing it though.

You would be entirely right IF that were the rationale behind the release.

Although a member and a volunteer worker for Atheist Ireland (such as various administrative duties in the background) I am not a member of the committee or the decision making process aside from having my one vote and a wish to see them succeed. So I can not speak for them but I can tell you what I think.

I think it is worth clarifying, despite it being off topic, that the 25 quotations were not intended to break the law or cause outrage as such, though such an outcome would indeed have served some use. Clearly the list would be ineffective if that was the rationale behind it as most of the people on it are dead or not Irish and so no one could be prosecuted. But inviting prosecution is not the _main_ intention of the list.

A law is a law, we can not just go around breaking it because we disagree with it. I can not murder you because I want to show I disagree with the law of murder.

No the list released has a different rationale. It is an attempt to show a list of statements that could be considered blasphemous under the new law and to show that we must argue for peoples right to have uttered or released them.

The fact is that it is impossible to wilfully break the law of blasphemy because it is worded in such a way that no one knows how to. I could spout every blasphemous comment I can think of and not break this law if I tried, and then I could give up, forget about it and go promote in print a certain model of swim wear tomorrow and find myself on the receiving end of litigation.

The list of quotations are statements that some people will find offensive. Not one thing on the list is something that will not offend someone somewhere. However not one statement on the list is something that we should be legislating against people being capable of saying, and thats the important thing.

Resisting attempts to stifle the free expression of ideas is what this is about, regardless of whether it is people bringing things into law to make saying some things illegal, or cowardly groups such as “Youth Defense” trying to attack the forums that give people the platform to do so. You do not need to be explicitly either an Atheist or Theist to agree with that.

Arcus Arrow

Funglegunk wrote: »

From the same article I quoted earlier:

Funglegunk wrote: »

I'm not sure how long legislation like this usually takes to get worked through the grinders, but the bill has been in existence since 2006. Your implication that the bill is the result of some dark pact between the Justice department and the Catholic Church rests on what evidence? And how exactly does the bill help the church anyway? Is it not widely acknowledged that it is virtually impossible for anybody to be prosecuted under the bill?

The entanglement between politics and the CCL has been going on since the founding of the State.

I found this in a Times article dated April 29 2009;

Last year the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of Fianna Fáil TD Seán Ardagh, recommended amending this Article to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafting the Article along the lines of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0429/1224245599892.html

It's not possible to know at this point what the purpose of the bill really was. No one wanted it and when it was passed most of the population were not bothered in the least by it. When something does not add up it's usually because some of the figures are missing. It's too easy to think a well paid politician, who is by no means stupid, just decided to bring in a law under which no one would be prosecuted for no reason whatsoever.
If he wanted to make the bill so prosecutions could be brought he could have. They have more than enough legal advisors and consultants (that we pay for of course).

It's already plain they set about protecting the church from the incoming tsunami of abuse being uncovered.
So what was he at?
Again it may be a case of overestimating the reaction from some quarters and how the child rape revelations might be seized on. If that was the case maybe now that's seen as one that failed as the threat just did not materialise.

Funglegunk wrote: »

I disagree with this. A lot was riding on the government passing Lisbon the second time round and muddling their message with a referendum was probably deemed way too risky, especially one as open to misinterpretation as this.

You might be right regardign Lisbon but he did'nt have to bring in the blasphemy law in the first place which would have been even less confusing. How many people, so exercised by the fact he did bring it in, would have been looking for something else to do?

Funglegunk wrote: »

The only people even bothered by the blasphemy law were the international media (oh hur hur look at those backward Irish) and Atheist Ireland. I agree with you about Atheist Ireland. They, and Michael Nugent in particular, are media whores...for lack of a better phrase.

I think the problem stems from the chairman as to the way Atheist Ireland is run. The whole blasphemy hullabaloo served one purpose: it was used by Mr. Nugent to up his media profile off the backs off the blindsided membership as did his assumption of power from the start.

I thinking someone might be hoping to get onto the Irish quango gravy train in the future.

The acolytes have come to loathe certain questions as you can already see from this thread.

Dades

Arcus Arrow, the next time you ignore a warning and use an unrelated thread to spout off unsubstantiated stuff about someone you'll be taking a holiday. AI have a forum - take your issues with them there.

If you have an issue with doing this take it to PM, or helpdesk. I don't want to hear it here.

CatHerder

I suppose I don't need to point out that the statement "There was an incredibly sophisticated campaign [against me], mainly on the internet" are the words of Mr Ahern according to the Sunday Times. I can't imagine that he'd have said that if Atheist Ireland didn't exist.

It was quite entertaining for me when AI released the 25 Blasphemous Quotes. The next day Mr Nugent rang me in a bit of a fluster to say that both atheist.ie and blasphemy.ie had gone down. He was quite concerned because AI had just published the 25 blasphemous quotes and this was a bad time to be having server problems.

After looking into the problem I found that the sites just couldn't handle the amount of traffic they were getting, and it was whatever he had done (published the 25 blasphemous quotes) that was causing the problem. It was a Sunday and I just had to tell Michael that there was nothing we could do until Blacknight support were available on Monday, and that if it's any consolation he must be doing something right if we're getting this much traffic.

When I went back to my inbox I found an email from Blacknight Solutions telling us that they were aware of the problem and had moved our sites to a different server as they were crippling other sites on the server they were on. It turns out that Blacknight were already on top of it and the sites still couldn't handle the amount of traffic they were getting.

Well that's probably a boring story for some of you but it does illustrate that the Blasphemy campaign attracted quite a bit of international media attention, and that Mr Ahern may have had the international media banging on his door as a new years present (even if RTE weren't that interested)

In respect to the 25 blasphemous quotes, I myself thought it was a very clever way of illustrating the asininity of the law. I felt that AI was being put in the unenviable position of having to offend people in order to challenge the law and I felt that this was wrong. I mean, who are you going to offend by desecrating the host? Your granny? No thanks, I don’t want to offend my granny just to make a point. In any case, personally I'd view stuff like desecrating the host and publishing Danish cartoons as pure stunts that would do Atheist Ireland more harm than good. After all we're trying to appeal to the broader mass, aren't we?

And as for this:

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I think the problem stems from the chairman as to the way Atheist Ireland is run. The whole blasphemy hullabaloo served one purpose: it was used by Mr. Nugent to up his media profile off the backs off the blindsided membership as did his assumption of power from the start.

I thinking someone might be hoping to get onto the Irish quango gravy train in the future.

That's libellous defamation of character and irrespective of free speech boards.ie should probably treat it as such.

For the purposes of disclosure :rolleyes: I'm a member if AI and used to be on the committee.

CatHerder

CatHerder wrote: »

That's libellous defamation of character and irrespective of free speech boards.ie should probably treat it as such.

Sorry Dades, I probably shouldn't have said that seen as you've already pulled him up on it.

-snip-

MOD NOTE
No more personal talk about AI committee members. They have their own forum for venting.

Funglegunk

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The man is changing the law less than three months after having it brought into law and in his comments on changing the law he directly cited only one campaign against it. They are the only facts I have to go on and based on that I can only congratulate those involved in the campaign for being part of the outcome.

He did not cite the campaign as the reason he was introducing the blasphemy referendum, he cited it as one of the sources of him being labeled as right wing. Read the quote again:

Dermot Ahern wrote:

“There was a lot of nonsense about that blasphemy issue and people making me out to be a complete right-winger at the time,” he said. “There was an incredibly sophisticated campaign [against me], mainly on the internet. I was only doing my duty in relation to it, because clearly it is in the constitution. The attorney general said ‘there is this absolute, mandatory thing… it is an offence, punishable by law.”

Atheist Ireland are congratulating themselves for apparently forcing Ahern to do something he clearly intended to do anyway. Ahern's explanation for passing the Defamation Bill was that it was a short term solution to an inevitable constitutional change, and that it was a decision of political expediency as he did not want to hold a standalone referendum last summer.

I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to suggest that this was not the case.

nozzferrahhtoo

Again if you are aware of anyone else towards whom I can direct my congratulations and thanks for working against Aherns actions in bringing the law in, then I would be more than happy to do so.

Dades

I'd say those of us who wrote to the papers or the Dept of Justice deserve a mention.

nozzferrahhtoo

You indeed do have my thanks then Well done.

drkpower

Of course, while people are being thanked, the various religous churches/organisations/lobbies who said that they didnt want this law should be front of the queue.

It was their lack of support for the blasphemy law which left him looking the most ridiculous. If he had their support, he would have been in a far stronger position in dismissing the criticisms of AI etc.

Arcus Arrow

In March, speculation that the government would hold an autumn referendum on the law was downplayed by Minister Dermot Ahern who said there were no plans for such a referendum in “the immediate future”, according to the Irish Times.

http://www.thejournal.ie/blasphemy-law-pushes-ireland-from-first-to-tenth-in-press-index-2010-10/

Have I missed the Blasphemy Law referendum brought about by the "incredibly sophisticated internet campaign"....?

Did I miss the date?

Has anyone been charged yet?

Has anyone been fined?

How many people in Ireland even care given the present circumstances of the country?

At the end of November this year (2010) Dermot Ahern announced his decision to retire from politics which he says he made with his family in 2007. The Blasphemy Law was passed in July 2009 after he knew he was going to retire with, as we know, a big fat golden handshake with accompanying pension. He will quite likely in the future be getting a little medal or some other trinket from his masters in Rome for service to the cause.

Whatever was behind the Blasphemy law we may never know.

One thing is for sure: if it was distraction bait aimed at particular gaping mouths they swallowed it wholesale.

Bait can be fattening.

Galvasean

I've yet to hear of one person being prosecued under the law, depsite many trying to achieve it.

Arcus Arrow

Galvasean wrote: »

I've yet to hear of one person being prosecued under the law, depsite many trying to achieve it.

I somehow doubt we ever will. I'd like to think that at this stage no one can doubt the devious and corrupt nature of politics in Ireland. I'm told today the daughter of Jackie Healy Ray is about to be appointed to some board where she gets 3 or €400 for reading a submission or some such. Some handy number to cushion the impact of the debt her oul fella just helped saddle us with. If that's true what price the votes of the few that make life misery for the many?

There doesn't appear to be any obvious reason why Dermot Ahern brought in a blasphemy law. Since it has had no effect in terms of enforcement and since there were no obvious reasons for it the question is then what was behind it?

I think it might have been intended, whether in a clumsy or a very well calculated way, to divert a perceived possible problem expected to come from opponents of religion. The most obvious target would then possibly have been the first ever atheist group in Ireland.

The Ferns report came out in 2005. The inquiry that led to the Ryan report was ongoing. Justice Laffoy had resigned in 2003 after being frustrated in her attempts to get at the truth.

She was frustrated by the same people who brought in the Blasphemy Law.

The Irish Independent newspaper reported on the proposed Blasphemy law in April 2009.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ahern-defends-new-blasphemy...

I started the idea of an atheist organisation late October 2008. I took a gamble and booked a hotel room based on the reaction. Atheist Ireland came into being on November 30 2008.

The website had been building up numbers, slowly but surely, for over a year. The scandals that increasingly engulfed the Catholic Church were building for a lot longer as were the attempts to limit the damage.


The Ryan Report was released in May 2009.

The Blasphemy Law was passed in July 2009.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/libel-and-blasphemy-bill-pa...

In 2002 Catholics in the Government had engineered the Indemnity Deal. That protected the assets of the Catholic Church. Were efforts mooted to try to limit the reaction?

The 2008 Blasphemy Law may have been an attempt to limit the criticism and at least distract a good portion of the people they expected to attack the Catholic Church. That they were probably wrong about the threat just means they were overcompensating in their prepartions.

Whatever the Blasphemy Law was designed to do it certainly had the effect of sending a lot of particular people off on a wild goose chase. Mention Blasphemy Law to a bunch of organised paid up card carrying Irish Catholic Atheists and they'll go off like scalded cats spinning around the inside of a 45 gallon drum...which is exactly what happened.

It may have become apparent to Mr. Ahern later that the threat was non-existent in the first place and even that it was a pretty bad idea in the first place. The law now lies gathering dust in the pages of the statute books while AI are left with the memories of their bogus blasphemy campaign ......or..........er..having successfully protected free speech not once but twice depending on where you stand.

The Grand old Duke of Atheism led his troops up the hill only to find the enemy wasn't there. So then he led the troops all the way back down again. The Grand Old Duke thinks the enemy ran away. The Blasphemy ruse worked.

strobe

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Whatever the Blasphemy Law was designed to do it certainly had the effect of sending a lot of particular people off on a wild goose chase. Mention Blasphemy Law to a bunch of organised paid up card carrying Irish Catholic Atheists and they'll go off like scalded cats spinning around the inside of a 45 gallon drum...which is exactly what happened.

It may have become apparent to Mr. Ahern later that the threat was non-existent in the first place and even that it was a pretty bad idea in the first place. The law now lies gathering dust in the pages of the statute books while AI are left with the memories of their bogus blasphemy campaign ......or..........er..having successfully protected free speech not once but twice depending on where you stand.

The Grand old Duke of Atheism led his troops up the hill only to find the enemy wasn't there. So then he led the troops all the way back down again. The Grand Old Duke thinks the enemy ran away. The Blasphemy ruse worked.

Your personal grudge against AI is strange and bewildering to me. Did Michael Nugent run over your dog?

Arcus Arrow

strobe wrote: »

Your personal grudge against AI is strange and bewildering to me. Did Michael Nugent run over your dog?

The last dog I had I left behind in Ohio. I miss him more than the ex wife. Some day I'm gong to buy another Kerry Blue.

There is a situation with AI in as much as most of the members have been conned to some extent. Basically I don't like hypocrisy and if one doesn't like hypocrisy then that should apply whether it's Muslim, Catholic, Protestant or atheist. To think otherwise would make one a hypocrite.

How hypocritical is it to be claiming to be striking a blow for free speech when the same people start trying to censor anyone who criticises them?

Members of AI did that during the blasphemy campaign.

Ask the OP a direct question on that one.

In the OP you have a member of AI touting for the organisation. I don't think it's up to anyone to say join or don't join. The thing is you should know what it is exactly you are joining. To know that you should know as much as possible and then make up your own mind.

When I describe AI as Irish Catholic Atheists it's not a jibe or a slag. It's a serious collective description of the way the membership is run and the way they act collectively. To my mind you're not really an atheist thinker if you expect people to be raised steeped in a historic culture that they can suddenly mentally disemburse themselves of at the flick of a switch. Most people know what they think without constantly asking themselves why they think what they think. That's why I've said before that only in Ireland would atheists elect themselves a Pope.

The Wiki page could even be described as an atheist organisation engaging in what the Catholic Church calls "mental reservation".

This version of mental reservation works by omitting facts in order to leave only those that suit the history that a few people want you to believe. Of course that's only my opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Ireland

It's also a little bit of a shame seeing potential being wasted, especially with the support of those whose potential is being wasted. With some people it's with grudging support, others tacit, still others unknowingly while a few, at the top, have betrayed their own principles (assuming they had them to begin with). Some people traded what integrity they may have had for 4th division grand sounding titles and a teaspoonful of power as a reward for their loyalty.

This is the real question: does the truth matter?

If it doesn't matter for atheist organisations then it doesn't matter for the claims of religious ones either.

Seriously dude what the hell are you talking about?

strobe

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The last d[....]her.[/I]

Man, I am inthrolled(sc). I kinda think AI is as silly as my local church. True.

But what exactly happened to make you set your self in total opposition to them? I'm trying my best not to be facetious, but really, did someone straighten out a snake and fire it at you out of a long bow? Dead sly, the're always at that.


No but really man, I kinda see where you're coming from. A lot of the people in AI have a very real Pat Rabbitt vibe off of them. In so far as they are using any organisation they come across to get to mark one more qualification down on their "I should be a politician" form. That's politics...........The cure is lots and lots of fertiliser, so I've heard..... But ohhhh no we can't do that, it might make someone no one gives a sh1t about late for work. Ohhhh the humanity!!!!

Giberish....Total giberish...!

liamw

strobe, your posts never disappoint at the weekend

Arcus Arrow

strobe wrote: »

Man, I am inthrolled(sc). I kinda think AI is as silly as my local church. True.

How ironic is it to have an Irish Catholic atheist organisation lectured by Darry Ray who wrote a book based around the inability of religious believers to see the faults in their own religion while being perfectly able to see the same faults in another? AI follows the exact same trait.

The God Virus by Darrel Ray

Product Description
What makes religion so powerful? How does it weave its way into our political system? Why do people believe and follow obvious religious charlatans? What makes people profess deep faith even as they act in ways that betray that faith? What makes people blind to the irrationalities of their religion yet clearly see those of others?

http://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-religion-infects-culture/dp/0970950519

strobe wrote: »

But what exactly happened to make you set your self in total opposition to them? I'm trying my best not to be facetious, but really, did someone straighten out a snake and fire it at you out of a long bow? Dead sly, the're always at that.

I spent far more time and money than anyone getting things to the point where it was possible to have an organisation.
At the same time I just detest committees, hierarchical power, bureaucracy and red tape. AI scores 10 out of 10 on all of them. What has any of that got to do with the self presented champions of freethinking, open mindedness and free speech? In the OP you have a sniff of that very Catholic trait "do as I say not as I do".

The time and the money don't bother me (or even to some extent the credit.) I've poured time and money into groups supporting victims of Catholic child rape as well and I didn't join their clubs either.

Also though I just don't like self promoters and chancers getting away with it. What I dislike about AI is the same things I dislike about the Roman Catholic Church. The little one reflects the bigger one that produced it.

strobe wrote: »

No but really man, I kinda see where you're coming from. A lot of the people in AI have a very real Pat Rabbitt vibe off of them. In so far as they are using any organisation they come across to get to mark one more qualification down on their "I should be a politician" form. That's politics...........The cure is lots and lots of fertiliser, so I've heard..... But ohhhh no we can't do that, it might make someone no one gives a sh1t about late for work. Ohhhh the humanity!!!!

I think that bit in bold is a lot closer to the truth than even you might realise.

It's no accident that the most prominent limelight hogging member of AI is a failed political candidate. The Roman Catholic virus means the membership maintain a deferential, almost reverential, faith in their leader as being "the best man for the job".

Of all the media opportunity's, lectures etc that AI has been invited out of the 300 or so member one man dominates overwhelmingly.
The last time I was sent the count I think out of 65 occasions he scored over the 60 mark. Overall it's beyond doubt that one man has been and is, using AI for his own self promotion.

Arcus Arrow

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Of all the media opportunity's, lectures etc that AI has been invited out of the 300 or so member one man dominates overwhelmingly.
The last time I was sent the count I think out of 65 occasions he scored over the 60 mark. Overall it's beyond doubt that one man has been and is, using AI for his own self promotion.

Seriously dude, you're not coming off as rational..... or sane.

What has AI or Mike Nugent done that has irked you so?

Nodin

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I spent far more time and money than anyone getting things to the point where it was possible to have an organisation.
At the same time I just detest committees, hierarchical power, bureaucracy and red tape. AI scores 10 out of 10 on all of them. What has any of that got to do with the self presented champions of freethinking, open mindedness and free speech? In the OP you have a sniff of that very Catholic trait "do as I say not as I do".

The time and the money don't bother me (or even to some extent the credit.) I've poured time and money into groups supporting victims of Catholic child rape as well and I didn't join their clubs either.

Also though I just don't like self promoters and chancers getting away with it. What I dislike about AI is the same things I dislike about the Roman Catholic Church. The little one reflects the bigger one that produced it.

....the need to feel and be treated like a Martyr...thats a often religous thing too....

philologos

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Of all the media opportunity's, lectures etc that AI has been invited out of the 300 or so member one man dominates overwhelmingly.
The last time I was sent the count I think out of 65 occasions he scored over the 60 mark. Overall it's beyond doubt that one man has been and is, using AI for his own self promotion.

Repeating what King Mob has said here. What is your problem with Michael Nugent?

Having briefly met him, he's nothing short of a gentleman.

As for Michael taking part in a large proportion of the events where AI was invited to speak. Michael as chairperson is the overall representative of AI therefore one would expect him to represent the organisation on more occasions than not.

That said, AI have used regional representatives to speak on radio, and take part in university debates. I don't see very many other organisations apart from AI that are willing to promote dialogue in respect to atheism on a larger scale in Irish society, or indeed that have been as widely published as they have apart from say the Humanist Association of Ireland, and Irish Skeptics.