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

A 'No' Campaign in the Upcoming Blasphemy Referendum?

NewIrish01

After taking a quick look online, I noticed a fair amount of groups (particularly 'Atheist Ireland') campaigning for a 'Yes' vote in the upcoming referendum to repeal the blasphemy law.
I didn't however find any groups campaigning for a 'No' vote.

I'd therefore like to ask; is there any organised group (local or national) that's campaigning in favour of a 'No' vote?
If not, is there anybody who would be interested in creating one?

Find more posts tagged with

voting

referendum

vote no

blasphemy

religion & spiritual

Quick Links

Comments

GarIT

NIMAN wrote: »

Could anyone give an example of something you might say or do that would get you prosecuted under the existing law.

The constitution doesn't define blasphemy as far as I know so there lies the problem. Literally anything that might make the church look bad in even the slightest way.

I don't like the stained glass windows. That bell is too loud. Women should be allowed to be priests. I don't believe in..... That priest who has been convicted of paedophilia is a paedophile.

Literally anything could be interpreted as blasphemy whether what you are saying is a personal opinion or just stating a proven fact.

We have laws that apply to everyone about hate speech, we have laws against making untrue claims about a person or organisation. We don't need laws against saying anything even if it's correct about a specific group..

EdgeCase

colmufc wrote: »

Its crazy it was introduced in the first place ,there is no need for any reference to any religion in the constitution of Ireland and questions should be asked of why it was put in in the first place I remember when it was introduced and can't help but feel it was simply used to drag attention away from the economic turndown

It was introduced in 1937.
The courts had ruled that in order to prosecute blasphemy they would have had to define a state religion, which was unconstitutional in itself, the constitutional provision didn’t work at all.

The state then legislated during the FF/Green coalition and provided a definition of blasphemy. This opened up the possibility of prosecution because the courts now had been given a definition that wasn’t incompatible with the rest of the constitution.

I wrote to various politicians in FF and the Greens at the time and the responses I got were wholly unsatisfactory. Just wishy washy reassurances about the defenses they had included. It’s one of the reasons I haven’t voted for the greens since. I didn’t trust FF as far as you could throw them and never voted for them anyway, but I would have expected more from the greens for some reason than to do that.

The legislation, even if it was designed to be difficult to prosecute and was unlikely to be used was an absolute embarrassment to the country. I remember having a query from a French journalist I know wondering if they risked prosecution in Ireland for work they had done in France criticizing the church.

Bear in mind the Greek authorities had tried to use a European arrest warrant to go after an Austrian cartoonist who hadn’t even ever set foot in Greece over cartoons depicting Jesus.

Then you also had all of those violent attacks on European newspapers and magazine by Islamic extremists who claimed they were blasphemous.

So Ireland was really on the wrong side of freedom of speech and making an utter fool of itself internationally by joining the ranks of crackpot religious backwaters with oppressive laws and conforming all sorts of ultra negative stereotypes that this country was one of them. A lot of people tend to assume Ireland is an ultra right wing catholic country, so it didn’t exactly do much for challenging that reputation.

I also remember it getting wide international publicity. It was quite shocking to many people working in the tech sector as Ireland was also pitching itself as a creative hub for online media and a place to host data. There were questions about whether it could be used to sue or to censor online platforms that had nothing to do with Ireland.

Then you had it being cited as a precedent and a model for blasphemy laws that were implemented by very extreme regimes elsewhere who fully intended to prosecute using maximum legal penalties.

So basically it’s a piece of useless legislation for a crime nobody in Ireland wants to prosecute anyway that caused us major international reputational damage.

We’ve a good opportunity to delete this nonsense from our constitution and also send a strong message that this isn’t who we are, particularly if it’s deleted by a big majority.

suicide_circus

i don't see many people pulling their punches when it comes to criticizing the RCC in Ireland, quite the opposite in fact. There is however a certain reluctance to give both barrels to other faiths

Roanmore

This post sums everything up best.

If I recall at the time Ahern said it was in the constitution so they had to legislate for it even though it had been there for about 80 years and no other govt. thought it needed to be legislated for.
That's when the referendum should have been carried out.

Also, I don't think criticising the RCC is blasphemy, it's more specific than that.

EdgeCase wrote: »

It was introduced in 1937.
The courts had ruled that in order to prosecute blasphemy they would have had to definite a state religion, which was unconstitutional in itself, the constitutional provision didn’t work at all.

The state then legislated during the FF/Green coalition and provided a definition of blasphemy. This opened up the possibility of prosecution because the courts now had been given a definition that wasn’t incompatible with the rest of the constitution.

I wrote to various politicians in FF and the Greens at the time and the responses I got were wholly unsatisfactory. Just wishy washy reassurances about the defenses they had included. It’s one of the reasons I haven’t voted for the greens since. I didn’t trust FF as far as you could throw them and never voted for them anyway, but I would have expected more from the greens for some reason than to do that.

The legislation, even if it was designed to be difficult to prosecute and was unlikely to be used was an absolute embarrassment to the country. I remember having a query from a French journalist I know wondering if they risked prosecution in Ireland for work they had done in France criticizing the church.

Bear in mind the Greek authorities had tried to use a European arrest warrant to go after an Austrian cartoonist who hadn’t even ever set foot in Greece over cartoons depicting Jesus.

Then you also had all of those violent attacks on European newspapers and magazine by Islamic extremists who claimed they were blasphemous.

So Ireland was really on the wrong side of freedom of speech and making an utter fool of itself internationally by joining the ranks of crackpot religious backwaters with oppressive laws and conforming all sorts of ultra negative stereotypes that this country was one of them. A lot of people tend to assume Ireland is an ultra right wing catholic country, so it didn’t exactly do much for challenging that reputation.

I also remember it getting wide international publicity. It was quite shocking to many people working in the tech sector as Ireland was also pitching itself as a creative hub for online media and a place to host data. There were questions about whether it could be used to sue or to censor online platforms that had nothing to do with Ireland.

Then you had it being cited as a precedent and a model for blasphemy laws that were implemented by very extreme regimes elsewhere who fully intended to prosecute using maximum legal penalties.

So basically it’s a piece of useless legislation for a crime nobody in Ireland wants to prosecute anyway that caused us major international reputational damage.

We’ve a good opportunity to delete this nonsense from our constitution and also send a strong message that this isn’t who we are, particularly if it’s deleted by a big majority.

EdgeCase

Creating 'dead letter laws' for the sake of window dressing is dangerous and pointless. If a piece of law is passed, it should have a purpose. There's a high risk with those kinds of laws that they can suddenly be interpreted by a court in a way that the authors may not have intended.

The original 1937 constitution probably fully intended this to be prosecuted, it just so happened through a happy coincidence that was largely due to bad drafting, that it was utterly inoperable and it was just left to sit on the shelf for decades.

I still don't quite understand what motivated the government at the time to address this in the 21st century. There was absolutely no call whatsoever from the general public or even from the religious organisations. It somehow gained momentum as part of a reform of libel law.

At least we now have an opportunity to delete this nonsense for once and for all.

Hopefully, the lesson that's being learnt is *Do not attempt to put primary legislation into the constitution!"

The constitution should be a simple document, about broad, fundamental rights and structures of the state and not something that is prescribing legislation. Legislation is best left to the legislature.

This is also how we ended up with things like the 4 of 5 years time out in the divorce regulations here. They were put directly into the constitution ?!?!

If you're an IT person, think about it as like putting the printer driver directly into the BIOS or kernel of an OS.

colmufc

EdgeCase wrote: »

It was introduced in 1937.
The courts had ruled that in order to prosecute blasphemy they would have had to define a state religion, which was unconstitutional in itself, the constitutional provision didn’t work at all.

The state then legislated during the FF/Green coalition and provided a definition of blasphemy. This opened up the possibility of prosecution because the courts now had been given a definition that wasn’t incompatible with the rest of the constitution.

I wrote to various politicians in FF and the Greens at the time and the responses I got were wholly unsatisfactory. Just wishy washy reassurances about the defenses they had included. It’s one of the reasons I haven’t voted for the greens since. I didn’t trust FF as far as you could throw them and never voted for them anyway, but I would have expected more from the greens for some reason than to do that.

The legislation, even if it was designed to be difficult to prosecute and was unlikely to be used was an absolute embarrassment to the country. I remember having a query from a French journalist I know wondering if they risked prosecution in Ireland for work they had done in France criticizing the church.

Bear in mind the Greek authorities had tried to use a European arrest warrant to go after an Austrian cartoonist who hadn’t even ever set foot in Greece over cartoons depicting Jesus.

Then you also had all of those violent attacks on European newspapers and magazine by Islamic extremists who claimed they were blasphemous.

So Ireland was really on the wrong side of freedom of speech and making an utter fool of itself internationally by joining the ranks of crackpot religious backwaters with oppressive laws and conforming all sorts of ultra negative stereotypes that this country was one of them. A lot of people tend to assume Ireland is an ultra right wing catholic country, so it didn’t exactly do much for challenging that reputation.

I also remember it getting wide international publicity. It was quite shocking to many people working in the tech sector as Ireland was also pitching itself as a creative hub for online media and a place to host data. There were questions about whether it could be used to sue or to censor online platforms that had nothing to do with Ireland.

Then you had it being cited as a precedent and a model for blasphemy laws that were implemented by very extreme regimes elsewhere who fully intended to prosecute using maximum legal penalties.

So basically it’s a piece of useless legislation for a crime nobody in Ireland wants to prosecute anyway that caused us major international reputational damage.

We’ve a good opportunity to delete this nonsense from our constitution and also send a strong message that this isn’t who we are, particularly if it’s deleted by a big majority.

I was mistaken so it was the 2009 amendment ,
Anyway it needs to go it has no place in any modern society

L1011

The X case judgement was found to be in the constitution by the courts and FF never legislated for it. They were rather selective in what they cared about

EdgeCase

L1011 wrote: »

The X case judgement was found to be in the constitution by the courts and FF never legislated for it. They were rather selective in what they cared about

Technically speaking discriminating against children in schools on the basis of religion and refusing facilitate opting out of religious instruction is and always was unconstitutional but sure that’s not the kind of constitutional amendment the right wing establishment cared about so they just ignored it.

Some constitutional articles were more important than others. It was always a case of those lobbies that shouted loudest or were litigious enough to force courts to interpret things.

ozmo

NIMAN wrote: »

Could anyone give an example of something you might say or do that would get you prosecuted under the existing law.

This of course came close:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/may/07/stephen-fry-investigated-by-irish-police-for-alleged-blasphemy

And Id say the fact this almost went to court is the trigger for this referendum.

seamus

EdgeCase wrote: »

Creating 'dead letter laws' for the sake of window dressing is dangerous and pointless. If a piece of law is passed, it should have a purpose. There's a high risk with those kinds of laws that they can suddenly be interpreted by a court in a way that the authors may not have intended.

My understanding at the time was that the Greens had intentionally strong-armed this thing in, in order for this exact outcome to arrive.

That is, as you say the word "blasphemy" existed in the constitution for 80 years and went completely ignored. But it's incredibly anachronistic and embarrassing for it to be there. It's like listening to your grandad making comments about blacks or gays.

That in itself is flimsy grounds for a referendum. But if we make an actual law; Make it illegal to blaspheme, then it's harder to ignore that and pretend the constitution is still cool, no matter how unlikely it is that one might be prosecuted. And so an amendment becomes the order of the day.

On a more sensationalistic tone, anyone who believes in this "cultural marxism" or "muslim takeover of europe" nonsense should be wholly in support of this referendum, since this is exactly the kind of thing that would allow for a insidious group of foreigners to start prosecuting people for crimes against Mohammed.

EdgeCase

The constitution could do with a few clean ups. The preamble in particular really shouldn’t be in the constitution of a country that claims to be a pluralist republic that at least attempts to be secular.
It’s like the introduction to Mass and utterly fails to acknowledge the idea that power comes from the people, instead vesting it in some religious notion.

It’s a snapshot of a particular aspect of 1930s Ireland and we shouldn’t be afraid to change it as it doesn’t really reflect Ireland in the 21st century at all.

Compare the two below. Which country actually proudly and confidently lays out what it aims to be and which country humbly asks God to give us a bit of the Auld sovereignty?

The French one would have you inspired to actually feel a sense of pride in what being a republic is all about. The Irish one doesn’t even seem to understand what one is and seems like a democratised relic of the British notion of power coming from god via monarch.

I’m not saying Ireland should just adopt something that’s similar to the French preamble, but we should have a text that reflects our actual values and aspirations and not just have a document that is a relic of an era when Ireland wasn’t even a republic.

Irish preamble :

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Compare to the French preamble (translated).

On the morrow of the victory of the free peoples over the regimes that attempted to enslave and degrade the human person, the French people proclaim once more that every human being, without distinction as to race, religion or creed, possesses inalienable and sacred rights. They solemnly reaffirm the rights and freedoms of man and of the citizen ordained by the Declaration of Rights of 1789 and the fundamental principles recognized by the laws of the Republic.

They further proclaim as most vital to our time the following political, economic and social principles:

The law shall guarantee to women equal rights with men, in all domains.

Anyone persecuted because of his activities in the cause of freedom shall be entitled to the right of asylum within the territories of the Republic.

Everyone shall have the obligation to work and the right to obtain employment. No one may suffer in his work or his employment because of his origin, his opinions or his beliefs.

Everyone may defend his rights and interests by trade-union action and may join the union of his choice.

The right to strike may be exercised within the framework of the laws that govern it.

Every worker, through his delegates, may participate in collective bargaining to determine working conditions, as well as in the management of the enterprise.

All property and all enterprises that now have, or subsequently shall have the character of a national public service or of a monopoly in fact, must become the property of the community.

The Nation shall ensure to the individual and to the family the conditions necessary to their development.

The Nation shall guarantee to all, and particularly to the child, the mother, and the aged worker, protection of health, material security, rest, and leisure. Any individual who, because of his or her age, his or her physical or mental condition, or because of the economic situation, shall find himself or herself unable to work, shall have the right to obtain from the community the means for a decent existence.

The Nation shall proclaim the solidarity and equality of all the French people with respect to burdens resulting from national disasters.

The Nation shall guarantee equal access of children and adults to education, professional training, and culture. The establishment of free, secular, public education on all levels, shall be a duty of the State.

The French Republic, faithful to its traditions, shall abide by the rules of international public law. It shall not undertake wars of conquest and shall never use force against the freedom of any people.

On condition of reciprocal terms, France shall accept the limitations of sovereignty necessary to the organization and defense of peace.

France shall form with the peoples of her Overseas Territories a Union based upon equality of rights and privileges, without distinction as to race or religion.

The French Union shall be composed of nations and peoples who shall place in common or coordinate their resources and their efforts in order to develop their respective civilizations, further their well-being, and ensure their security.

Faithful to her traditional mission, France shall guide the peoples for whom she has assumed responsibility, toward freedom to govern themselves and toward the democratic administration of their own affairs; rejecting any system of colonization based upon arbitrary power, she shall guarantee to all equal access to public office and the individual or collective exercise of the rights and liberties hereinabove proclaimed or confirmed. (This bit was amended further in the 50s)

demfad

nthclare wrote: »

I'm an agnostic myself.
But I think the likes of Michael Nugent and his ilk are just looking for an excuse to get noticed and are making a big deal about religion and how it effects himself and his loyal followers.

The current law doesn't effect anyone here.

Actually the current situation show's how relaxed and laid back we are here with blasphemy.

The law isn't taken seriously.

Just another bunch of snowflakes looking for any excuse to be noticed and trying to justify bashing religion and religious people but yet these Atheist Ireland guy's are saying everything should be equal.

Give me a break....

Surely the Church are the snowflakes for hiding behind blasphemy laws?

When was the last time you heard Mary 'Mother of God' described as a Stone age woman from the middle east?
Oh Never? Guess why?

Religion should be open to scrutiny and ridicule the same way as any other organisation.

ozmo

demfad wrote: »

..Stone age....

Hardly stone age - the time in question was over 100 years after the region produced the first computer link...

Eric Cartman

ozmo wrote: »

This of course came close:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/may/07/stephen-fry-investigated-by-irish-police-for-alleged-blasphemy

And Id say the fact this almost went to court is the trigger for this referendum.

Almost certainly. It's more important than ever to remove this as with the rise of extremism across Europe, any measure preventing criticism of religion has to be removed.

expectationlost

seamus wrote: »

My understanding at the time was that the Greens had intentionally strong-armed this thing in, in order for this exact outcome to arrive.

greens strong arm ha!

expectationlost

suicide_circus wrote: »

i don't see many people pulling their punches when it comes to criticizing the RCC in Ireland, quite the opposite in fact. There is however a certain reluctance to give both barrels to other faiths

we talk about what we know

Pkiernan

I'm voting against just for a laugh!

James Brown

If we have religious freedom, we should be free to not believe. If I say I don't believe in God, I could be done. Similarly it could be argued, being Jewish goes against a Catholics idea of the Blasphemy law. 'No Jesus? Blasphemy!' and so on.
Also it's embarrassing and reminiscent of a time when the Irish public were prisoners of the catholic church.

suicide_circus wrote: »

i don't see many people pulling their punches when it comes to criticizing the RCC in Ireland, quite the opposite in fact. There is however a certain reluctance to give both barrels to other faiths

A great example as to why no religious doctrine should be in the same room as a country's constitution.
Or we could give Islam the same precedence and esteem as RCC? Your choice

troyzer

Anybody catch the debate on this with Seán O'Rourke yesterday?

There's so little public interest in this that it looks like the Ali Selim Vs. Michael Nugent format is probably the best we're going to get.

As has been alluded to in this thread already, it seems unlikely that the Catholic right are ready to waste money they don't have on another vote they're likely to be beaten badly in. Also, I can't imagine there are enough American conservatives who care enough to fund it.

So it does seem like it'll be driven by minority religions like Islam and possible COI?

Selim made no sense, some guff about "respect" and a half baked comparison with the failures of the French system equating it with their secularism and lack of respect for religion.

machiavellianme

Blasphemy, the victimless crime.

How much is this referendum going to cost? Pity they couldn't have lumped 4 or 5 other pointless topics into the one vote and do away with them all together.

troyzer

machiavellianme wrote: »

Blasphemy, the victimless crime.

How much is this referendum going to cost? Pity they couldn't have lumped 4 or 5 other pointless topics into the one vote and do away with them all together.

I think that's the plan for the next one. It's more a case of the presidential election is coming up, which amendments have gone through the attorney general's office and Oireachtas and are good to go?

Women in the home will go in the next one, I just don't think it went through the motions in time for this one.

blackwhite

troyzer wrote: »

Anybody catch the debate on this with Seán O'Rourke yesterday?

There's so little public interest in this that it looks like the Ali Selim Vs. Michael Nugent format is probably the best we're going to get.

As has been alluded to in this thread already, it seems unlikely that the Catholic right are ready to waste money they don't have on another vote they're likely to be beaten badly in. Also, I can't imagine there are enough American conservatives who care enough to fund it.

So it does seem like it'll be driven by minority religions like Islam and possible COI?

Selim made no sense, some guff about "respect" and a half baked comparison with the failures of the French system equating it with their secularism and lack of respect for religion.

Hasn't Selim made threats a few times about trying to invoke the blasphemy laws if anyone in Ireland republished the Hebdo or the Danish cartoons?

In the past he's claimed that almost any criticism of his religion is "hate speech" - so unsurprising that he'll be a leading voice on the No side.

troyzer

blackwhite wrote: »

Hasn't Selim made threats a few times about trying to invoke the blasphemy laws if anyone in Ireland republished the Hebdo or the Danish cartoons?

In the past he's claimed that almost any criticism of his religion is "hate speech" - so unsurprising that he'll be a leading voice on the No side.

It's not surprising in the least, he's been the only person in the media defending it.

It's depressingly predicatable.

Amirani

machiavellianme wrote: »

Blasphemy, the victimless crime.

How much is this referendum going to cost? Pity they couldn't have lumped 4 or 5 other pointless topics into the one vote and do away with them all together.

Women in the home was meant to go with it, but too many people seemed to be against the idea of having a referendum on direct removal of that. Instead they want some new gender-neutral provision entered around carers etc. Like we didn't learn enough from the 8th Amendment that having vague legal statements in the constitution is completely inflexible and a terrible way of legislating.

hotmail.com

Amirani wrote:

Women in the home was meant to go with it, but too many people seemed to be against the idea of having a referendum on direct removal of that. Instead they want some new gender-neutral provision entered around carers etc. Like we didn't learn enough from the 8th Amendment that having vague legal statements in the constitution is completely inflexible and a terrible way of legislating.

I didn't understand why the thing couldn't be removed and then a separate referendum on the carers issue at a later time. Why did they have to connect the two!

ectoraige

colmufc wrote: »

Its crazy it was introduced in the first place ,there is no need for any reference to any religion in the constitution of Ireland and questions should be asked of why it was put in in the first place I remember when it was introduced and can't help but feel it was simply used to drag attention away from the economic turndown

What you remember was the law being introduced, not the constitutional requirement.
Article 40.6.1 of the constitution requires we have a law making blasphemy an offence, but it turns out we had never gotten around to doing it. Eventually the oversight was noticed, and the law enacted because it had to be, for right or wrong.

To get rid of the the law we have to get rid of the requirement in the constitution to have such a law, hence the referendum.

Amirani

hotmail.com wrote: »

I didn't understand why the thing couldn't be removed and then a separate referendum on the carers issue at a later time. Why did they have to connect the two!

Even that would be a better option. Supreme Court Justice Catherine McGuinness also thinks it should just be deleted and a future addition discussed later: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/constitutional-provision-on-woman-s-role-in-home-outdated-1.3642236

Like if the proposal gets put to me to amend the constitution wording to something along the lines of:

"“In particular, the State recognises that by their lives within the home, parents and carers gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved and shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that they shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”"

I'd probably vote against it, despite me being very against the status quo. That just doesn't have a place in the constitution in my view.
Definitely should have been held on the same day as the blasphemy referendum in my view. This proposal is suffering because it's the only referendum on the ballot.

seamus

hotmail.com wrote: »

I didn't understand why the thing couldn't be removed and then a separate referendum on the carers issue at a later time. Why did they have to connect the two!

Because there would be no binding mandate for the second referendum to be held.

I don't see the benefit on rushing in a deletion and taking the time to examine a new provision later. Why not take the time to make a full examination and then make the swap in one go?

Hastily deleting part of the constitution is just as bad as inserting something that's poorly thought out.

eezipc

expectationlost wrote: »

we talk about what we know

Ha. One thing you are guaranteed on boards is people who have no idea what they are talking about...

[Deleted User]

Amirani wrote: »

Even that would be a better option. Supreme Court Justice Catherine McGuinness also thinks it should just be deleted and a future addition discussed later: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/constitutional-provision-on-woman-s-role-in-home-outdated-1.3642236

Like if the proposal gets put to me to amend the constitution wording to something along the lines of:

"“In particular, the State recognises that by their lives within the home, parents and carers gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved and shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that they shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”"

I'd probably vote against it, despite me being very against the status quo. That just doesn't have a place in the constitution in my view.
Definitely should have been held on the same day as the blasphemy referendum in my view. This proposal is suffering because it's the only referendum on the ballot.

I agree, this kind of motion has no place in the constitution as it can easily be legislated for. In a couple of decades we'll most likely see much more automation and a basic living wage introduced.

Society is changing quickly and a ham fisted constitutional addition could well be a speed bump that isn't needed.