The Blasphemy Law again

JuliusCaesar

Sorry, didn't want to revive old threads that I've been reading but from which I understand

a. Blasphemy is an offense under the constitution
b. the law was adapted in 2009 rather than have a referendum

But seeing we're having a rake of referendums this year, could we not have had one on this too? Would it not have made sense to get rid of this at the same time? Isn't it embarrassing for everyone for fundamentalist states to be holding Ireland up as a shining example of religious sense, by having a law against blasphemy?

Nodin

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Sorry, didn't want to revive old threads that I've been reading but from which I understand

a. Blasphemy is an offense under the constitution
b. the law was adapted in 2009 rather than have a referendum

But seeing we're having a rake of referendums this year, could we not have had one on this too? Would it not have made sense to get rid of this at the same time? Isn't it embarrassing for everyone for fundamentalist states to be holding Ireland up as a shining example of religious sense, by having a law against blasphemy?

1 - Yep

2 - Yep

3 - Yep

PopePalpatine

It seems that the only way to challenge the leftovers from when we were the Vichy France to the Holy See's Third Reich is for hundreds of thousands of people to campaign intensively for them to be removed. It seems that the political establishment thinks, "Ah sure, no-one will get charged anyway, t'will be grand."

Custardpi

Be careful what you wish for lads. My understanding of the current blasphemy law is that it would be virtually impossible to secure a prosecution under it. Remember the big noise recently about sellers of the special edition of Charlie Hebdo being prosecuted? That died down pretty quickly, presumably once those proposing it actually talked to their legal advisors about the chances of success. It's quite possible that a removal of the current law could instead result it in being replaced with an Incitement to Religious Hatred legislation, going beyond what equality legislation already provides for & effectively being a tougher blasphemy law in all but name.

Pherekydes

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It seems that the political establishment thinks...

The poor voters are exhausted from having to go back and forth to the polling stations and are suffering from voter apathy. We can't be bothering them with yet another referendum.

Hotblack Desiato

We can bother them with a pointless amendment to lower the age of presidential candidates, though (when the system by which a presidential candidate can be nominated remains under the domination of the major parties and it's seen as a handy retirement number.)

The constitutional convention did vote to remove blasphemy, but in some attempt to appease the religious types voted also to replace it with some guff about religious hatred etc. and which could well be worse and even more chilling to free speech than the bad law we have now.

shruikan2553

I remember reading something like that they didnt want any issue being forgotten about if there was too many.

Could you image what would happen if they tried to bring in SSM and get rid of blasphemy at the same time? Persecution complex overdrive.