Jesus, another referendum on its way -blasphemy

Peregrine

rozeboosje wrote: »

has anybody ever been convicted on the back of the existing blasphemy law?

No, but someone tried to bring a newspaper to the Supreme Court in the 90s during the divorce referendum debate. SC said the constitution was unclear on just what blasphemy was and that there was no legislation.

So, Dermot Ahern introduced legislation in 2009.

LeinsterDub

Draco wrote: »

the abolishment of the Dáil. So it's fairly normal practice to do so.

Awh feck I thought it was only the seanad and voted no. Can we vote again?

catallus

Sleepy wrote: »

I don't see why we need so many Referendums on Amendments.

Our Constitution is rotten to the core and completely out-of-date not even a century after it was written. We need a ground up re-write of the document and a single referendum to vote in it's replacement.

What does any of this mean? How can you say our Constitution is out of date? Is it just mindless "This is 2014!!!!" rabble-rousing?

shruikan2553

Ummm, doesnt this have to have people who are for keeping the law for debates? I cant wait to see that!

Iwasfrozen

catallus wrote: »

What does any of this mean? How can you say our Constitution is out of date? Is it just mindless "This is 2014!!!!" rabble-rousing?

The constitution is out of date because it hasn't moved with public opinion.

Clankatron

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The constitution is out of date because it hasn't moved with public opinion.

And parts of it are, literally, insane.

shruikan2553

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh look, catallus [sic] has an ally:
https://twitter.com/RonanMullen/status/517714794661826560

:rolleyes:

I would love a job as a senator but I am capable of dressing myself in the morning so am probably overqualified.

rozeboosje

Nodin wrote: »

Nope. Ne'er a one.

I didn't think so. Still, the thought that it's technically possible is creepy enough.

I won't be able to vote as I'm an effin' furriner ... but I hope you folks all do.

c_man

If only we had less democracy, imagine the cash savings!

Manach

Great, yet another expensive re-write to appease the PC-brigade their possible hurt feelings. I image that they will of course keep the controls that the government can clamp down on speech that can be deemed subversive to the state.

catallus

Indeed.

Why are they laughing in those cages?

c_man

Manach wrote: »

Great, yet another expensive re-write to appease the PC-brigade their possible hurt feelings.

Haven't our blasphemy laws been used by religiously bigoted states such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as justification for their own hate laws dealing with believers (death penalty yo)? But yeah, let's blame the secularists at home. Imagine them having the cheek to make the baby Jesus cry.

LeinsterDub

Manach wrote: »

Great, yet another expensive re-write to appease the PC-brigade their possible hurt feelings. I image that they will of course keep the controls that the government can clamp down on speech that can be deemed subversive to the state.

Well the state actually exists and can be destroyed unlike your sky fairy

I assume we're all currently Tweeting Mr. Mullen to tell him that we mock his god and everything he believes in?

shruikan2553

Deleted User wrote: »

I assume we're all currently Tweeting Mr. Mullen to tell him that we mock his god and everything he believes in?

Not yet. The gardai will be knocking down the door.

bodice ripper

So the whole debate will be in favour of ditching, and the no side will be replaced by the Moan About "The PC Brigade" Brigade. This will be very, very dull.

PopePalpatine

Manach wrote: »

Great, yet another expensive re-write to appease the PC-brigade their possible hurt feelings. I image that they will of course keep the controls that the government can clamp down on speech that can be deemed subversive to the state.

You must be great craic at parties.

I suppose we could sell babies to raise funds for this referendum.

krudler

Manach wrote: »

Great, yet another expensive re-write to appease the PC-brigade their possible hurt feelings. I image that they will of course keep the controls that the government can clamp down on speech that can be deemed subversive to the state.

Booo, down with democracy.

PopePalpatine

krudler wrote: »

Booo, down with democracy.

Yeah, we need one of them "managed democracies" like Russia and Ireland in the rare auld times, when Fine Fáil were scrambling over each other to kiss the bishop's ring.

catallus

Yeah, now we can kiss the ring of the shinner secularists?

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

Yeah, now we can kiss the ring of the shinner secularists?

No, I'm not into that kind of thing. I'll send ye a signed picture of it though, and ye can get your jollies that way.

catallus

What is so worrying is the intenacity of the whole "change it NOW" mindset is.

Wulfie

This blue shirt government . More beurocricy and reaffirming old unused laws.

Bring on that General election .

People voted for them the last time, because they had their fingers on the pulse of the nation . If someone got onto Joe wotsit about some micro problem , FG would be calling for heads to roll asap.

When is the last time that law was used ? Bullshiitt.

Wulfie

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would be great but I bet you'd still have a lot of idiots voting NO solely as a misguided and useless protest against "teh gubberment".

As with every amendment our political class priicks make us choose or not to vote on . We can be sure they will use our decision, in one way or another, to make us feel, we made the wrong decision.

osarusan

Can we send the bill to Dermot Ahern?

RDM_83 again

Mannach actually does have a point, if its worthwhile removing a law thats unenforcable by design, perhaps it would be worthwhile increasing and copper fastening genuine freedom of speech no matter how unpalatable that speech is to some quarters,
We badly need to change our libel laws.

Also the offences against the state act could probably do with an overhaul and it should not be possible for the civil (garda) and military forces to under the same ministry.

Akrasia

While I'm 100% in favour of removing the reference to Blasphemy from the irish constitution, the actual findings of the constitutional convention were that blasphemy is replaced with something potentially even worse

A constitutional prohibition on the incitement of religious hatred..

The Constitutional Convention has published its report calling for the offence of blasphemy to be removed.
It recommends that blasphemy is replaced by a new general ban on incitement to religious hatred.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/constitutional-convention-recommends-removal-of-blasphemy-offence-620909.html

The thing with Blasphemy, is that it would be an absolute PR disaster for the state to take even a single prosecution under this provision in the 21st century, so it's relatively harmless. However, with a 'ban on incitement of religious hatred' we could have religious lobby groups of all creeds in the courts 7 days a week lodging applications that one thing or another is persecuting their religion to such a degree that it constitutes incitement to religous hatred. It would make any legislation that conflicts with any religious 'freedom' subject to constitutional challenge and it could certainly be used to curb any free speech which opposes religion either with regard to specific elements of specific religions, or in fact, a general opposition to all forms of religion (Christopher hitchens style polemics could be challenged as prohibited under the constitution)

For a start, the zionist lobby would try to shut down any criticism of Israel during another one of it's murderous assaults on a civilian population

Islamic groups could use any attempts to condemn their most repressive practises as an offense prohibited by the constitution. Christians could even attempt to use this as a tool to prevent any equality legislation that insists that homosexuals are treated equally regardless of religious objections

El Weirdo

Akrasia wrote: »

While I'm 100% in favour of removing the reference to Blasphemy from the irish constitution, the actual findings of the constitutional convention were that blasphemy is replaced with something potentially even worse

A constitutional prohibition on the incitement of religious hatred..




The thing with Blasphemy, is that it would be an absolute PR disaster for the state to take even a single prosecution under this provision in the 21st century, so it's relatively harmless. However, with a 'ban on incitement of religious hatred' we could have religious lobby groups of all creeds in the courts 7 days a week lodging applications that one thing or another is persecuting their religion to such a degree that it constitutes incitement to religous hatred. It would make any legislation that conflicts with any religious 'freedom' subject to constitutional challenge and it could certainly be used to curb any free speech which opposes religion either with regard to specific elements of specific religions, or in fact, a general opposition to all forms of religion (Christopher hitchens style polemics could be challenged as prohibited under the constitution)

For a start, the zionist lobby would try to shut down any criticism of Israel during another one of it's murderous assaults on a civilian population

Islamic groups could use any attempts to condemn their most repressive practises as an offense prohibited by the constitution. Christians could even attempt to use this as a tool to prevent any equality legislation that insists that homosexuals are treated equally regardless of religious objections

TL;DR

Be careful what you wish for?

Akrasia

El Weirdo wrote: »

TL;DR

Be careful what you wish for?

More like, 'beware of politicians bearing gifts'

I hope the actual ballot will be more transparent and allow a genuine option to remove religious privilege from our constitution, but that is a hope more than an expectation.

Zebra3

Maybe just bring in legislation banning the organised worship of unproven deities.

There are too many organisations out there scamming gullible people, and too much resources wasted on their infrastructure.