Jesus, another referendum on its way -blasphemy

Delirium

catallus wrote: »

What's even more annoying is they blind themselves to the majesty of faith!

which faith? Don't want to pick the wrong one and be charged with blasphemy:eek:

shruikan2553

catallus wrote: »

Such twisted moral blindness is appalling.

Is saying Jesus is not the son of god not blasphemy?

Would preventing people from not saying that be intolerant?

What do we do about religions that have different beliefs on something, do they both get charged for blasphemy?

catallus

You need not worry your head about it, just keep your head down (along with your rabble-rousing!), there's a good fella :P

BBDBB

does anyone know when was the last time this "law" was used to successfully prosecute someone?

if its recently then yes a referendum is probably a good idea if the powers that be cant see for themselves that its somewhat outdated and pretty near impossible to police in any meaningful way then clearly they need our assistance

if its decades since it was used, then I think there are bigger fish to fry and better ways to spend public monies




* "law" - may not be the exact technical term but Im not a lawyer

krudler

catallus wrote: »

What's even more annoying is they blind themselves to the majesty of faith!

Which faith? the one mostly determined by your place of birth? ah the joys of being born in one of the countries that most people worship the right god, not like all those stupid brown people in other countries with their elephant gods.

krudler

BBDBB wrote: »

does anyone know when was the last time this "law" was used to successfully prosecute someone?

if its recently then yes a referendum is probably a good idea if the powers that be cant see for themselves that its somewhat outdated and pretty near impossible to police in any meaningful way then clearly they need our assistance

if its decades since it was used, then I think there are bigger fish to fry and better ways to spend public monies




* "law" - may not be the exact technical term but Im not a lawyer

Saw somewhere that last prosecution for blashpemy was 1855. Nobody has been charged with the 2009 blasphemy law, making it a complete waste of time thankfully. The concept of a blasphemy law in itself is utterly ludicrous.

Knasher

BBDBB wrote: »

does anyone know when was the last time this "law" was used to successfully prosecute someone?

if its recently then yes a referendum is probably a good idea if the powers that be cant see for themselves that its somewhat outdated and pretty near impossible to police in any meaningful way then clearly they need our assistance

if its decades since it was used, then I think there are bigger fish to fry and better ways to spend public monies

It's never been used, and it has only been on the books for 6 years. It is being removed now because we are going to be having a referendum on a couple of issues and it is cheaper to address this in one go. And it is a good idea to remove it because other countries have used our law in the past as justification in front of the UN, countries where blasphemy laws are actually enforced and people have been put to death. And often these laws are used to represses religious minorities. We shouldn't be supporting things like that, so I'll be happy to see it removed, and done in a way which will cost us the least amount of time and money.

mikom

When's the referendum on trolls?

Zillah

catallus wrote: »

What's even more annoying is they blind themselves to the majesty of faith!

I would love to meet you in person, I think that'd be hilarious and surreal. It's all well and good to see someone with a good vocabulary making astounding statements about the majesty of faith on the internet, but I think if one met one in real life it'd be pretty extraordinary.

hatrickpatrick

twinytwo wrote: »

The point is why spend millions to remove something so trivial that doesn't matter at the end of the day

Our constitution is symbolically important as a representation of the values we as a nation agree with. It's important to get rid of the blasphemy crap and the women in the home crap because as long as it stands, it is part of who we are.

If the constitution doesn't matter, why do you think it was so important for us to give up our unquestionable claim to Northern Ireland in order to satisfy those who did not want to be part of Ireland that the Good Friday agreement was a good idea? Few things in this world are more powerful than words, when used in the right way.

As long as we have a constitutional article relating to blasphemy, we are saying that as a nation we do not believe in freedom of speech.

PopePalpatine

mikom wrote: »

When's the referendum on trolls?

I bet that's the referendum which REALLY has catallus [sic] crapping himself.

catallus

Zillah wrote: »

I would love to meet you in person.

I think I'd be too much for you to handle, but you'll get your chance at the next beers :cool:

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I bet that's the referendum which REALLY has catallus [sic] crapping himself.

Hi pope

conorh91

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As long as we have a constitutional article relating to blasphemy, we are saying that as a nation we do not believe in freedom of speech.

That's a terrible inference. We have a constitutional provision specifically protecting free speech.

Thousands of Irish people have been directly affected by court judgments vindicating their right to free speech.

Not a single person has been damaged by the blasphemy provision before the courts.

This should lead a rational observer to believe that our constitution is more likely to vindicate free speech.

Common sense would lead to similar conclusions.

PopePalpatine

If there's no benefit of leaving it in, why shouldn't there be no harm in taking it out?

BBDBB

krudler wrote: »

Saw somewhere that last prosecution for blashpemy was 1855. Nobody has been charged with the 2009 blasphemy law, making it a complete waste of time thankfully. The concept of a blasphemy law in itself is utterly ludicrous.

Knasher wrote: »

It's never been used, and it has only been on the books for 6 years. It is being removed now because we are going to be having a referendum on a couple of issues and it is cheaper to address this in one go. And it is a good idea to remove it because other countries have used our law in the past as justification in front of the UN, countries where blasphemy laws are actually enforced and people have been put to death. And often these laws are used to represses religious minorities. We shouldn't be supporting things like that, so I'll be happy to see it removed, and done in a way which will cost us the least amount of time and money.

Thanks both. I suppose my next question is what the heck (see what I did there ;-) ) were they thinking in 2009 to update a law that hadn't been used since 1855???


Over time, most laws will eventually become outdated, some get updated and some just fall quietly into the history books, why was this one updated rather than simply let die quietly?? seems a bizarre decision

conorh91

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If there's no benefit of leaving it in, why shouldn't there be no harm in taking it out?

To safeguard against incitement to hatred in future.

Offhand, I can think of lots of constitutional provisions that are redundant at present. But the point of a basic law, i.e. a constitution, is to provide an enduring document both for the present, and for the unimagined future, whatever it might bring.

A provision that prohibits incitement to hatred on the basis of such affiliation (e.g. Islam) might not be very relevant at the moment, but it might be in future. Constitutions are far-reaching documents, they aren't intended to satisfy the needs of the present generation alone.

The Constitution is full of these little 'fire extinguishers'. We hope we never need them, but they're left in and updated and maintained, just in case.

PopePalpatine

I'd say the answer lies with Dermot Ahern.

conorh91 wrote: »

To safeguard against incitement to hatred in future.

Offhand, I can think of lots of constitutional provisions that are redundant at present. But the point of a basic law, i.e. a constitution, is to provide an enduring document both for the present, and for the unimagined future, whatever it might bring.

A provision that prohibits incitement to hatred on the basis of such affiliation (e.g. Islam) might not be very relevant at the moment, but it might be in future. Constitutions are far-reaching documents, they aren't intended to satisfy the needs of the present generation alone.

The Constitution is full of these little 'fire extinguishers'. We hope we never need them, but they're left in and updated and maintained, just in case.

Why do we need a blasphemy law to cover incitement to hatred? I typed "blasphemy definition" into Google, and what I got was:

Google dictionary wrote:

The action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.

"Sacrilege" is defined as:

Google dictionary wrote:

Violation or misuse of that which is regarded as sacred.

There's NOTHING in either definition that protects against incitement to hatred. And, going by Pakistan's application of their blasphemy law, it doesn't offer any protection to religious minorities.

conorh91

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Why do we need a blasphemy law to cover incitement to hatred? I typed "blasphemy definition" into Google, and what I got was:

Ok, let me clarify my previous post.

The media have referred to the Minister replacing the Blasphemy provision with one providing for a prohibition on incitement to hatred more generally.

This would have the effect of bringing other affiliations and groupings under the umbrella of what was formerly known as the blasphemy provision. Offensive blasphemous publication will still be prohibited, but the prohibition will be amended to cover more bases.

It is the latter, umbrella amendment to which I am referring, and which I am just assuming there is opposition to.

Knasher

Your misattributing a quote to me, though I don't mind too much as I'd happily agree with hatrickpatrick, still you should fix it.

conorh91 wrote: »

Not a single person has been damaged by the blasphemy provision before the courts.

You're wrong about that. Just because this provision hasn't been upheld, doesn't mean nobody was damaged by it. This law was prompted by a court case that was taken all the way to the supreme court. Defending yourself against lawsuits is rarely a cheap prospect, even if you win there is no guarantee you will be awarded compensation.

BBDBB wrote: »

Thanks both. I suppose my next question is what the heck (see what I did there ;-) ) were they thinking in 2009 to update a law that hadn't been used since 1855???

Well our laws are required to reflect our constitution (though a point that FF conveniently forgot when it came to the abortion cases), so when it was pointed out that their was a disparity they either had to fix the law or hold a referendum. They decided it was too expensive to hold a referendum to fix this specific issue, so they promised one the next time they were holding one for another issue, and introduced the law as a temporary measure. Then they were kicked out of office by FG.

conorh91

Knasher wrote: »

You're wrong about that. Just because this provision hasn't been upheld, doesn't mean nobody was damaged by it. This law was prompted by a court case that was taken all the way to the supreme court. Defending yourself against lawsuits is rarely a cheap prospect, even if you win there is no guarantee you will be awarded compensation.

But costs were awarded against Corway in that case, so what's your point? Independent Newspapers plc was not a victim by any test of victimhood. They were completely vindicated.

Even if Independent Newspapers were victims, which they are not, you would have established *one* legal individual who is a victim, as against the thousands who have directly had their rights to freedom of speech vindicated down the years.

You see the general trend here, right?

Anyone who says that the Blasphemy provision demonstrates that Ireland doesn't support free speech is deluded.

If people are so passionately in favor of free speech, then the tort of defamation is the real bogeyman, surely?

bodice ripper

Here Cattulus, are you actually in favour of keeping this law, asides from being appalled by our blindness to the majesty of faith?

hatrickpatrick

conorh91 wrote: »

That's a terrible inference. We have a constitutional provision specifically protecting free speech.

Thousands of Irish people have been directly affected by court judgments vindicating their right to free speech.

Not a single person has been damaged by the blasphemy provision before the courts.

This should lead a rational observer to believe that our constitution is more likely to vindicate free speech.

Common sense would lead to similar conclusions.

This is Wikipedia's summary of the relevant articles:

Article 40.6.1.i. of the 1937 Constitution states "The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law". Article 44.1 states "The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion."

Do you really find that an acceptable declaration for a secular democracy?

This is about free speech but it's also about breaking Ireland's church-state ties, which should have been shredded long ago.

Knasher

conorh91 wrote: »

If people are so passionately in favor of free speech, then the tort of defamation is the real bogeyman, surely?

Don't get me started, at the very least the honest opinion defence is clearly not robust enough.

dublinman1990

I have never experienced anyone being prosecuted for this recent joke of a law. I have never heard of how a person from Ireland is meant to be logically prosecuted under a blasphemy law. It sounds utterly ridiculous to even think about it being so damaging to an individual.

It is a very good idea for us to vote on getting rid of it because admittedly we Irish people should be able to have a small and crucial voice in how this country should be run properly. As long as the vote is used wisely and correctly in this case will be a big positive for us but we have read or heard examples of how it went the opposite way from long ago in the past. And that should not be forgotten about either.

I suppose Iona will not surprisingly be venting a lot of rage at the blasphemy law being considered to be removed by the voting public in this country. However they could be gleefully endorsing an incitement to hatred law being put on the Irish Statute books if the Irish people eventually agree to it with a yes vote (I know that never happen within a million years). Either way this will be a comedy of errors at it's finest as this campaign eventually goes ahead sometime in the future.

This incitement to hatred law for me is simply unpalatable to think about if we are thinking about putting this into Irish law just because of religion. We as a people should never have to envisage an environment in where people hate each other simply because of religion.

We shouldn't have a law to hate someone because of an optional part of someone else's lifestyle.

PopePalpatine

Unfortunately dublinman, on this island there's been a history of religiously-inspired hatred. I didn't become an atheist overnight, and although a religion is optional like a political belief, I'm pretty sure most of us on Boards don't change political views in the blink of an eye. We'll just have to wait and see what this "incitement to religious hatred" law will be like and how it will define "religious hatred" - is it "religious hatred" in the same sense as "KILL ALL TAIGS/PRODS" or will it be in the sense of "<insert religion here> is stupid"?

conorh91

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is Wikipedia's summary of the relevant articles:

Do you really find that an acceptable declaration for a secular democracy?

I don't find Wikipedia an acceptable arbiter of relevance.

One of the provisions you quote (Art. 44.1) is irrelevant, in the sense that it is non-justiciable.

Article 40.6.1(i) is relevant, but as I have said, has never been applied by the courts in limiting freedom of speech.

In fact, the courts consistently uphold freedom of speech as being in the highest rank of constitutional rights.

Having said that, free speech is not an absolute right.

If you want to make it an absolute right, then blasphemy is way down the list of barriers to such a right. The primary barrier, surely, is the law on defamation. Blasphemy is not relevant in practice, since the law on blasphemy is almost impossible to transgress.

Frequently, these debates seem to me more concerned with rhetoric and tropes, than with practical issues relevant to people's lives.

hatrickpatrick

conorh91 wrote: »

I don't find Wikipedia an acceptable arbiter of relevance.

One of the provisions you quote (Art. 44.1) is irrelevant, in the sense that it is non-justiciable.

Article 40.6.1(i) is relevant, but as I have said, has never been applied by the courts in limiting freedom of speech.

In fact, the courts consistently uphold freedom of speech as being in the highest rank of constitutional rights.

Having said that, free speech is not an absolute right.

If you want to make it an absolute right, then blasphemy is way down the list of barriers to such a right. The primary barrier, surely, is the law on defamation. Blasphemy is not relevant in practice, since the law on blasphemy is almost impossible to transgress.

Frequently, these debates seem to me more concerned with rhetoric and tropes, than with practical issues relevant to people's lives.

This is about the Irish Constitution. As I said earlier, a nation's constitution is symbolically important as a representation of what that nation stands for as well as a practical document outlining how that country is to be governed.

The article relating to women in the home has absolutely no basis in law, and yet most will agree that it should go. Likewise, the article relating to the Catholic Church has no real legal ramifications, but many would argue that it must also go.

Hypothetical question: If we had an article which stated something along the lines of "This state recognizes that Jews are terrible human beings" would you be ok with that, given that it would have no corresponding practical basis in law? What if we had an article stating that "This state recognizes that gingers have no souls"? Again, no practical implications but deep symbolic issues.

Just because a constitutional provision has never been applied in court, doesn't mean it should be allowed to stand. The constitution partially defines who we are as a nation. It is of the utmost importance that any values enshrined in the constitution which the people of Ireland no longer approve of, are removed.

Zillah

BBDBB wrote: »

Thanks both. I suppose my next question is what the heck (see what I did there ;-) ) were they thinking in 2009 to update a law that hadn't been used since 1855???

I remember thinking at the time that it seemed weirdly timed to coincide with something else that was happening that the government perhaps wanted to distract from. Somewhat paranoid and I don't remember exactly what it was, but it made a lot of sense.

CramCycle

I have more issue with the right to a good name which is great if you have the money to enforce our constitution. Not so much if your barely getting by and someone makes a false accusation. Our ymedia would have you hung drawn and quartered before the Gardai arrive for a cheap headline, if you have a bit of cash to spare though, they can sit on or bury a story for years or indefinitely.

Mfwic_47

Couldn't they just have waited for a general or special election instead of dropping money in the pockets of the Boys and in this case also one of the Girls.

Christ on a crutch theState does know how to waste money!