Sweden criticises Ireland

Rebelheart · 18-08-2009 02:45PM

RonMexico wrote: »

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

Having lived in Sweden, I have to say it is still a far more progressive state than Ireland. I was most particularly impressed with their attitude to the environment, recycling etc. At that time we had no recycling here.

Göteborg - where I was - was laid out back in the 18th century by German and Dutch engineers. Today, cycle lanes, trams, busses and, lastly, cars, travel through the city side-by-side, with the emphasis firmly on public transport and cycling. Would that the entire mentality of Irish voters would cop-on in this respect. We are still in the dark ages of mé féinerism. Sweden, in contrast, was termed a "post-industrial society" by political scientists decades ago.

On the downside, while I found the Swedes to be exceptionally polite, I found they lacked warmth and a general sense of divilment. And yes, the place is full of blondes and Volvos!

topper75 · 18-08-2009 02:51PM

rossie1977 wrote: »

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

Eh no Rossie1977. Nothing next. Just this one thanks.

My point I suppose is - can you give me an example of a situation where you would need to insult somebody's religion? I can't think of any. If people hold something sacred, that is their business. You have no right to wilfully ridicule them - I mean what is there for you to gain from it? It's just incitement and the law has to step in.

The irony is - if the scandies had such a law back when - the cartoon issue wouldn't have got out of hand at all. Look in the mirror time for them.

Pygmalion · 18-08-2009 02:53PM

Article 40, section 6 of the Irish constitution wrote:

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter is an offense which shall be punishable in accordance with law

So tell me, other than a law against blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter, how can this section of the constitution be upheld?
This isn't a matter of "LOL LET'S INTRODUCE RANDOM LAWS BECAUSE WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT AND WANT PEOPLE TO HATE US", it's a matter of upholding the constitution.
Blasphemy would still be illegal whether or not this law was passed, because the constitution says so and that trumps all laws, what they did was define blasphemy in a legal sense and set limits on the punishment, which can be considered making it HARDER to get punished for the offence.
The only difference now, other than the fact that it's no longer possible to get a super strict punishment and it's easier to dismiss cases as not qualifying as blasphemy is that people know are aware of it.

The solution to all of this would be a referendum to remove that paragraph from the constitution, which I would be in favour of, but unless that happens this law is needed.

An Fear Aniar · 18-08-2009 02:59PM

Pygmalion wrote: »

The solution to all of this would be a referendum to remove that paragraph from the constitution, which I would be in favour of, but unless that happens this law is needed.

That would be a risky strategy, it might not pass.

.

rossie1977 · 18-08-2009 03:04PM

topper75 wrote: »

My point I suppose is - can you give me an example of a situation where you would need to insult somebody's religion? I can't think of any. If people hold something sacred, that is their business. You have no right to wilfully ridicule them - I mean what is there for you to gain from it? It's just incitement and the law has to step in.

The irony is - if the scandies had such a law back when - the cartoon issue wouldn't have got out of hand at all. Look in the mirror time for them.

you see this is the problem, where does "insulting somebodys religion" start or end, surely it means southpark MUST be banned in this country, thats insults every religion known, father ted insults catholicism, do we ban that too, personally i like free speech and the ability to speak my mind, if that means getting into an argument about religion and "insulting" someone, so be it, they have every right to insult me and my "non-religious" views if they like, they can insult my county, my home-town and i wouldn't expect someone to be fined or jailed over it

from what i gather saying something like "god is not real" is now considered blasphemous

Euro_Kraut · 18-08-2009 03:05PM

topper75 wrote: »

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:

How do you know he hasn't critised Saudi Arbia? You know its possible to be oppossed to more than one thing. For example, I oppose the Taliban and this blasphany law.

ChocolateSauce · 18-08-2009 03:12PM

topper75 wrote: »

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:

You're more likely to tell a family member that you disagree with them than you are a stranger.

My point I suppose is - can you give me an example of a situation where you would need to insult somebody's religion?

I spoke at a debate about 5 months ago about freedom of speech. I got up in front of 200 people and said that The Bible and the Koran were stupid and fabricated books of blood which should be treated with hatred and contempt. I needed to say that to make my point.

ScumLord · 18-08-2009 03:29PM

topper75 wrote: »

Eh no Rossie1977. Nothing next. Just this one thanks.

My point I suppose is - can you give me an example of a situation where you would need to insult somebody's religion? I can't think of any. If people hold something sacred, that is their business. You have no right to wilfully ridicule them - I mean what is there for you to gain from it? It's just incitement and the law has to step in.

It's kind of hard to talk about religion without insulting those that believe a 2000 year old book written by uneducated cave men that can explain everything in the world and we should look to these books to tell us what to do in life.

topper75 · 18-08-2009 03:47PM

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I needed to say that to make my point.

Saying something usually IS making a point isn't it? LOL.

My question to you is that you know that Christians and Muslims hold those texts to be sacred. Why do you NEED to put them down like that in a disrespectful way. You certainly have the freedom to ignore the way of life prescribed in these texts. However, you have no moral right to belittle them and insult what others hold dear. There is never a need for blasphemy.

topper75 · 18-08-2009 03:49PM

ScumLord wrote: »

It's kind of hard to talk about religion without insulting those that believe a 2000 year old book written by uneducated cave men that can explain everything in the world and we should look to these books to tell us what to do in life.

And an atheist like yourself needs to talk about religion why?

netwhizkid · 18-08-2009 03:58PM

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, the Swedes should take a look at how their own lasse faire attitude towards Islam has turned Malmo into a no go area and an embarrassment for their country.

ChocolateSauce · 18-08-2009 04:02PM

topper75 wrote: »

Saying something usually IS making a point isn't it? LOL.

My question to you is that you know that Christians and Muslims hold those texts to be sacred. Why do you NEED to put them down like that in a disrespectful way. You certainly have the freedom to ignore the way of life prescribed in these texts. However, you have no moral right to belittle them and insult what others hold dear. There is never a need for blasphemy.

My ultimate point was that restricting freedom of speech would also be restricting freedom of religion. I went on to say that the those books promote violence and hatred, and that to ban hate speech would amount to banning religion.

Ironic that I insulted religion to defend its right to exist, no?

I think you'll find I have every right to belittle whatever I want, and that there is a constant need for what some might consider blasphemy (others might of course consider the exact same thing sacred).

Long Onion · 18-08-2009 04:02PM

Why is it ok to slag off the 'book' that Amanda Brunker wrote but not the Bible ?

The issue is with the persons with the inexplicable and irrational sensitivity

ScumLord · 18-08-2009 04:17PM

topper75 wrote: »

And an atheist like yourself needs to talk about religion why?

I don't need to talk about it I suppose but religious folk keep calling to my house and stopping me in the street, there's the angelous on TV so if ye stop bringing it up I'll stop talking about it.

topper75 · 18-08-2009 04:36PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't need to talk about it I suppose but religious folk keep calling to my house and stopping me in the street, there's the angelous on TV so if ye stop bringing it up I'll stop talking about it.

I agree with you here. I don't 'bring it up' myself. I am against some of the 'evangelical' atheism you see here on boards, but I question this forcing of religion on people alike. You are within your rights to dismiss housecallers or people in the street. I question their ethics and the ethics of all proselytizing. Religion should be something individuals pursue or reject for themselves.
The angelus?

Be grateful. It's one minute. Most bad TV shows go on for much longer.

topper75 · 18-08-2009 04:40PM

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I think you'll find I have every right to belittle whatever I want

A right to question for yourself the validity of what others hold sacred and to reject their beliefs - Yes.
A right to belittle it - No.

No, you don't have that right ethically.

Euro_Kraut · 18-08-2009 04:41PM

netwhizkid wrote: »

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, the Swedes should take a look at how their own lasse faire attitude towards Islam has turned Malmo into a no go area and an embarrassment for their country.

True. Because all Swedes that are complaining about this after all. If it was just one guy fair enough. But its all of them.

... isn't it?

ScumLord · 18-08-2009 04:47PM

topper75 wrote: »

I agree with you here. I don't 'bring it up' myself. I am against some of the 'evangelical' atheism you see here on boards, but I question this forcing of religion on people alike. You are within your rights to dismiss housecallers or people in the street. I question their ethics and the ethics of all proselytizing. Religion should be something individuals pursue or reject for themselves.
The angelus? Be grateful. It's one minute. Most bad TV shows go on for much longer.

My TV was donated to another boardsie and I'm currently a pirate watching everything online.

I do actually enjoy talking about religion and not just criticisizing it. I'm open to the possibility of something like a god and that's based on what science has thought me. To me the search for god is just looking for answers to big questions. I think most of your average religious folks stopped looking for god 2000 years ago.

ShooterSF · 18-08-2009 04:54PM

topper75 wrote: »

A right to question for yourself the validity of what others hold sacred and to reject their beliefs - Yes.
A right to belittle it - No.

No, you don't have that right ethically.

So if tomorrow I decide that I have found god in the "Where's Wally" Books you would stand up for my right not to have my sacred beliefs questioned. What if god started telling me to walk around with nothing on but a red and white stripy hat all the time, is that still sacred and should not be belittled?

Bragadin · 18-08-2009 04:55PM

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

True. Because all Swedes that are complaining about this after all. If it was just one guy fair enough. But its all of them.

... isn't it?

we can only assume that it's every last one. Thats 9 million people off my christmas list

Moojuice · 18-08-2009 04:58PM

topper75 wrote: »

A right to question for yourself the validity of what others hold sacred and to reject their beliefs - Yes.
A right to belittle it - No.

No, you don't have that right ethically.

If I express an opinion about a religion that I see as a legitimate opinion but those in the religion see it as belittling, who is right? What you may term belittling may simply be a point of view. Are you saying one should not make an opinion in case it is seen as belittling? People should be free to express their points of view and if some people find it belittling they can express this. But they have no right to stop some one expressing themselves because they see it as belittling. I think the Bible belittles evolution, humanity and our sum total of scientific achievements. Should the book be banned because it is belittling or because people who believe in it are belittling? Comedians would have no right to make religious jokes under your point of view, as it would be deemed belittling, but often that is what humour is and consists of. Why should religion be protected from being belittled? Should politicians also have the same right? Should any arbritrary group (tv repair men, plumbers etc) have the same right of protection from being belittled? There go plumper jokes ("fix your pipes missus?" "oh err"). Religious people are free to belittle my points of view, as I am theirs. Its freedom of speech and its the same principal that allows them freedom of religious expression. They are free to make their points in an argument, as am I or anyone else, its too bad if they find my points belittling. No religion or belief system should ever have a right to stop its self being criticised under the pretence or belief that they are being belittled.

Have I got a right to express my opinions?-yes
Have others got the right to form the opinion that they are belittling?-yes
Do they have the right to prevent me from expressing myself?-No

I do not share the same beliefs as someone who would be considered religious but I would certainly defend their right to have these beliefs. I am sure many religious people find Dawkins book and Hitchens book to be belittling, but they are published and have a right to be, regardless of whether they are seen as belittling religion. Semantic defintions and subjective terms like belittling are no basis for forming a protective law.

Religion needs a law to protect it, to act as a crutch, as it cannot stand on its own two feet, unlike logic, reason and rational scientific enquiry.

Dartz · 18-08-2009 05:01PM

RonMexico wrote: »

Swede's telling us what to do

I'd say this is a turnip for the books.

It doesn't address the root of the problem however.

Changing the constitution to remove all repferences to blasphemy would require a referendum. Which because Irish people are a bunch of ****ing morons, they would vote against for the sake of shafting the government and making them look like morons.

So instead, the government sharted out a piece of legislation which they never intend to enforce, just to cover it's own constitutional arse.

Legislation which will be abused by Scientologists towards anyone who calls LRon a braindead hack.

Bragadin · 18-08-2009 05:06PM

Religeon doesn't require laws to stand on it's own, but in this case it's givin them anyway. Like an able bodied person racing around on a wheel chair, it doesn't help the rider stand on his own and can be dangerous to pedestrians.

respect shouldn't have to be legislated or enforced, it should be expected.

ShooterSF · 18-08-2009 05:15PM

Dartz wrote: »

I'd say this is a turnip for the books.

It doesn't address the root of the problem however.

Changing the constitution to remove all repferences to blasphemy would require a referendum. Which because Irish people are a bunch of ****ing morons, they would vote against for the sake of shafting the government and making them look like morons.

So instead, the government sharted out a piece of legislation which they never intend to enforce, just to cover it's own constitutional arse.

Legislation which will be abused by Scientologists towards anyone who calls LRon a braindead hack.

I think right now a referendum would pass. I wouldn't be certain but I think it would be worth a shot. Hell it's better than a re-run of one from a year ago. Run it on the same day. FF could even stay out if it, stay neutral, and just give the people the chance to prove we're more forward thinking than they are afraid we are.

Moojuice · 18-08-2009 05:20PM

Bragadin wrote: »

Religeon doesn't require laws to stand on it's own, but in this case it's givin them anyway. Like an able bodied person racing around on a wheel chair, it doesn't help the rider stand on his own and can be dangerous to pedestrians.

respect shouldn't have to be legislated or enforced, it should be expected.

You are right, it shouldnt be enforced or legislated. However it is no surprise a lot of people have no respct for the Catholic Church in this country, considering the severe lack of 'respect' they have shown to thousands of children throughout the years. Regardless of whether the law will be enforced or not, what gets peoples ire is that the 18 religious organisations have not paid any extra money in compensation, have not brought perpetrators forward for prosecution and yet the governament wastes time and money enacting a backwards pro-religious law? The hipocrisy is rank.

Dartz · 18-08-2009 05:30PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

I think right now a referendum would pass. I wouldn't be certain but I think it would be worth a shot. Hell it's better than a re-run of one from a year ago. Run it on the same day. FF could even stay out if it, stay neutral, and just give the people the chance to prove we're more forward thinking than they are afraid we are.

Forgive me for not sharing your faith in humanity and the Irish people, but some of the posts/stories i see around here have made me think a little different.

People will use the referenda to take a dig at the Government, as if loosing a referendum will magically cause the Government to topple from power. That's how people in this country will think... they won't vote for the issue, they'll vote against whatever they think the Government wants.

ShooterSF · 18-08-2009 05:36PM

Dartz wrote: »

Forgive me for not sharing your faith in humanity and the Irish people, but some of the posts/stories i see around here have made me think a little different.

People will use the referenda to take a dig at the Government, as if loosing a referendum will magically cause the Government to topple from power. That's how people in this country will think... they won't vote for the issue, they'll vote against whatever they think the Government wants.

Well then as I said let the government run it as an "acid test" (I think that's the correct phrase). They will stay out of it and make no suggestion for or against a yes vote. Leave it to the people to decide. The main opposition to such a referendum would be the church and I'm sure they would know they would be likely to feel the backlash if they got involved with their current reputation.

ChocolateSauce · 18-08-2009 05:53PM

topper75 wrote: »

A right to question for yourself the validity of what others hold sacred and to reject their beliefs - Yes.
A right to belittle it - No.

No, you don't have that right ethically.

Yes, I do. As a matter of taste I don't go for the belittlement angle often, but I do regularly attack religion itself. Regardless, I reserve the right to call someone a stupid doo doo head or whatever else I like for their beliefs, just as they have the right to do it to me and mine.

You (like so many others) are guilty of thinking a person's religion deserves some special protection merely for being a religion. The same logic isn't applied to a political philosophy. I'll call someone a twit if they like the wrong football team, a moron if they think the sun revolves around the earth, a buffoon if they believe that the Virgin Mary appeared to them in a tree, and mentally ill if they claim god talks to them on a regular basis.

Euro_Kraut · 18-08-2009 05:56PM

Why does an all powerful God need laws to stop Him being insulted? Can he not just smite people and send locus like He did in the old days?

andrew · 18-08-2009 06:02PM

Lux23 wrote: »

Then why waste money introducing it? Why does it need to be on the books as a legal formality?

I dunno. Something about having legislation be consistent with the constitution. All I know is I never heard a politician justify this law by saying that it was needed in anything but a formal sense. If anyone ever gets convicted of blasphemy I'll bump this thread with a picture of me in a revealing dress.

Sweden criticises Ireland

Comments