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

Michael Nugent

Are you in or near Galway today?

Come to the public meeting at 8pm in the Harbour Hotel, and find out why it is important to Vote Yes to remove the blasphemy law.

Also, here is our latest debate on the referendum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGVzg6aJkiU

Peregrinus

Hector Savage wrote: »

I'm wondering how liberals on here feel about this, you must really want to repeal it , but on the other hand you must really wanna keep it to protect Islam.

So which will win ?

You're thinking of the Liberals in your head, Hector.

Pherekydes

Hector Savage wrote: »

I'm wondering how liberals on here feel about this, you must really want to repeal it , but on the other hand you must really wanna keep it to protect Islam.

So which will win ?

You're thinking of the librulz!!!1!

Not us at all, atall.

Mark Hamill

Hector Savage wrote: »

I'm wondering how liberals on here feel about this, you must really want to repeal it , but on the other hand you must really wanna keep it to protect Islam.

So which will win ?

Hector Savage

I'm wondering how liberals on here feel about this, you must really want to repeal it , but on the other hand you must really wanna keep it to protect Islam.

So which will win ?

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Out of those three it's hard to figure out which one is the most nuts.

A modern-day Holy Trinity - the Father, the Son and the Holy Goat.

Odhinn

robindch wrote: »

Sage of Castlerea, John Waters, has created - according to the Times of London anyway - a group called 'Believe in Respect' which is campaigning to keep the offence of blasphemy in the constitution:
.............

'Believe in respect'*

*Except for the gays, pro-choicerers, eamonn dunphy...........

Hotblack Desiato

Out of those three it's hard to figure out which one is the most nuts.

robindch

Sage of Castlerea, John Waters, has created - according to the Times of London anyway - a group called 'Believe in Respect' which is campaigning to keep the offence of blasphemy in the constitution:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/john-waters-launches-campaign-to-keep-blasphemy-in-constitution-5rg0nzbt7

Unfortunately, google seems not to have heard of it, nor are there any relevant-looking references from any social media or other profiles belonging to Ms Sinnot, Mr Jackson or Mr Waters himself.

Times of London wrote:

John Waters, the former journalist, has set up a group that is campaigning to keep the offence of blasphemy in the constitution.

Believe in Respect is appealing to the public to vote “no” in this month’s referendum on whether to repeal the offence. The group is led by Waters, Kathy Sinnott, the former MEP, and Tim Jackson, an anti-abortion campaigner who went on a hunger strike last year to demand that politicans view a video of how a baby is aborted.

Charlie Flanagan, the justice minister, has said that Ireland’s anti-blasphemy laws are damaging the country’s reputation. Both the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference and the Iona Institute have said that they will not campaign for a “no” vote in the referendum, which will be held…

Michael Nugent

Some more updates, from our campaign meeting in Dublin yesterday.

My opening contribution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgH8gdQ2CaU

Prof David Nash's opening contribution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzyimLwui0U

Kidchameleon

J0hnick wrote: »

I sent my registration card off in the post a few days ago but haven't heard anything since, who do I talk to ?.

Try

https://www.checktheregister.ie/

Although I'm not sure how up to date that is

J0hnick

I sent my registration card off in the post a few days ago but haven't heard anything since, who do I talk to ?.

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Im not going to explain what regressive means we all have a google machine. The article clearly shows that the NZ government considered banning the pair from entering the country because their views cause offense to some people. Its slightly off topic so pm me if you need any more details.

I had to look up who that pair of cretins are. Thanks for that :rolleyes:

They're keeping Nazis out of their country (the UK is doing the same) which is a good thing.

Peregrinus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think the reason people are missing the point of your linking to the article, and to be honest I initially missed it too, is because your article demonstrates the very reason why the blasphemy laws need to be repealed in this country and why the kiwis were amused that it even existed.

The politicians in your article weren’t able to ban the people who they know are very likely to criticise their policies, because of the laws that currently exist in NZ which prevented those politicians from seeking to ban critics whom they disagreed with for for what those politicians considered are their blasphemous criticisms.

The case mentioned in the article has nothing directly to do with blasphemy; although the article doesn't say so, Southern and Molyneux's views aren't considered offensive because they are blasphemous or irreligious. They express controversial views on feminism, immigration, multiculturalism and the usual alt-right bugbears.

I think Kidchameleon's point is that suppressing the expression of these views is analogous to criminalising blasphemy; they are both "regressive". If New Zealand does, or considers doing, the one, he suggests, it cannot get too sniffy about countries that do the other.

It's an arguable point, but it's going to need a meatier argument that Kidchameleon has offered so far.

You can take the view that any restriction on free speech is regressive, but that's a pretty extreme view. If you profess that view you must, logically, object to laws that protect medical confidentiality, ensure data privacy, require truth in advertising, impose product labelling standards, penalise defamation, restrict the distribution of child pornography, forbid hate speech, etc, etc. These are all laws which restrict freedom of speech, either by forbidding people from saying something or requiring them to say something.

Few of us would take the view that they are all objectionable or regressive, which I think leads us to the point where we must accept that some restrictions on free speech are regressive while others are not (and some are positively progressive).

Thus simply pointing to an actual or contemplated restriction on free speech in New Zealand does nothing to show that New Zealand is "falling down the regression hole"; you need to make the case that the particular restriction is or would be regressive (in the context of this discussion, in the same way that a blasphemy law is regressive). It's not self-evident that this is the case.

Although he has raised the point, Kidchameleon seems reluctant to pursue it, declining for example to discuss what is meant by "regression", despite invitation.

Kidchameleon

robindch wrote: »

Mod:Given your usual posting style, fears about appearing smug have never seemed to feature highly.

Are you here to troll the forum or are you here to discuss ideas?

To discuss the ideas. People just missed my point. It happens.

robindch

Mod:

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I wouldn't be so smug [...]

Given your usual posting style, fears about appearing smug have never seemed to feature highly.

Are you here to troll the forum or are you here to discuss ideas?

One eyed Jack

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Im not going to explain what regressive means we all have a google machine. The article clearly shows that the NZ government considered banning the pair from entering the country because their views cause offense to some people. Its slightly off topic so pm me if you need any more details.

I think the reason people are missing the point of your linking to the article, and to be honest I initially missed it too, is because your article demonstrates the very reason why the blasphemy laws need to be repealed in this country and why the kiwis were amused that it even existed.

The politicians in your article weren’t able to ban the people who they know are very likely to criticise their policies, because of the laws that currently exist in NZ which prevented those politicians from seeking to ban critics whom they disagreed with for for what those politicians considered are their blasphemous criticisms.

Kidchameleon

Im not going to explain what regressive means we all have a google machine. The article clearly shows that the NZ government considered banning the pair from entering the country because their views cause offense to some people. Its slightly off topic so pm me if you need any more details.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'll type more slowly. What do you mean by "regressive" and how does that article demonstrate that New Zealand is becoming "regressive".

Was about to ask the same thing. The linked artcle doesn't suggest anything regressive so much as a conflict between personal freedom and the freedom to incite.

Hotblack Desiato

I'll type more slowly. What do you mean by "regressive" and how does that article demonstrate that New Zealand is becoming "regressive".

Kidchameleon

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They're Canadians.

That's right. Whats your point (if any)?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What's your point (if any)

That New Zealand is pretty regressive.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

...and its relevance to this thread (if any) ?

It was a direct reply to a post on this thread.

Hotblack Desiato

They're Canadians. What's your point (if any) and its relevance to this thread (if any) ?

Kidchameleon

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.

I wouldn't be so smug if I was a Kiwi. NZ is falling down the regression hole faster than Ireland...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12092511

Michael Nugent

Debate on RTE's Claire Byrne Live

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeZ2aRhThZI

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Kiwis laughing at Ireland's blasphemy law?

Not so fast, there, kiwi-people!

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

Interesting picture linked in that article - too big to embed

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Film_Censor%27s_Office_Correspondence_-_Monty_Python%27s_Flying_Circus_%2821875502775%29.jpg

One of the complaints is in the middle.

"This film blatantly ridicules the crucifiction of of Jesus Christ and so mocks the eternal plan of God for our salvation."

Cruci-fiction, is that a Freudian slip or what. I'm so stealing that!

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

i think the BAI is not so bad on this (they say you don't have to stick to stopwatch and you can provide balance over time) its the lazy producers who won't allow their reporters analysis, there has been court rulings on this in regard to referendums.

You're right, I meant to say the broadcasters' interpretation of the BAI rules.

RTE rolling over for Iona has a lot to answer for, as well.

expectationlost

robindch wrote: »

Kiwis laughing at Ireland's blasphemy law?

Not so fast, there, kiwi-people!

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

looking this up to see what stage this is at, I there is a 2018 version of the Crimes Amendment Bill that I think is passed committee stage

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2018/0032/latest/d56e2.html?search=qs_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_Crimes+Amendment+Bill_resel_25_y&p=1&sr=1

Blasphemous libel
We recommend no changes to clause 5, which would repeal section 123, doing away with the offence of blasphemous libel.
We heard concerns that the repeal would encourage hate speech against God, incite violence, and remove a safeguard for religious freedom. It was suggested that the repeal would disrupt the maintenance of wholesome boundaries in the media, and would insult God and the Christian foundations of New Zealand.
We consider it highly unlikely that the repeal of this little-known provision would result in any of these issues.
Arguments in support of repeal included the idea that the current law is an unwarranted restriction on the right to freedom of expression, and that it does not align with the values of modern New Zealand. It was also suggested that the current law is Christianity-specific and not suited to a secular society. A number of submitters suggested replacing section 123 with another provision to provide protection from anti-religious conduct or to prevent prosecution for expressing an opinion on a religious matter. We do not consider this necessary.

expectationlost

heres John Hamill on Nearfm, excellent as always they presenter said he would try and provide questioning balance but couldn't manage to be God's advocate so it actually turned into a interesting covnersation

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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'.

i think the BAI is not so bad on this (they say you don't have to stick to stopwatch and you can provide balance over time) its the lazy producers who won't allow their reporters analysis, there has been court rulings on this in regard to referendums.

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'.