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

Sweden criticises Ireland

RonMexico

A Swedish MP says he has lodged a complaint with the European Commission over Ireland's new blasphemy law.

Karl Sigfrid, a conservative member of the Swedish Parliament, says he is concerned that Swedish citizens travelling in Ireland 'could be punished for merely expressing a view on a religion or religious symbol'.

Mr Sigfrid said it was bad legislation that could spread to other EU member states.

Writing in the EU Observer, the Swedish MP said the new law was inconsistent with human rights laws under existing EU treaties.

He said that defining blasphemy as speech that offends a substantial number of religious followers gives the churches the power to gradually expand the application of the law.

Mr Sigfrid said: 'A not too far-fetched guess is that statements threatening the power of religious leaders will awaken the strongest reactions and therefore be considered the most offensive ones, resulting in punishment by the state.'

He also said the new law contravened the European Convention on Human Rights.

Hopefully the Swedes will help banish this ridiculous law, and I thought they were only good for the pron :pac:

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Biggins

Jumpy wrote: »

Back to the real world now... There are crazy people on the planet that take things more seriously than us. Its easier to prevent the antagonists than it is to stop the reaction.

Apparently its easier too to bring in a law that can effect all instead of just selecting an individual who has broken the law already and using already established laws on the books!

While I can understand preventative measures in the form of legal statues, it seems we are now too quick to pander to someone we might "offend" so lets make a law so that its wrong!

Next thing you know, we will be going the Italy route.
(See:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/8197639.stm)

I've had enough! Personally, I say "Thank you Sweden".
People will be afraid to open their gobs soon at this rate. Maybe thats really what 'they' want!

professore

The law was not brought in, it already was there, it requires a constitutional change to change it which requires a referendum.

confused-dazed

wes wrote: »

Any proof tha that the law was changed for the sake of Muslims? I am personally aware of no such reasoning. I take it you have some evidence to back up you assertion, right? You aren't just making stuff up, to excuse our piss poor government coming up with a silly law and have just decided to blame someone else instead? Can't possibly be that!

what i'm saying here is that if you go to any muslim country you abide by their laws. they dont change their laws to suit other religions so why should we change ours to suit them and that goes for any law in any country. if i go to dubai i'm not governend by irish law even though i'm an irish citizen i'm goverend by their laws some of which i have already stated .the statue thing did arise amongst the foreign taxi drivers but got nowhere.

Biggins

professore wrote: »

...it requires a constitutional change to change it which requires a referendum.

I look forwards to voting "No" then.
(IF we get that chance and IF they don't ignore that vote too!)
I'm sadly growing accustomed to voting "No" against this government.
It's not the way I want it to be but they leave me no choice again and again.

SoWatchaWant

professore wrote: »

The law was not brought in, it already was there, it requires a constitutional change to change it which requires a referendum.

THANK YOU.

All this ado about nothing really. We just haven't turfed out the law yet. But everyone goes mad, thinking we just brought it in now in a giant backwards leap.

astrofool

Government: Should Ireland reject the Lisbon treaty?
Biggins: "No"
Government: Should Ireland keep blasphemy as a crime on the Irish constitution?
Biggins: "No"
Government: Should Biggins be allowed to spout sh*te on forums?
Biggins: "No"

MikeC101

SoWatchaWant wrote: »

THANK YOU.

All this ado about nothing really. We just haven't turfed out the law yet. But everyone goes mad, thinking we just brought it in now in a giant backwards leap.

I don't believe the law was "already there". There was never a law on the books in regards to blasphemy.

My understanding was that it was provided for in the constitution - Article 40 “The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent material is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”

But there has never been a law on the books under which it could be punished. Didn't the Supreme Court decide blasphemy couldn't be punished as it wasn't well enough defined?

The Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution said that we should amend Article 40 and remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redraft it along the lines of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression.

So Dermot Ahern ignored the recommendation and brought in this law, that nobody appears to want, under the guise that we "need one" under the constitution. Though we've survived without one until now.

Biggins

astrofool wrote: »

Government: Should Ireland reject the Lisbon treaty?
Biggins: "No"
Government: Should Ireland keep blasphemy as a crime on the Irish constitution?
Biggins: "No"
Government: Should Biggins be allowed to spout sh*te on forums?
Biggins: "No"

Your out of luck then!

By the way, I've no present objection to the Lisbon Treaty as it might be soon.
However I voted "No" the last time partly due to the fact that the Gov' screwed the whole process up and didn't do it right the first time around!

orourkeda

donmeister wrote: »

Sweden seems so much cooler than Ireland

The weather,that is..........

In more ways than one.

Euro_Kraut

Biggins wrote: »

However I voted "No" the last time partly due to the fact that the Gov' screwed the whole process up and didn't do it right the first time around!

That'll teach FG and Labour and the 26 other states of Europe!!

Cookie_Monster

professore wrote: »

The law was not brought in, it already was there, it requires a constitutional change to change it which requires a referendum.

No it wasn't, a similar but different law was in place. The new criminal justice act did not contain a replacememnt yet made the old one redundant. So a new one was created to replace it.

Long Onion

Look, if the damn DeValera guide to dancin' at the cross roads says we need the law - fine. Just make sure that you prescribe an equally pointless and silly punishment - like shaving fish.

Pete4779

Long Onion wrote: »

I worked in a venue in Dublin and we had a band called Cradle of Filth playing there for a couple of nights. On the merchandising stand they had T-Shirts with a crucified Nun on the front and, in bold letters, the immortal words "Jesus is a cnut"

How does it leave them?

They have only offended christians so it's no problem.

Sulmac

Why not criticise the other European countries that have blasphemy laws as well?

I'm completely against the law, but why does he have to single out Ireland when countries like Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and, closer to home (for him), Denmark and Finland have similar laws? Ireland doesn't enforce the law, but Finland sent someone to prison in May just past for blasphemy against Islam! :eek:

Criticism where it's due, please.

Long Onion

Sulmac wrote: »

Criticism where it's jew, please.

Racist

Biggins

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

That'll teach FG and Labour and the 26 other states of Europe!!

FG and Labour are states? :eek:

Back on topic: Why has THIS law come up for revision anyway to be honest?
Surely there is more laws out there that need to be revised, that are more important and probably more needed on a daily basis than another additional farce action and subsequent law by our government?

I mean jeasus, for simple example: fathers rights and the laws pertaining to them needed to be updated a long time ago - but no!
We wasted good legal time, committees and elected representative time on something that supposedly (according to some) might never be used in the first place!
...AND THEN the government crys over money being wasted!!!

They are a fcuking joke!

wes

confused-dazed wrote: »

what i'm saying here is that if you go to any muslim country you abide by their laws. they dont change their laws to suit other religions so why should we change ours to suit them and that goes for any law in any country. if i go to dubai i'm not governend by irish law even though i'm an irish citizen i'm goverend by their laws some of which i have already stated .the statue thing did arise amongst the foreign taxi drivers but got nowhere.

Who said the laws were changed for Muslims in the first place? Seriously, you seem to be complaining about something that didn't happen. You just assume that the law was done on behalf of Muslims. Is there a shred of proof of this or anything?

As for the Taxi thing (assuming its true), if these guys are citizen's they have the right to bitch and moan about things like everyone else. One of the benefits of living in democratic societies is that we get to complain about laws, like for instance the blasphemy one.

Also, why aren't you complaing about the Swedish MP? He is a foreigner complaining about a Irish law, a foreigner who doesn't even live here as well. Seems to me a bit of a double standard

. Shouldn't Swedish people have to adhere to our laws and not demands changes to them as well?

Cookie_Monster

Muslin's are generally the only ones who get uppity about that kind of thing anyway. Well them and the Scientologists but thankfully they aren't recognised as a religion here so don't count

Long Onion

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Muslin's are generally the only ones who get uppity about that kind of thing anyway.

Damn them and their clothy ways to hell I say

Riskymove

ShooterSF wrote: »

So if I threaten to stab anyone that looks at me should a law be brought in to stop people looking at me "in case"?

er..no..you make a law to stop you threatening in the first place...

and anyway...aren't all laws there "in case" somehting happens?

Nodin

Jumpy wrote:

Its just to stop people getting Ireland into ****e with the Muslim hardcores

Do they sound like Napalm Death? I like Napalm Death.

Confused-dazed wrote:

what i'm saying here is that if you go to any muslim country

...because thats so, so, so relevant......

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Muslin's are generally the only ones who get uppity about that kind of thing anyway.

So the various remarks made when McAleese took 'protestant' communion wouldn't be considered offensive and blasphemous at all, at all....And when Robert Eames said the various remarks passed by some members of the esteemed Catholic Church were "derogatory" sure he wasn't really flustered.

Not to mention the time big Ian did the 'holy biscuit' routine.....

ShooterSF

Jumpy wrote: »

If there was 100 million of you doing that, then yes.

Ah so you would be of the view that we criminalise gangs unless they become large gangs in which case we criminalise offending them?

Riskymove wrote: »

er..no..you make a law to stop you threatening in the first place...

and anyway...aren't all laws there "in case" somehting happens?

Eh kinda my point....

Riskymove

Nodin wrote: »

So the various remarks made when McAleese took 'protestant' communion wouldn't be considered offensive and blasphemous at all, at all....And when Robert Eames said the various remarks passed by some members of the esteemed Catholic Church were "derogatory" sure he wasn't really flustered.

Not to mention the time big Ian did the 'holy biscuit' routine.....

but are derogatory comments about the catholic chuch blasphemous?

is it not only comments about God/Allah or similar etc?

Long Onion

Why the fcuk do people get so het up abour religion? God probably doesn't exist so just have some fun.

Look at all the crap that has been carried out through the ages in the name of religion. Surely one should turn the other cheek. God i hate zealots - go whip yourselves and make yourselves miserable by another means, I'm going to carry on telling people that a low fat eucharist is called "I can't believe it's not Jesus" - if some one wants to lock me up for that, fine.

I'll have the last laugh when their God refuses them entry to heaven for being such a dryballs.

Adamcp898

So now as a people we have to rely on government officials from other countries to speak up about our unsensible and outlandish laws, that's how out of touch the shower we have at the minute are. Why havn't we revolted yet?

rossie1977

Sulmac wrote: »

Why not criticise the other European countries that have blasphemy laws as well?

I'm completely against the law, but why does he have to single out Ireland when countries like Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and, closer to home (for him), Denmark and Finland have similar laws? Ireland doesn't enforce the law, but Finland sent someone to prison in May just past for blasphemy against Islam! :eek:

Criticism where it's due, please.

i don't care if denmark still burn people at the stake, its ireland we are talking about and its introduction of a stupid archaic law, all the while we the people have rolled over and let the lawmakers rub our bellies :mad:

topper75

Has this Swedish person chided the Saudi government alike for potential repression of expat Swedes based there? No? Sod off then mate. Gotta nerve, but got no balls.:mad:

Anyway, where does this perceived entitlement come from to wantonly direct abuse at something that other people hold sacred for no gain? A good law I say, which all civilised nations pursuing a peaceful society should adopt.

latenia

The monarch is the head of state of the Kingdom of Sweden. Sweden, being a constitutional monarchy with a representative democracy based on a parliamentary system has a largely ceremonial monarch, though officially he or she holds the highest public office in Sweden and the highest military rank. The Act of Succession of 1810 designates the House of Bernadotte as the Swedish royal house; it also states that the king (and thus implicitly any queen regnant) must be a Protestant Christian.

Ho hum

Nodin

Riskymove wrote: »

but are derogatory comments about the catholic chuch blasphemous?

is it not only comments about God/Allah or similar etc?

The Catholic chruch regards the communion bread as the body of christ, therefore.....

If you say that the Anglican church is 'not a true church' and that its ordinations have no validity, that denies their calling and is (fairly obviously, to them) offensive.

The whole things a can of worms, and odds are - based on the history of this country - it'll be a disgruntled member of a christian sect that says something about another first that will start it.

rossie1977

topper75 wrote: »

A good law I say, which all civilised nations pursuing a peaceful society should adopt.

you are kidding right, what next we introduce a law where if you criticise any member of the government you get jailed