nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Campaign to repeal the blasphemy law

Michael Nugent

There will be a public meeting at 3 pm this Saturday, 15th Sept, in Buswells Hotel Dublin, to shape the campaign for a Yes vote to repeal the blasphemy law from the constitution.

There will be a referendum on 26 October (along with the Presidential election) in which we can vote to repeal this anachronistic offence.

We support the right to freedom of religion or belief, the right to freedom of speech, and the separation of church and State. The Irish blasphemy law infringes all of these principles. It has no place in a modern democratic republic.

Our blasphemy law is harmful. In Ireland, it has caused media outlets to self-censor themselves. Globally, it has emboldened States with more authoritarian blasphemy laws, who have cited the Irish law at the UN to support theirs.

Please attend this public meeting on Saturday where you can help to shape the campaign to repeal this law. We will also hold other public meetings around the country, along with information tables, leaflets, canvasses, and a media campaign.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

NIMAN

seamus wrote: »

Because we can't just "scratch it off the books" without a referendum. The consitution requires it.

Every single time, people seem to come up with this complaint - "why do we need a referendum for this?", or "Why aren't women only allowed vote in this referendum?".

It's a basic pillar of our constitution - nothing can be changed without referendum. (Though that requirement itself was an amendment!)

The lack of civics education in our system is shocking.

Sorry but I'd be one of those who also think these referenda are a terrible waste of money.

Just change them, thats what everyone wants.

seamus

NIMAN wrote: »

Sorry but I'd be one of those who also think these referenda are a terrible waste of money.

Just change them, thats what everyone wants.

I'm not disagreeing with you, this is a lot of money to spend on a no-brainer. In fact, I'd say practically no-one thinks otherwise.

But the fact is that you can't "just change them". It's not possible.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

Because we can't just "scratch it off the books" without a referendum. The consitution requires it.

Confusion arises because terms like "the law" and "the books" are thrown around.
Basically if its in the constitution, it can only be changed the people, which means a referendum.

If its only in legislation (statute books) it can be changed by the politicians.

ELM327

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I call out bullsh1t when I see it. Sorry if that upsets you. It's a criticism of the post not the poster but you chose to take it personally.

I see your crap is back again :rolleyes:

expectationlost

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.

except the referendum commission is legally restricted from giving pros and cons...

Hotblack Desiato

ELM327 wrote: »

I see your crap is back again :rolleyes:

Why are you mischaracterising Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany as "communist/socialist" when they were not?

Why are you launching personal attacks when called out on obvious BS?

You say you're right wing, you don't want to be associated with these guys which is fair enough (and many people on the right wouldn't either), that doesn't mean you can rewrite history to put more ideological clear blue water between them and you.

ancapailldorcha

The Nazi's were basically the 1930's equivalent of today's far right:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

ELM327

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why are you mischaracterising Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany as "communist/socialist" when they were not?

Why are you launching personal attacks when called out on obvious BS?

You say you're right wing, you don't want to be associated with these guys which is fair enough (and many people on the right wouldn't either), that doesn't mean you can rewrite history to put more ideological clear blue water between them and you.

Back with this crap I see :rolleyes:

smacl

ELM327 wrote: »

John and Jim. Oh and Mary over the road. It's not the chinese it's the greeks she's after.

Right so, Ted. A quick read on the PC brigade on critical-thinking.org shows it to a pejorative term primarily used in ad hominem and strawman arguments, which corresponds to your use and hence my comments. As with your comment above, your initial argument in this thread is pure nonsense.

NIMAN

seamus wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you, this is a lot of money to spend on a no-brainer. In fact, I'd say practically no-one thinks otherwise.

But the fact is that you can't "just change them". It's not possible.

Perhaps we need a referendum to allow us to change things without referendums?;)

matrim

Is the woman's place in the home referendum at same the same time as this one too?

expectationlost

matrim wrote: »

Is the woman's place in the home referendum at same the same time as this one too?

no its postponed for further debate re support for caring in the home

recedite

Nazis had socialist policies, but did not believe in extending similar benefits to people of other nations.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Nazis had socialist policies, but did not believe in extending similar benefits to people of other nations.

Trump has something similar, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/opinion/trump-welfare-reform-racism.html Simply having a welfare policy does not make one a socialist.

expectationlost

what has this got to do with blasphemy?

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

what has this got to do with blasphemy?

Honest to Jaysus I've no idea

Turtwig

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.
.

ELM327 wrote: »

Back with this crap I see :rolleyes:

ELM327 wrote: »

I see your crap is back again :rolleyes:

Mod:
Do not post this tirade again. Please engage constructively and civilly with other posters and their points of views.

expectationlost

oh christ the only person the last word today fm could find to debate blasphemy was professional contrarian Column Kenny can we not find somebody who believes in what he is saying? producers are so lazy. https://www.todayfm.com/The-Last-Word-with-Matt-Cooper/listen-back# friday oct 5th 2018 ~49 minutes

recedite

I still think Borat is the best man for the job.

Beechwoodspark

Ali Selim currently debating the blasphemy ref with Michael nugent on Sean o rourke

Michael Nugent

Quick update on the campaign

Coming Public Meetings

Dublin Sat 13th October, 3 pm Buswells Hotel
Galway Tues 16th October, 8 pm Harbour Hotel
Cork Sat 20th October, Details to be finalised

Radio debate with Ali Selim on RTE's Today with Sean O'Rourke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUTJy7xe-4A

Radio debate with Colum Kenny on Today FM's The Last Word

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF8QUNdsde8

expectationlost

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Quick update on the campaign

Coming Public Meetings

Dublin Sat 13th October, 3 pm Buswells Hotel
Galway Tues 16th October, 8 pm Harbour Hotel
Cork Sat 20th October, Details to be finalised

Radio debate with Ali Selim on RTE's Today with Sean O'Rourke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUTJy7xe-4A

Radio debate with Colum Kenny on Today FM's The Last Word
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF8QUNdsde8

caught the second half of it
what are the producers saying about coverage of this referendum about the difficulty of getting debaters (as always I think media can do analysis and debates) I prefer to have Ali Selim on then some guy like Kenny on going on who kept returning to the cost of the referendum

Odhinn

expectationlost wrote: »

oh christ the only person the last word today fm could find to debate blasphemy was professional contrarian Column Kenny can we not find somebody who believes in what he is saying? producers are so lazy. https://www.todayfm.com/The-Last-Word-with-Matt-Cooper/listen-back# friday oct 5th 2018 ~49 minutes

The RCC seem strangely reticent on the whole thing. They aren't wheeling out the Ionanists etc. I wonder if its because they realise that the jig really is up.

smacl

Odhinn wrote: »

The RCC seem strangely reticent on the whole thing. They aren't wheeling out the Ionanists etc. I wonder if its because they realise that the jig really is up.

Could be they don't want another referendum loss so soon and are keeping their powder dry for battle they have some chance of winning. e.g. kicking Bruton into submission

Peregrinus

Odhinn wrote: »

The RCC seem strangely reticent on the whole thing. They aren't wheeling out the Ionanists etc. I wonder if its because they realise that the jig really is up.

Iona have been on record for some years as favouring repeal of the blasphemy laws, so anyone wanting to "wheel out" opposition to the referendum needs to look elsewhere.

But, truth to tell, there's not much evidence that the RCC are bothered by this. Catholicism seems to survive, somehow, in countries with no blasphemy law, and there is no reason why the RCC would care greatly about the repeal of the Irish blasphemy provisions, or would expend political resources or credit in opposing repeal.

This isn't really a conflict between religion and secularism in Ireland; it's a conflict between the Ireland of today and the Ireland of the past. And the potential spokespersons for the Ireland of the past are mostly dead; hence the difficulty in getting "balance" in media coverage.

magicbastarder

there are two kiwis in the office here this morning pissing themselves laughing over a vote on blasphemy. they hadn't realised it was in the constitution.

seamus

The RCC, Iona, etc., still have some shred of self-awareness to realise that arguing to keep blasphemy illegal means you will lose, even if you win the debate. They have come out in support of the referendum and then walked away.

There's also the understanding that "blasphemy" is by its nature an ethereal thing, impossible to properly define. A "you know it when you see it" kind of thing. Which leaves the door open for any religion to try and start landing prosecutions.

So there really is no good argument in support of it. So far all I see are a tiny minority of idiots claiming they'll vote No in protest against the waste of money or "to piss off duh librels".

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

there are two kiwis in the office here this morning pissing themselves laughing over a vote on blasphemy. they hadn't realised it was in the constitution.

Kiwis laughing at Ireland's blasphemy law?

Not so fast, there, kiwi-people!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_New_Zealand

joe40

How are the media going to manage "balanced" debate on this one,
Is there any group that can offer any reason why Ireland should keep blasphemy laws on our constitution.

The vote however needs to happen our laws must reflect our constitution

Hotblack Desiato

This is why the BAI's interpretation of 'balance' is so ridiculous.

It'd be like not being able to discuss the Second World War without having a Hitler apologist getting half the airtime for 'balance'.