Blasphemy Referendum

Nick Park

And so we have another Referendum later this month ....

As an Evangelical Christian leader, I am campaigning for a 'Yes' vote on this one. Blasphemy laws in other parts of the world are used as a tool to persecute minorities - both Christian and otherwise. Such oppressive regimes, when challenged on the international stage, point to Western nations that also have blasphemy laws (such as Ireland and Canada) as justification.

So, in solidarity with all those who are suffering persecution, and in support of religious freedom, I will be voting 'Yes'.

I think God is big enough not to need legal protection against criticism or slander.

kelly1

I'll be voting 'yes' too. I don't want to be fined 25k for saying Muhammad was a false prophet or that Hindu "gods" are really demons or somesuch.

Defunkd

Has anyone been prosecuted under the blasphemy law?
I see this, and the other proposed change to the Con., as tokenism and a waste of taxpayers money. I'll vote to retain both.

Mancomb Seepgood

Defunkd wrote: »

Has anyone been prosecuted under the blasphemy law?
I see this, and the other proposed change to the Con., as tokenism and a waste of taxpayers money. I'll vote to retain both.

Not in modern times,as far as I know.

But that isn't really the point.Nick put it better than I could,God doesn't need the protection of the Irish state.The Irish blasphemy law could serve as a convenient counterpoint for countries that do prosecute people for blasphemy when they are challenged on human rights grounds.

Regarding the cost,I'd imagine most of the cost is tied up in the referendum,and will be incurred regardless of the result,so I can't see what possible reason someone would have to vote to retain this ridiculous law.

kneemos

Defunkd wrote: »

Has anyone been prosecuted under the blasphemy law?
I see this, and the other proposed change to the Con., as tokenism and a waste of taxpayers money. I'll vote to retain both.

Only consequence if the blasphemy law I've heard of is here on boards when they were threatened with prosecution by a certain religion.
Of course they folded,and have been ultra careful of any mention of said religion since.


Afaik the design of the law makes it impossible to be prosected.

Defunkd

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

Not in modern times,as far as I know.

But that isn't really the point.Nick put it better than I could,God doesn't need the protection of the Irish state.The Irish blasphemy law could serve as a convenient counterpoint for countries that do prosecute people for blasphemy when they are challenged on human rights grounds.

Regarding the cost,I'd imagine most of the cost is tied up in the referendum,and will be incurred regardless of the result,so I can't see what possible reason someone would have to vote to retain this ridiculous law.

I did some searching yesterday to find which regimes referenced the Irish blasphemy Law as justification for their own laws. The majority of Google results led back to Atheist Ireland, who made that claim that other Nations do this. I eventually found ONE reference to a Pakistani politician who said something at a UN meeting 6 or 7 years ago but The Guardian columnist didn't actually quote what the man said; he just gave out about Ireland's Law. If you can point me in a better direction, please do so as i like reading.

Arguing that Irish Law is used as justification for abuses anywhere else is probably the weakest argument that can be used to justify changing our Const. What else should we change to prevent anyone else making a childish accusation against us? France want us to increase our Corp. Tax, must we change it because they say it's unfair to them?

I don't care about the Blasphemy Law, I really don't. 1 man was prosecuted in 1855 - according to Wikipedia - and there hasn't been a conviction since. I'd love to know what he said/did!

I think that this attempt to change our Const. is motivated by something other than the safety/well-being of people in other countries. Seeing that it is spear-headed by Atheist Ireland, i am more inclined to think that it is some personal crusade or ideology rather than changing the Irish Const. to remove something that is actually harmful to Irish citizens. Only now, they have a more publicly acceptable reason for wanting it changed: 'we are somehow responsible for Muslim Countries abuses and they won't change unless we change'? Think more Mancomb, what is to be gained? Who is to benefit from this? Question and explore motivations.

The same applies to the other removal. The woMEN's council want the reference to the immense service to the State by being stay-at-home mothers removed from the Const. Why? Do you think it's because women are forced to stay at home or because someone's ideology is pricked by that one line?

Defunkd

Nick Park wrote: »

...Such oppressive regimes, when challenged on the international stage, point to Western nations that also have blasphemy laws (such as Ireland and Canada) as justification.

I tried searching for Countries who did as you said but could only find one instance. One Pakistani individual.
Could you give more examples of these regimes (plural), please and thank you?

begbysback

I got a 2 week ban previously for blasphemy though I think the mod was going through a personal crisis at the time

Belfast

Defunkd wrote: »

Has anyone been prosecuted under the blasphemy law?
I see this, and the other proposed change to the Con., as tokenism and a waste of taxpayers money. I'll vote to retain both.

It does seem to be another pointless referendum. I do not think religious references belong in the constitution.
I not sure what the point of removing parts of the constitution that have no effect in the real world.
Seems like a waste of money.
If they are going to reform the constitution, why not remove all the religious references at the same time?

Defunkd

kneemos wrote: »

Only consequence if the blasphemy law I've heard of is here on boards when they were threatened with prosecution by a certain religion.
Of course they folded,and have been ultra careful of any mention of said religion since.


Afaik the design of the law makes it impossible to be prosected.

Boards.ie enforces is 'blasphemy'laws more stringently than the Irish Govt.

Fill me in on the threat of legal action against boards. First i've heard of it...

kneemos

Defunkd wrote: »

Boards.ie enforces is 'blasphemy'laws more stringently than the Irish Govt.

Fill me in on the threat of legal action against boards. First i've heard of it...

It was years ago now. Trying to find anything on boards that happened even yesterday is a challenge.


Did find this though. Even the Pope apparently was against the blasphemy law.


https://www.boards.ie/

smacl

Defunkd wrote: »

Boards.ie enforces is 'blasphemy'laws more stringently than the Irish Govt.

You think? Maybe have a look at the funnies thread on the A&A forum. Note that clicking the link will take you to a forum in boards with lots of blasphemy. Caveat emptor!

kneemos

smacl wrote: »

You think? Maybe have a look at the funnies thread on the A&A forum. Note that clicking the link will take you to a forum in boards with lots of blasphemy. Caveat emptor!

At a cursery glance it all appears to be "Christian blasphemy".

smacl

kneemos wrote: »

At a cursery glance it all appears to be "Christian blasphemy".

Cursery or cursory? (Not sure if that was intentional, but good either way). Of the first four posts, the first two posts are about blasphemy in general, next one is 10 commandments, next one relates to Islam. To be fair there's more Christian stuff there, but we live in a Christian majority country and have been raised with the likes of Dave Allen. My recent favourites manage to bring Christianity and Islam onto the same page.

Defunkd

kneemos wrote: »

It was years ago now. Trying to find anything on boards that happened even yesterday is a challenge.


Did find this though. Even the Pope apparently was against the blasphemy law.


https://www.boards.ie/

That just links back to boards for me...
Yeah, Benedict was against Pakistan's blasphemy laws which are "a pretext for violence for minority religions" at a time when anti-Christian violence was peaking. That is nowhere near the case in Ireland. To equate the two is downright dishonest.

Defunkd

smacl wrote: »

You think? Maybe have a look at the funnies thread on the A&A forum. Note that clicking the link will take you to a forum in boards with lots of blasphemy. Caveat emptor!

It's very rare that clever humour is to be found on that thread imo. I'm no stranger to it. Not offensive but maybe an acquired taste or sense of humour?
I got warned here for using text speak on this forum. That was 'blasphemous' by the charter and i was reproved. That's more than the Irish Govt. has used its blasphemy laws...

smacl

Defunkd wrote: »

That just links back to boards for me...
Yeah, Benedict was against Pakistan's blasphemy laws which are "a pretext for violence for minority religions" at a time when anti-Christian violence was peaking. That is nowhere near the case in Ireland. To equate the two is downright dishonest.

I suspect though, that is the objection here. People both inside and outside the country do equate the two and others similar, where really they have nothing in common. Sometimes they do so divisively. It makes good sense to remove this opportunity and clarify our position.

Defunkd

begbysback wrote: »

I got a 2 week ban previously for blasphemy though I think the mod was going through a personal crisis at the time

Thou shalt not question the lord Mod. Thou must doeth as he sayeth.

railer201

Defunkd wrote: »

Thou shalt not question the lord Mod. Thou must doeth as he sayeth.

Only one letter in the difference and no doubts about existence either !

368100

Defunkd wrote: »

Has anyone been prosecuted under the blasphemy law?
I see this, and the other proposed change to the Con., as tokenism and a waste of taxpayers money. I'll vote to retain both.

Are you voting to retain because you believe the laws should stay or are you just having spite against your claim of a waste of taxpayers money?

Triangle

Defunkd wrote: »

I did some searching yesterday to find which regimes referenced the Irish blasphemy Law as justification for their own laws. The majority of Google results led back to Atheist Ireland, who made that claim that other Nations do this. I eventually found ONE reference to a Pakistani politician who said something at a UN meeting 6 or 7 years ago but The Guardian columnist didn't actually quote what the man said; he just gave out about Ireland's Law. If you can point me in a better direction, please do so as i like reading.

Arguing that Irish Law is used as justification for abuses anywhere else is probably the weakest argument that can be used to justify changing our Const. What else should we change to prevent anyone else making a childish accusation against us? France want us to increase our Corp. Tax, must we change it because they say it's unfair to them?

I don't care about the Blasphemy Law, I really don't. 1 man was prosecuted in 1855 - according to Wikipedia - and there hasn't been a conviction since. I'd love to know what he said/did!

I think that this attempt to change our Const. is motivated by something other than the safety/well-being of people in other countries. Seeing that it is spear-headed by Atheist Ireland, i am more inclined to think that it is some personal crusade or ideology rather than changing the Irish Const. to remove something that is actually harmful to Irish citizens. Only now, they have a more publicly acceptable reason for wanting it changed: 'we are somehow responsible for Muslim Countries abuses and they won't change unless we change'? Think more Mancomb, what is to be gained? Who is to benefit from this? Question and explore motivations.

The same applies to the other removal. The woMEN's council want the reference to the immense service to the State by being stay-at-home mothers removed from the Const. Why? Do you think it's because women are forced to stay at home or because someone's ideology is pricked by that one line?

Its populist politics, alot of people are unhappy at the moment as we've been through a huge recession and reliving horrors from the past (Magdalen laundries, church abuse) things like this give people hope that they have control over their lives (I.e. health care, taxes, holidays, etc)

The real conversation should be had about bringing real life changing ideologies and beliefs in my opinion. What is it people really want in life? Jobs with 21 days holidays? Pensions? Stability? Or is it something else?

I think you're right - this is a distraction from real issues we have here.

Doctor DooM

Hang on a second guys.

Boards got threatened by the blasphemy law and "of course" folded?

Where is your proof of that, because Boards had a massive multinational sue them and they became voldemort because boards wouldn't back down. We couldn't talk about them for years.

I'd be very, very interested in the proof for this.

Also boards doesn't ban for blasphemy there's an Atheist forum that is by definition blasphemy. It might ban you for going off topic in a place you're not supposed to I guess.

Thinkingaboutit

I get the sense that voting in this referendum means taking a minor role in the current farce, Leo Varadkar playing the progressive virtue signaller, a 10 cent Justin Trudeau.

smacl

Loved Life of Brian when it came out and still do. Interesting choice given it was banned in this country for eight years after its release, no doubt for being considered blasphemous. And of course also love Father Ted, Dave Allen and many other great comedies that have a few laughs while poking fun at religion. I think this is true of most Irish people which is why the notion of a blasphemy law in this day and age is a farce. If we believe our friends on Wikipedia however, Brian and Ted aren't the problem. From the article on censorship in Ireland

After the 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting, Ali Selim of the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland suggested that the blasphemy provision of the Defamation Act 2009 should be applied to any media outlet reproducing cartoons depicting Muhammad as part of the "Je suis Charlie" campaign

and the was what triggered the current referendum. Personally, I think what Selim is asking for runs contrary Irish preference and behaviour, as you've neatly illustrated with your Python link. Haven't heard Leo Varadkar talking that much about it to be honest. Probably a bit distracted by the Polish pro-lifers being had up for discussing to his perversion,