A 'No' Campaign in the Upcoming Blasphemy Referendum?

BaronVon

I take responsibility for what I say too, but it's difficult to predict what some people find offensive, and what some people won't. It's rather subjective.....

RandomName2

Rhineshark wrote: »

Bit of a lazy approach that though. Absolves people of the basic decency that means most of us don't go around gratuitously insulting people and taking no responsibility for our own words as adults are supposed to do, but putting it on the person being insulted to "over-react" to.

Great messages to give to kids too, btw. Your upset kid comes to you and all you can do is shrug and tell them that offence is only taken, not given, absolving the bully and putting your kid at fault for having feelings.

Or from the other side, kids will certainly pick up that they have no responsibility for hurting others, it's not *their* fault and their parents, who trained them like that, certainly won't punish them for being a bully.

So the bully should be arrested? I mean, that's what laws are for.

I don't think manners should be given the force of law, myself.

Rhineshark

infacteh wrote: »

I take responsibility for what I say too, but it's difficult to predict what some people find offensive, and what some people won't. It's rather subjective.....

Sure, difficult if you're talking to a crowd. One can generally make an educated guess at how someone they're talking to will respond to

A) a dead baby joke
calling them a racist epithet
C) saying their religion is only followed by paedophiles and murderers.
D) ketchup with eggs. That one can be difficult.

Context of whether it's a friend, boss or granny also useful.

"Offence is only taken, not given" absolves you of hurt or anger caused by any of the above, bar maybe ketchup on eggs.

Offence can be given, when it is deliberately aimed to be given. Offence can also be taken, reasonably or not.

That's why I think that catchphrase is lazy though. It doesn't bother with nuance, responsibility or self-control. It's black and white and about what is easiest for "me" only.

troyzer

You can't constitutionally mandate manners and good behaviour.

Can you imagine if the law said you could go to prison for not saying bless you after someone sneezes? Or waiting for an elderly person to cross the road even if you have right of way?

There is a line between causing offense and taking offense and this line is really blurry, especially in high level conversations. The law has no role here in defining the difference and punishing one but allowing the other.

For example, a Catholic might be intensely offended at my suggestion that Jesus was a cult leader no better than Jim Jones. Whereas I would take that as a literal interpretation of his words (allegedly) claiming that his followers should leave their families to follow him.

Similarly, a Muslim would be irate at my suggestion that Muhammad was a blood thirsty warlord. But again, that would be based on my literal interpretation of the Qur'an.

The law has no role to play here. If you're offended, then say you're offended and disengage. Or you could try to have an intellectual discussion and try to refute their points. You shouldn't have the protection of the law to silence opinions which may be genuine and otherwise valid.

eagle eye

So if what I'm hearing is correct the Catholic Church and the atheists are in agreement?

If that is the case then I really want to keep the law, in spite of myself.

swampgas

eagle eye wrote: »

So if what I'm hearing is correct the Catholic Church and the atheists are in agreement?

If that is the case then I really want to keep the law, in spite of myself.

So edgy. :cool:

lawred2

nthclare wrote: »

The current law doesn't effect anyone here.

more reason to tidy up the constitution and the statute books then? No?

Should our constitution not reflect who we are and not what some clerics demanded a few generations ago?

MrMusician18

Del2005 wrote: »

Our blasphemy law is used as an excuse be countries that are far more hateful and violent than most Irish people to repress religious freedom. So by keeping it you allow others to suffer.

Is there any evidence this is the case because I've never seen it.

lawred2

Rhineshark wrote: »

Bit of a lazy approach that though. Absolves people of the basic decency that means most of us don't go around gratuitously insulting people and taking no responsibility for our own words as adults are supposed to do, but putting it on the person being insulted to "over-react" to.

Great messages to give to kids too, btw. Your upset kid comes to you and all you can do is shrug and tell them that offence is only taken, not given, absolving the bully and putting your kid at fault for having feelings.

Or from the other side, kids will certainly pick up that they have no responsibility for hurting others, it's not *their* fault and their parents, who trained them like that, certainly won't punish them for being a bully.

Meh. For the sake of having basic empathy for others and no wish to mistreat or hurt them, that is never an ideology I'll sign up to. I'm an adult. I take responsibility for what I say.

(I'll also be voting to repeal the blasphemy amendment.)

that's far too subjective

people are offended by all sorts

I'm not sure how the law or the constitution can step in for manners and politeness or for those offended by every little utterance.

Squatter

lawred2 wrote: »

Should our constitution not reflect who we are and not what some clerics demanded a few generations ago?

Should our Constitution prescribe capital punishment - preferably by defenestration - for posters who don't understand the difference between "affect" and "effect"?

mcmoustache

eagle eye wrote: »

So if what I'm hearing is correct the Catholic Church and the atheists are in agreement?

If that is the case then I really want to keep the law, in spite of myself.

Is this the new "Eating shít so liberals have to smell it" position? Careful you don't cut yourself on that edge.

lawred2

Squatter wrote: »

Should our Constitution prescribe capital punishment - preferably by defenestration - for posters who don't understand the difference between "affect" and "effect"?

t'would be a touch harsh

Hotblack Desiato

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Is there any evidence this is the case because I've never seen it.

How the Islamic States at the United Nations use the Irish blasphemy law to justify their own laws

The Report notes that Pakistan, on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, made the following proposal:

“38.1 States parties shall prohibit by law the uttering of matters that are grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents to that religion.”

The Islamic States took this wording directly from the definition of blasphemy in the newly-passed Irish blasphemy law.

In the same United Nations Report, Ireland supported several proposals submitted by the United States, including:

“33.2 Member States are called upon to review existing national laws to ensure that protections against racial and religious discrimination comply with their obligations under international human rights law.”

So Ireland was supporting a proposal to ensure that all States in the United Nations comply with human rights law obligations, while we had just passed a blasphemy law that did not comply with those standards, and the Islamic States were proposing that all States in the United Nations should adopt the definition of blasphemy from the Irish law.

Irish blasphemy law being used as a lever by Islamic countries

However, the reliance by representatives of Pakistan on the Irish legislation shows that the Irish law has provided an extremely dangerous international precedent.

Sweden, on behalf of the European Union, responded to Pakistan’s submission to the Ad Hoc Committee specifically opposing defamation of religions as a human rights concept. It is ironic that the text to which the European Union is opposed is extracted directly from the law of a Member State.

eagle eye

It's about a strong dislike for those who push their beliefs on other people.

I have no problem with a religious person who talks about loving God. I've no problem with a non-religious person talking about how they don't believe in God.

I do have a problem with a person who tells me how I should live my life, about how their code is the only right way. We have plenty of religious people who do this and we have atheist organisations telling us this stuff now as well.

Imo the blasphemy law doesn't hurt anybody. It would be very hard to convict anybody under this law. It's a waste of money having this referendum.

swampgas

eagle eye wrote: »

It's about a strong dislike for those who push their beliefs on other people.

You might want to consider that a blasphemy law does exactly that? It allows religious people to dictate what can and cannot be said by other people.

Hotblack Desiato

eagle eye wrote: »

I do have a problem with a person who tells me how I should live my life, about how their code is the only right way. We have plenty of religious people who do this and we have atheist organisations telling us this stuff now as well.

Complete nonsense.

Imo the blasphemy law doesn't hurt anybody. It would be very hard to convict anybody under this law. It's a waste of money having this referendum.

The problem is not that it's hard to convict, it's that it exists at all - chilling free speech in Ireland, providing cover to repressive regimes overseas.

Too late now for the 'waste of money' argument, as the vote is happening. That's not a valid reason to vote No.

eagle eye

swampgas wrote:

You might want to consider that a blasphemy law does exactly that? It allows religious people to dictate what can and cannot be said by other people.

You can simply tell them to f off.

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

Complete nonsense.

It's not nonsense. I'm now 'christening' these groups as the religious atheists.

Honestly I never thought I'd see the day where atheists became like religious groups, and in some cases like neo-nazi groups.

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

The problem is not that it's hard to convict, it's that it exists at all - chilling free speech in Ireland, providing cover to repressive regimes overseas.

I would be voting to get rid of it. I'm just anti agressive pushers of agendas. That is all I'm saying, the fact that church and the religious atheist organisations are all in favour of abolishing the law brings up this urge one to vote the other way.

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

Too late now for the 'waste of money' argument, as the vote is happening. That's not a valid reason to vote No.

Yeah I agree on all fronts here.

lawred2

eagle eye wrote: »

I would be voting to get rid of it. I'm just anti agressive pushers of agendas. That is all I'm saying, the fact that church and the religious atheist organisations are all in favour of abolishing the law brings up this urge one to vote the other way.

Honestly I can't see the aggressive pushing of this referendum..

What are you referring to?

eagle eye

There mightn't be agressive pushing of this issue because there is no need but there are two very agressive groups supporting it.
Those are the Roman Catholic church and the religious Atheists.

Hotblack Desiato

eagle eye wrote: »

Honestly I never thought I'd see the day where atheists became like religious groups, and in some cases like neo-nazi groups.

You should have no trouble providing us with some examples then.

I would be voting to get rid of it. I'm just anti agressive pushers of agendas.

Why is a viewpoint an 'agenda'? How is an agenda being 'aggressively' pushed? This campaign is extremely low-key to the extent that quite a number of people seem barely aware there is going to be a referendum at all.

That is all I'm saying, the fact that church and the religious atheist organisations are all in favour of abolishing the law brings up this urge one to vote the other way.

As far as the RCC's position goes, a stopped clock is right twice a day. Not everything they say is wrong. The fact that they agree with other groups on one specific issue is being used by you as a means to attack those other groups, why is that and how does that make any sense at all?

It makes no sense at all to say that you would vote a particular way but then a group you don't like also agree with voting that way, so you'll vote the other way. It comes across as extremely immature tbh.

Rhineshark

lawred2 wrote: »

that's far too subjective

people are offended by all sorts

I'm not sure how the law or the constitution can step in for manners and politeness or for those offended by every little utterance.

Never said it should, in fact, I specifically da2id I'd be voting to repeal the blasphemy law.

What I am actually objecting to is the summation of human interaction as "Offence is taken, not given". Which is, in my opinion, a lazy way out of having to take responsibility for how one treats others.

Usual example: if you think offence can only be taken and not given, surely there is no problem calling the next black person you see the n-word. After all, it can't possibly be your fault if they should choose to get all offended.

I bet most people won't, because they'd consider themselves to have basic decency and not to humongous tosspots. But how does that fit in to offence not being possible to give?

(I'll argue the legalities when a law is to be passed mandating that offence can only be taken, not given. Until then, bringing the law into my arguing that phrase is irrelevant.)

alaimacerc

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It makes no sense at all to say that you would vote a particular way but then a group you don't like also agree with voting that way, so you'll vote the other way. It comes across as extremely immature tbh.

It's only slightly worse than the grade of debate I've heard on the "No" side as such. Rónán Mullen's argument is that he has no argument that it should be in the constitution. But wants people to vote anyway out of a sulk, essentially.

That's pretty much objecting to spending €3m once, by trying to ensure it has to be spend twice.

alaimacerc

Listening back to today's Moncrieff now. Tim "fasted until mildly peckish" Jackson going for a more full-throated sort of "No". Essentially he's claiming we live in a theocracy, and aren't entitled to be changing our own constitution. Because that only gives people ideas, that might lead to them, say, voting to recognise reproductive rights.

Think he might be struggling to get over the last referendum, as much as trying to speak to the current one...

eagle eye

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

It makes no sense at all to say that you would vote a particular way but then a group you don't like also agree with voting that way, so you'll vote the other way. It comes across as extremely immature tbh.

First of all I said it sets off an urge in me. I didn't say I'd vote no.
Secondly it's two groups I dislike immensely, the Roman Catholic church and the religious atheists.

feargale

NewIrish01 wrote: »

Being a Christian myself, I personally feel that the current blasphemy laws allow fair and constructive criticism of religion and religious groups without giving justification to persecution or to slanderous and/or hateful statements that lack advantages or utility in our society. In my eyes, a repeal of the laws would only enable hateful and violent people to express themselves without repercussions.

There are incitement to hatred laws and they serve not just Christians. This is a state for people of all religious beliefs and the lack of them, and those who wish otherwise are either opposed to the ideals of a democratic republic or don't understand them.
There have always been offences known to the law and offences that belong solely in the realm of good manners.
I have heard the notorious bit of the Stephen Fry interview over and over. Agree or disagree with it, it was a cogent argument delivered in a serious tone, unlike Tommy Tiernan's cheap shots and some of the stuff in Boards, such as the despicable gloating a few years ago when Lourdes flooded and one old lady died. The knight who made the garda report in Ennis against Stephen Fry would have been better occupied engaging in debate with him.
Those who vote no on Thursday should hold their peace the next time the bullyboys of Pakistan persecute a Christian.

alaimacerc

NewIrish01 wrote: »

Being a Christian myself, I personally feel that the current blasphemy laws allow fair and constructive criticism of religion and religious groups without giving justification to persecution or to slanderous and/or hateful statements that lack advantages or utility in our society. In my eyes, a repeal of the laws would only enable hateful and violent people to express themselves without repercussions.

There are already laws against slander and hate speech. The question is, should there be an additional crime, constructed around the idea simply of giving offence to people's religious views?

Generally a bad idea to let the people being criticised decide what's "fair", as against what should be out-and-out criminalised.

Lantus

NewIrish01 wrote:

Being a Christian myself, I personally feel that the current blasphemy laws allow fair and constructive criticism of religion and religious groups without giving justification to persecution or to slanderous and/or hateful statements that lack advantages or utility in our society. In my eyes, a repeal of the laws would only enable hateful and violent people to express themselves without repercussions.

Expressing yourself is called freedom of speech. A slanderous or detrimental statement is very much subject to interpretation.

Offence is relative and we must Educate ourselves to understand and handle it ourselves. Words are just noises after all. When we become upset at any combination of noises another mammal makes then as a species we are in trouble.

The list of banned words and topics gets larger not smaller over time. Governments can control fear.

Words like anti semitism and islamaphobia provide dear driven magical shields to those religions that can shut down and isolate good people and intimidate them. They shouldn't exist.

We must subject ourselves to offence from a young age and learn to understand and realise it for what it is. An educated society won't get upset at abstract concepts or any other topic.

Hotblack Desiato

eagle eye wrote: »

First of all I said it sets off an urge in me. I didn't say I'd vote no.
Secondly it's two groups I dislike immensely, the Roman Catholic church and the religious atheists.

Still waiting for those examples of "where atheists became like religious groups, and in some cases like neo-nazi groups."

mcmoustache

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Still waiting for those examples of "where atheists became like religious groups, and in some cases like neo-nazi groups."

It's not important whether they exist or not. What's important is that he FEELS that they exist.

Sycamore Tree

That loon Ronan Mullen on 6 news ensuring a massive Yes vote. He is such a tool.