TheChizler wrote: » Who will be on the no side for "balance" in debates so?
Pherekydes wrote: » R! Can't wait...
In view of all of this, why not simply introduce a Bill to amend the 2009 Act and remove the offence from our law altogether? That could be done in short order and at almost no expense. It would also leave the purely symbolic words in the Constitution where they pose no threat to pluralism and free speech, but of course that would not allow any virtue signalling. That is the problem and that is why we have to have a costly referendum.
Let me raise the issue of the blasphemy amendment very briefly. It seems those who talk about it being a distraction are the ones causing the distraction. There are arguments for and against the proposal. We need to have a debate very soon on the appropriateness of international bodies putting their welly in, so to speak, on issues in respect of which we are best placed to decide the precise nuance we want in our laws. This is becoming a bit oppressive of our national sovereignty regarding important issues.
ELM327 wrote: » Drawing pictures of Jesus is considered ok by the PC brigade, but drawing satirical photos of muhammad is not for some reason. Here's an example, lets see if I get banned for this, because I know posting a similar caricature of Jesus would be fine.
robindch wrote: » Zzzzzz.... Honestly, how many times do we have to explain this? You can post whatever you like within reason here on A+A within the broad remit of the forum charter and the longer rules provided by boards. There are lots of images of Mohammed scattered about the forum and the mod team has no intention of removing any of them. I can't help but notice that your image links back to the neofascist propaganda website, breitbart, and your post is cluttered with terms which often trigger considerable anger in its angry, white-skinned, but occasionally red-cheeked, base. Maybe you just need a hug and a nice cup of hot chocolate?
recedite wrote: » If nobody steps forward, I think the Referendum Commission should pay an actor to play the part. In the interests of balance. Maybe Ali G (Borat)? Or our own Gabriel Rosenstock? They should be able to create a suitable character to front the No campaign.
ELM327 wrote: » and fascism is more usually associated with left wing communist/socialist states (eg Italy/Germany in the run up to WW2)
ELM327 wrote: » I think it's interesting that the ilk of Iona et al are still licking their wounds after the last referendum to the point that they are not even willing to debate. I'd wager that if there had not been an abortion referendum earlier in the year they'd have been full steam ahead defending this one.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Ah, not this crap again :rolleyes:
matrim wrote: » One of things used against them in the last referendum was that they are always "anti". I'd imagine they want to sit out one or two so that they can come back and they say "we didn't campaign against xyz"
ELM327 wrote: » To be honest I googled "Muhammad Caricature" and that was the first line result. I'm not a fascist, despite people's attempts to pin the "fascist" tag on right wing minded folks, it's not fascism.
smacl wrote: » Interesting. I just googled "Muhammad Caricature" and I didn't get any links to breitbart.com but then I wouldn't expect to as its not a site i frequent and google by default sends you to sites it thinks you'll find relevant based on your search history. So I opened an incognito window to block this behaviour and did the same thing, still no breitbart. I also tried this on another computer that's not used for browsing and again no breitbart. So while I don't doubt that's what google returned for you, that rather suggests you spend time on breitbart.com and similar related sites.
seamus wrote: » @ELM you're pretty far off the mark here. I think you'll find the "PC" brigade very supportive of the right to utter blasphemy, including drawn pictures of Mohammed. The only reason people in the west worry about offending Islam is because there was a brief period (which has thankfully died down), where a few fruitloops were willing to kill you for it. On this referendum, it'll fairly obviously be a landslide. I'd go with 90%+, albeit against a very low turnout; late-20s-percent.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Isnt it linked to the presidential election? Having not lived in or voted in Ireland in a long time I have to admit I do not actually know how it works back home. Does turnout for one guarantee a certain level of turnout for the other? Or do you literally have to go in twice to two different places to vote on each? If not then wouldn't the turnout be fairly ok given everyone is there to vote for the president anyway?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I know there was someone who "debated" with Nugent on radio who was for keeping the law. His name I am pulling from memory only so apologies if I have it wrong. But it was something like Dr Ali Salim or Dr Ali Selim.
ELM327 wrote: » My mistake, here's the link to my search from yesterday, it was "cartoon" not "caricature". And while I have never visited breitbart directly, perhaps it's linked to my facebook cache or something. Try this link and see if it brings the same result for you as it did for me.https://www.google.com/search?q=muhammad+cartoon&client=firefox-b-ab&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip9q_PwOrdAhXKa8AKHU_1BG8Q_AUIDigB&biw=1280&bih=910#imgrc=TKleaflJTtykVM:
To be honest I googled "Muhammad Caricature" and that was the first line result.
ELM327 wrote: » I disagree that "PC brigade" would be supportive of said right, I do believe that there is a vocal brigade in favour but it's not the PC brigade.
smacl wrote: » That link clearly does as it embeds your chosen result. Using the base search of "muhammad+cartoon" doesn't give anything on the first page and gives the brietbart link as the seventh entry if you go to images. You said Paint my cynical, but when anyone starts a sentence with the words "To be honest..." first thing I do is question their honesty
smacl wrote: » Who exactly are the PC brigade then? I'm assuming you know this on the basis that you know how they're going to vote.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Isnt it linked to the presidential election? Having not lived in or voted in Ireland in a long time I have to admit I do not actually know how it works back home. Does turnout for one guarantee a certain level of turnout for the other? Or do you literally have to go in twice to two different places to vote on each?
If not then wouldn't the turnout be fairly ok given everyone is there to vote for the president anyway?
ELM327 wrote: » I see your crap is back again :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: See I can be condescending and rude to you too.
smacl wrote: » Only reason I'm voting in the presidential election is that its on the same day as the blasphemy referendum :pac:
Mutant z wrote: » The most embarrassing thing about is we will be having a referendum to remove it why not just scratch it off the books and be done with it without resorting to a pointless referendum.
