Atheist Ireland protect Free Speech in Ireland again.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-03-2010 9:27am #1

In the last 24 hours a pressure campaign against venues planning to host the Exit International (Assisted Suicide) workshops succeeded in having those venues cancel the meetings.

The last of these venues had promised that nothing would cause the cancellation of the meeting, but the sheer pressure of protests changed this and they cited the sheer volume of the anti meeting pressure as their reasons (though the venue before that gave no reasons at all).

Thankfully Atheist Ireland protected free speech and stepped up with an appeal for a venue. The Irish Times reported on This Today and the Press Release below has been released by Exit International.

Regardless of whether you agree with Exit International or not, it is wonderful to see that the pressure of ANY group in their attempts to silence another's right to air their views with a campaign of intimidation has failed utterly. Well done all involved and well done Atheist Ireland who have protected free speech in Ireland a second time this week, after earlier this week causing Dermot Ahern to fold on the Blasphemy law, citing as he did the "incredibly sophisticated campaign [against me], mainly on the internet.”

Of course anyone can support Atheist Ireland by Joining Up, using their forum, or even financially by using the PayPal options to either join Atheist Ireland formally or engage in once off or ongoing donations.

Dublin Exit Meeting to Go Ahead

After third and then fourth venues - the Macro Building and the Carmichael Centre - buckled under church pressure and cancelled bookings, almost preventing the planned meeting of the Australian, pro-choice voluntary euthanasia group Exit International to go ahead, the organisation's director, Dr Philip Nitschke, announced that the meeting would go ahead at independent Seomra Spraoi.

"In the space of 5 hours today, we had no fewer than 2 venues (4 in total) cancel our bookings which is quite extraordinary. While in other countries we have occasionally had venues withdrawn from us because those leasing the premises disagreed with our ideas, we have never had 4 separate venues refuse to host a meeting" said Dr Nitschke from Dublin tonight.

When we came to Ireland we understood that there may be some opposition, but we did not expect such a well orchestrated campaign of censorship. It is simply unacceptable in a civilised, western country such as Ireland to have one section of the population threaten everyone else in this way."

"Voluntary Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide are important cutting edge social issues. It is only right that they be discussed by the community. Silencing one's right to free speech is the most cowardly way of keeping people in the dark. We are extremely grateful to Seomra Spraoi and Ciaran Mac Aoidh at the Irish Atheists for their support and preparedness to defend free speech on this issue.

"I fully respect the Churchs' right to hold their opinions but I take issue with those who try to ram their opinions down the throats of non-believers and people who elect to reconcile their faith with their right to know about safe suicide."

The Exit International meeting will now be held at 3 - 5.30pm on Friday 19 March. Seomra Spraoí is located at 10 Belvedere Court, Dublin 1.

Xluna · 19-03-2010 10:15am

Without getting into the issue itself,I think it's a good thing that such a topic is allowed to be publically discussed. However- I remember David Irving was pressured into silence regarding his controversial views on the Holocause in many Universities. Though I disagree with Irvings opinions I think he should have been allowed to speak. I wonder if A.I. would have been morally and logically consistant and supported Irvings free speech. I hope it's not a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend,as it alludes to athiesm being more than just the disbelief in deities.

ChocolateSauce · 19-03-2010 4:42pm

So the only place that'll take them is " an autonomous social centre in Dublin city centre. It is run by a non-hierarchical, anti capitalist collective on a not-for-profit basis."

Yikes....

If my landlord wasn't a religious nutter, I'd have invited them to my place. (At least then they could have known the joys of being in a for-profit venue

)

But seriously, it's atrocious that an organised anti-free speech cartel of anti-choice Catholic fundamentalists would try and stifle even discussion on the topic. More disgraceful, under-handed tactics from the religious right.

Galvasean · 19-03-2010 5:00pm

I'm not sure where my opinion lies in regards to Exit International's policies, but the way certain people (oh who am I kidding? Catholic fundies) are systematically trying to stiffle open debate by causing a racket is pretty damn low - gutter level politics.

seamus · 19-03-2010 5:26pm

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm not sure where my opinion lies in regards to Exit International's policies, but the way certain people (oh who am I kidding? Catholic fundies) are systematically trying to stiffle open debate by causing a racket is pretty damn low - gutter level politics.

+1

Regardless of your opinion on the topic at hand, you can't pretend that it doesn't need to be discussed by preventing discussion of it. Of course, every major religion believes that if you don't allow discussion of something, that's as good as saying that it doesn't exist.

Newstalk this morning said that they were expecting 20 people to attend the meeting. I would be very surprised if the number wasn't *much* higher and the vested interests have been trying to play down interest in such a discussion.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-03-2010 3:49pm

Well despite the failed but persistent efforts of groups like "Youth Defence" the meeting went ahead and was actually very successful. The small room was filled beyond expectations and it was covered by a lot of media presence.

The infamous "Dr. Death" actually came across as a lovely man and after the talks and workshops he gave a lot of his time to talking to attendees who had further issues and questions.

So "Youth Defence" have completely failed in their efforts to have us, the Public, kept in the dark about what the "Pro" side has to say on these matters. They will want to change their approach in future if they think they can win a debate by attempting to silence the other side(s).

Free Speech: 1
Youth Defense: 0

devilsad · 23-03-2010 6:08pm

Xluna wrote: »

I wonder if A.I. would have been morally and logically consistant and supported Irvings free speech. I hope it's not a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend,as it alludes to athiesm being more than just the disbelief in deities.

That's just a little bit daft. The stated aim of Atheist Ireland is an effort to build a 'rational, ethical & secular society, free from superstition and supernaturalism'. Part of the agenda therefore is the separation of church and state. If Atheist Ireland had assited devil worshipper's to find a place to carry out a live sacrifice you might have a point.

But it was for the very reason that it was difficult for Exit International to even hold the meeting in Ireland that Athiest Ireland helped out. (Sorry, I'm assuming this because I was not involved nor was I at the meeting.)

Xluna · 23-03-2010 8:16pm

devilsad wrote: »

That's just a little bit daft. The stated aim of Atheist Ireland is an effort to build a 'rational, ethical & secular society, free from superstition and supernaturalism'. Part of the agenda therefore is the separation of church and state. If Atheist Ireland had assited devil worshipper's to find a place to carry out a live sacrifice you might have a point.

But it was for the very reason that it was difficult for Exit International to even hold the meeting in Ireland that Athiest Ireland helped out. (Sorry, I'm assuming this because I was not involved nor was I at the meeting.)

Me daft? Never:P. Plenty of non religious people have their reservations against assisted suicide. Hell, anti theist Chris Hitchens is anti abortion.
In fact the Irving example is even more of an example of religion attacking free speech. In this case Jewish sensitivities vs free speech.

CatHerder · 23-03-2010 11:17pm

Xluna wrote: »

However- I remember David Irving was pressured into silence regarding his controversial views on the Holocause in many Universities. Though I disagree with Irvings opinions I think he should have been allowed to speak. I wonder if A.I. would have been morally and logically consistant and supported Irvings free speech.

There goes the double edged sword that is free speech. It allows you to speak out where there is a perceived injustice, but it also allows you to make an ass of yourself if you want to deny the holocaust. I doubt Atheist Ireland would help David Irving make an ass of himself. If he wants to speak in Ireland he should head to Temple Bar with a milk crate.
There is nothing like a visit to Auschwitz to impact upon you what happened.

Xluna · 24-03-2010 8:54am

CatHerder wrote: »

There goes the double edged sword that is free speech. It allows you to speak out where there is a perceived injustice, but it also allows you to make an ass of yourself if you want to deny the holocaust. I doubt Atheist Ireland would help David Irving make an ass of himself. If he wants to speak in Ireland he should head to Temple Bar with a milk crate.
There is nothing like a visit to Auschwitz to impact upon you what happened.

Exactly. You could go even further and argue that if Hitler was not allowed free speech the Nazi party would have been resigned to the side walks of history. Free speech comes with a grave price.

Sam Vimes · 24-03-2010 10:31am

Xluna wrote: »

Exactly. You could go even further and argue that if Hitler was not allowed free speech the Nazi party would have been resigned to the side walks of history. Free speech comes with a grave price.

The problem there is who decides who should be allowed to speak and who shouldn't? Generally the only people who have had both the will and the power to limit free speech are people like Hitler

edit: also Godwin'd. You lose

CatHerder · 24-03-2010 11:15pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem there is who decides who should be allowed to speak and who shouldn't? Generally the only people who have had both the will and the power to limit free speech are people like Hitler

Everyone should be entitled to free speech unless you want to shout "FIRE" in the cinema. I guess free speech only thrives in a democracy.

Funglegunk · 24-03-2010 11:38pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well done all involved and well done Atheist Ireland who have protected free speech in Ireland a second time this week, after earlier this week causing Dermot Ahern to fold on the Blasphemy law, citing as he did the "incredibly sophisticated campaign [against me], mainly on the internet.”

I find it one hell of a stretch to say that Atheist Ireland caused Dermot Ahern to 'fold' on the blasphemy law. The full quote from Ahern you provided in that link is this:

“There was a lot of nonsense about that blasphemy issue and people making me out to be a complete right-winger at the time,” he said. “There was an incredibly sophisticated campaign [against me], mainly on the internet. I was only doing my duty in relation to it, because clearly it is in the constitution. The attorney general said ‘there is this absolute, mandatory thing… it is an offence, punishable by law.”

That's hardly citing the Atheist Ireland campaign as the reason he is now proposing the referendum, which is what you implied. The way Atheist Ireland went about that campaign, with all that smug "Church of Dermotology" tripe, probably did more to hurt their cause than help it.

nozzferrahhtoo · 25-03-2010 10:33am

Xluna wrote: »

However- I remember David Irving was pressured into silence regarding his controversial views on the Holocause in many Universities. Though I disagree with Irvings opinions I think he should have been allowed to speak. I wonder if A.I. would have been morally and logically consistant and supported Irvings free speech. I hope it's not a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend,as it alludes to athiesm being more than just the disbelief in deities.

I can not speak for AI, nor where they formed as an association when this event occoured so they were not even THERE to make a decision on this matter, but what I can do is speak for myself.

I myself would have supported the mans right to speak. I would then have supported the right of anyone present to ask questions or voice their opinions on exactly what they thought of the mans theory.

Protecting peoples right to express and idea or attack an idea of someone else’s is not limited to merely protecting those who’s opinion you agree with.

nozzferrahhtoo · 25-03-2010 10:36am

Funglegunk wrote: »

That's hardly citing the Atheist Ireland campaign as the reason he is now proposing the referendum, which is what you implied.

Interesting. Are you aware of anyone else who engaged in a sophisticated campaign on the internet on the subject to whom I can also direct my congratulations?

Dades · 25-03-2010 11:17am

A sophisticated campaign that listed 25 quotes of which you'd be pushed to find one to qualify for prosecution.

Arcus Arrow · 25-03-2010 12:59pm

This is no more than a thread promoting an organisation to collect membership fees.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Interesting. Are you aware of anyone else who engaged in a sophisticated campaign on the internet on the subject to whom I can also direct my congratulations?

How about giving Dermot Ahern the credit for what may have been a sophisticated campaign to distract a possible source of problems by throwing out bait for the "atheist community" to rush after like a bunch of headless chickens? Has anyone asked if this was just part of a range of measures meant to protect the Church?

Can you explain who picked the 25 quotes? How many of your fellow members had input? Was the process open to all the members? Was there a vote? Was the decision taken by the curia stuck in the 19th century by its chairman?

Was this mainly a way for your chairman to promote himself while staying safely removed from any of those quotes?

None of the quotes challenged the law since they were made by a combination of dead people, fictitious characters, non residents and people who were never going to be charged. All of the quotes predate the law so none of them qualified as challenging it. Why was that?

FXR

Arcus Arrow · 25-03-2010 1:35pm

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,5057,Blasphemy-art-exhibition-in-Dublin-this-month,PZ-Myers-amp-Michael-Nugent-YouTube---AtheistIreland,page1#comments

Mauddib wrote: »

There is absolutely no secret behind the user names I use. Maudib and Mauddib are ones I have used since I was very young,

Same thread:

Mauddib wrote: »

So given the commonality of the handle I have since changed to signing up to new sites with the handle Nozzferrahhtoo.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can not speak for AI, nor where they formed as an association when this event occoured so they were not even THERE to make a decision on this matter, but what I can do is speak for myself.

This looks to me like an attempt to mislead people by promoting an organisation while you are actually a member of the curia. According to yourself not only are you a member but you bypass the ordinary members by deciding your preferred spokesman should be the chairman. Why did you not clearly state upfront that you were part of the hierarchy?

PG2 of the thread on Dawkins.net

Mauddib wrote: »

As it happens you have ME as part of both of those issues. Firstly it is I that am approached to do a lot of the media appearances. As the administrator of the blog that, for example, hosted the 25 quotes, I am the one who gets the contact. Internationally (for example when BBC World came to us looking for a media appearance) it is I they sent their names, phone numbers and contact details to.

I however am not arrogant enough to think I have the skills, the head, the voice or the ability to make such appearances. I am also aware of no one else in AI who does have this ability more than Nugent himself. This is why I ask you, and you noticeably avoided the question, who else you would suggest in AI to take the chair or spokesman roles. So I myself choose always to hand these contacts over to Nugent as the only person I know who will do the job to the standards I want to see it done.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I myself would have supported the mans right to speak. I would then have supported the right of anyone present to ask questions or voice their opinions on exactly what they thought of the mans theory.

Protecting peoples right to express and idea or attack an idea of someone else’s is not limited to merely protecting those who’s opinion you agree with.

Good to hear that. I’ll put it to the test soon as I get done with what I’m doing.

Has anyone asked yet that the minutes of the meeting that took place on the 6th of December 2008 be published publicly for all to see? Maybe then potential members will be able to judge the kind of hypocrisy that AI is founded on. An organisation which claims to be campaigning for a “more ethical” society should be open with its member and potential members shouldn’t it?

FXR

Funglegunk · 25-03-2010 3:23pm

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

How about giving Dermot Ahern the credit for what may have been a sophisticated campaign to distract a possible source of problems by throwing out bait for the "atheist community" to rush after like a bunch of headless chickens? Has anyone asked if this was just part of a range of measures meant to protect the Church?

I agree with, and thanked, most of your post but have to take issue with the part above. Do you really think that was Dermot Ahern's intention? Why is he now proposing a referendum to remove the blasphemy law altogether from the constitution?

Dermot Ahern, Irish Times, May 1 2009 wrote:

My intention is to remove the possibility of prison sentences and private prosecutions for blasphemy, currently provided for in Irish law. The only credible alternative to this move is a blasphemy referendum which I consider, in the current circumstances, a costly and unwarranted diversion.

Dermot Ahern, Sunday Times, March 14 2010 wrote:

“I said [last year] that I didn’t want a wasteful standalone referendum on blasphemy in the middle of an economic crisis,” said Ahern. “My preference was to reform [the blasphemy provision] in the short term and to have a referendum in the medium term when it could be bundled with a number of others.”

A defamation bill was already in preparation when Ahern became justice minister in May 2008.

Ahern then said he had three options: to abandon the bill; to hold a single-issue referendum to remove the constitutional reference to blasphemy; or to update the references in the 1961 Defamation Act.

Opting for reform, he said he had removed the seven-year jail sentence from the old legislation.

That seems like a fairly sane solution to a constitutional problem that could only be solved at the time by a standalone referendum, which would have been prohibitively costly considering there were referendums scheduled for this autumn anyway. The shenanigans of Atheist Ireland look particularly juvenile after a calm assessment of why Ahern actually had to pass the Defamation Bill last summer.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Interesting. Are you aware of anyone else who engaged in a sophisticated campaign on the internet on the subject to whom I can also direct my congratulations?

If you are for congratulating them for engaging in a sophisticated internet campaign, fine by me. If you think that had any effect whatsoever on the law being introduced to the autumn list of referendums, you are living in on a different planet.

Dades · 25-03-2010 3:24pm

@Arcus Arrow

Can you take your beef with AI/nozzferrahhtoo/Mauddib offline, or off to their forum, thanks.

Arcus Arrow · 25-03-2010 3:43pm

Dades wrote: »

@Arcus Arrow

Can you take your beef with AI/nozzferrahhtoo/Mauddib offline, or off to their forum, thanks.

Surely if someone is recruting for an organisation and making claims for it while giving the impression he's not a member then people have a right to hear the other side of the story?

The OP is inviting people to pay money to AI.

MikeC101 · 25-03-2010 3:49pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Interesting. Are you aware of anyone else who engaged in a sophisticated campaign on the internet on the subject to whom I can also direct my congratulations?

I'm not aware of anyone who engaged in a sophisticated campaign on the internet (copy and paste some fairly tame quotations onto a blog = sophisticated??), or offline, on the subject.

Though in fairness it would be very hard to publish something all that shocking in regards to Christianity - in light of say, Jerry Springer the Opera or Piss Christ and so on.

Arcus Arrow · 25-03-2010 4:19pm

From the Irish Times
Ahern, who was criticised for increasing the fine for blasphemy to €25,000 last year, said he never regarded the provision in the new Defamation Bill as anything more than a short-term solution.

Funglegunk wrote: »

I agree with, and thanked, most of your post but have to take issue with the part above. Do you really think that was Dermot Ahern's intention? Why is he now proposing a referendum to remove the blasphemy law altogether from the constitution?

There are too many unanswered questions around his actions. Why did he and his fellow mandarins wait so long to decide there was a problem that needed fixing? There was no outcry to fix the situation or demand from the EU.

He may even have been over compensating or miscalculated but one thing is certain: an awful lot of people got involved in what looks like a law that was never going to be enforced anyway. Then on the other side you have a bogus campaign that didn't test the law one way or the other. It got some attention and now it's been used to gather in a few more shekels for the organisation.

Funglegunk wrote: »

That seems like a fairly sane solution to a constitutional problem that could only be solved at the time by a standalone referendum, which would have been prohibitively costly considering there were referendums scheduled for this autumn anyway. The shenanigans of Atheist Ireland look particularly juvenile after a calm assessment of why Ahern actually had to pass the Defamation Bill last summer.

It would have been no more costly or confusing to include the referendum on blasphemy with the vote for Lisbon.

The government is already committed to referendums on children’s rights and establishing a permanent court of civil appeal.
The plebiscites are expected to take place in October, on the same day as the a vote for a new directly elected mayor of Dublin, and three Dail by-elections in Donegal South-West, Dublin South and Waterford.

Now it's going to be included with even more issues and more importantly two country by-elections both of which might be more likely bring out catholics rather than the secular hordes of Donegal or Waterford.

That ordinary Irish people are exercised about the passing of the blasphemy law is just nonsense. The same government signed an Indemnity deal to protect Church child rapists and there was a media furore a few months back.
Now on the streets it's hard to find an average citizen who even knows what the Indemnity deal is! That's despite the fact it’s costing millions of taxpayers money.

drkpower · 25-03-2010 4:21pm

Dades wrote: »

@Arcus Arrow

Can you take your beef with AI/nozzferrahhtoo/Mauddib offline, or off to their forum, thanks.

Dont want to take the thread off-topic/question modding etc., but Arcus makes a good point. Ive seen people banned for promoting, particularly financially, an organisation of which they could be said to be 'on the board', as such.

Arcus Arrow · 25-03-2010 4:22pm

MikeC101 wrote: »

I'm not aware of anyone who engaged in a sophisticated campaign on the internet (copy and paste some fairly tame quotations onto a blog = sophisticated??), or offline, on the subject.

Though in fairness it would be very hard to publish something all that shocking in regards to Christianity - in light of say, Jerry Springer the Opera or Piss Christ and so on.

It can't be that hard to insult Muslims. All it takes is a cartoon. There is a mosque on the South side of Dublin full of Allahs touchy subjects!

Dades · 25-03-2010 4:23pm

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Surely if someone is recruting for an organisation and making claims for it while giving the impression he's not a member then people have a right to hear the other side of the story?

Who's giving the impression he's not a member? I would have thought it fairly bloody obvious from the OP that nozzferrahhtoo is a member - not to mention his other postings here to date.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The OP is inviting people to pay money to AI.

So what? You don't have to support them if you don't want to. The RDF and The Brights look for money too.

Atheist Ireland may not be everyone's cup of tea but their organisation is of much interest to the posters here.

MikeC101 · 25-03-2010 4:27pm

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

It can't be that hard to insult Muslims. All it takes is a cartoon. There is a mosque on the South side of Dublin full of Allahs touchy subjects!

That's probably true - if they really wanted to test the law, or provoke outrage, publishing some Danish style cartoons would probably have a better chance of working. Might be kind of dangerous for the people doing it though.

Arcus Arrow · 25-03-2010 4:40pm

Dades wrote: »

Who's giving the impression he's not a member? I would have thought it fairly bloody obvious from the OP that nozzferrahhtoo is a member - not to mention his other postings here to date.

It's not obvious from this thread and I'm assuming people who read any thread do not go to the trouble of checking all of the OPs other posts. If you click on the usernames profile it says nothing about being a member of Atheist Ireland.

Dades wrote: »

So what? You don't have to support them if you don't want to. The RDF and The Brights look for money too.

Atheist Ireland may not be everyone's cup of tea but their organisation is of much interest to the posters here.

If someone posted here recruiting for an organisation named CORI and "all the good work they do" I'd think it only right to point out they were in fact the Conference of Religious in Ireland which included the lowlife child rapists scum who signed a pact with their fellow Catholics in government to get away with their crimes.

The members of AI don't know all the facts about AI as it is. If it's of interest to the posters here then all sides of the story should be of interest. It's only my opinion but I think people should ask if an organisation practices what it preaches. If you dislike the hypocrisy of the CCL then you might just not like an atheist organisations hypocrisy either.

Funglegunk · 25-03-2010 10:28pm

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

There are too many unanswered questions around his actions. Why did he and his fellow mandarins wait so long to decide there was a problem that needed fixing? There was no outcry to fix the situation or demand from the EU.

From the same article I quoted earlier:

Dermot Ahern, Irish Times, May 1 2009 wrote:

Reform legislation in regard to our laws on defamation has been long in the making, dating effectively from the Report of the Law Reform Commission in 1991. The Defamation Bill 2006 is the culmination of that process and it has fallen to me to bring the reform to fruition, which I expect to do before the summer.

I'm not sure how long legislation like this usually takes to get worked through the grinders, but the bill has been in existence since 2006. Your implication that the bill is the result of some dark pact between the Justice department and the Catholic church rests on what evidence? And how exactly does the bill help the church anyway? Is it not widely acknowledged that it is virtually impossible for anybody to be prosecuted under the bill?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

He may even have been over compensating or miscalculated but one thing is certain: an awful lot of people got involved in what looks like a law that was never going to be enforced anyway.

And...?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

It would have been no more costly or confusing to include the referendum on blasphemy with the vote for Lisbon.

I disagree with this. A lot was riding on the government passing Lisbon the second time round and muddling their message with a referendum was probably deemed way too risky, especially one as open to misinterpretation as this.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

That ordinary Irish people are exercised about the passing of the blasphemy law is just nonsense. The same government signed an Indemnity deal to protect Church child rapists and there was a media furore a few months back.

The only people even bothered by the blasphemy law were the international media (oh hur hur look at those backward Irish) and Atheist Ireland. I agree with you about Atheist Ireland. They, and Michael Nugent in particular, are media whores...for lack of a better phrase.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-03-2010 10:35am

Funglegunk wrote: »

If you are for congratulating them for engaging in a sophisticated internet campaign, fine by me. If you think that had any effect whatsoever on the law being introduced to the autumn list of referendums, you are living in on a different planet.

The man is changing the law less than three months after having it brought into law and in his comments on changing the law he directly cited only one campaign against it. They are the only facts I have to go on and based on that I can only congratulate those involved in the campaign for being part of the outcome.

MikeC101 wrote: »

I'm not aware of anyone who engaged in a sophisticated campaign on the internet (copy and paste some fairly tame quotations onto a blog = sophisticated??), or offline, on the subject.

There was a lot more to it than that. This was only the part that got international media attention. There was a lot of Atheist Ireland Members who engaged in blanket and one on one approaches to members of the Justice Committee, members of our government, direct and indirect approaches to our president before she signed it into law, media appearances to raise the conciousness of the general public about this law and what it means and could mean and the effects it is having not just in Ireland but across the world (such as Muslim groups adopting the wording of the Irish law in their attempts to have a much further reaching law on blasphemy implemented across many countries). and much more.

MikeC101 wrote: »

That's probably true - if they really wanted to test the law, or provoke outrage, publishing some Danish style cartoons would probably have a better chance of working. Might be kind of dangerous for the people doing it though.

You would be entirely right IF that were the rationale behind the release.

Although a member and a volunteer worker for Atheist Ireland (such as various administrative duties in the background) I am not a member of the committee or the decision making process aside from having my one vote and a wish to see them succeed. So I can not speak for them but I can tell you what I think.

I think it is worth clarifying, despite it being off topic, that the 25 quotations were not intended to break the law or cause outrage as such, though such an outcome would indeed have served some use. Clearly the list would be ineffective if that was the rationale behind it as most of the people on it are dead or not Irish and so no one could be prosecuted. But inviting prosecution is not the _main_ intention of the list.

A law is a law, we can not just go around breaking it because we disagree with it. I can not murder you because I want to show I disagree with the law of murder.

No the list released has a different rationale. It is an attempt to show a list of statements that could be considered blasphemous under the new law and to show that we must argue for peoples right to have uttered or released them.

The fact is that it is impossible to wilfully break the law of blasphemy because it is worded in such a way that no one knows how to. I could spout every blasphemous comment I can think of and not break this law if I tried, and then I could give up, forget about it and go promote in print a certain model of swim wear tomorrow and find myself on the receiving end of litigation.

The list of quotations are statements that some people will find offensive. Not one thing on the list is something that will not offend someone somewhere. However not one statement on the list is something that we should be legislating against people being capable of saying, and thats the important thing.

Resisting attempts to stifle the free expression of ideas is what this is about, regardless of whether it is people bringing things into law to make saying some things illegal, or cowardly groups such as “Youth Defense” trying to attack the forums that give people the platform to do so. You do not need to be explicitly either an Atheist or Theist to agree with that.

Arcus Arrow · 26-03-2010 4:48pm

Funglegunk wrote: »

From the same article I quoted earlier:

Funglegunk wrote: »

I'm not sure how long legislation like this usually takes to get worked through the grinders, but the bill has been in existence since 2006. Your implication that the bill is the result of some dark pact between the Justice department and the Catholic Church rests on what evidence? And how exactly does the bill help the church anyway? Is it not widely acknowledged that it is virtually impossible for anybody to be prosecuted under the bill?

The entanglement between politics and the CCL has been going on since the founding of the State.

I found this in a Times article dated April 29 2009;

Last year the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of Fianna Fáil TD Seán Ardagh, recommended amending this Article to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafting the Article along the lines of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0429/1224245599892.html

It's not possible to know at this point what the purpose of the bill really was. No one wanted it and when it was passed most of the population were not bothered in the least by it. When something does not add up it's usually because some of the figures are missing. It's too easy to think a well paid politician, who is by no means stupid, just decided to bring in a law under which no one would be prosecuted for no reason whatsoever.
If he wanted to make the bill so prosecutions could be brought he could have. They have more than enough legal advisors and consultants (that we pay for of course).

It's already plain they set about protecting the church from the incoming tsunami of abuse being uncovered.
So what was he at?
Again it may be a case of overestimating the reaction from some quarters and how the child rape revelations might be seized on. If that was the case maybe now that's seen as one that failed as the threat just did not materialise.

Funglegunk wrote: »

I disagree with this. A lot was riding on the government passing Lisbon the second time round and muddling their message with a referendum was probably deemed way too risky, especially one as open to misinterpretation as this.

You might be right regardign Lisbon but he did'nt have to bring in the blasphemy law in the first place which would have been even less confusing. How many people, so exercised by the fact he did bring it in, would have been looking for something else to do?

Funglegunk wrote: »

The only people even bothered by the blasphemy law were the international media (oh hur hur look at those backward Irish) and Atheist Ireland. I agree with you about Atheist Ireland. They, and Michael Nugent in particular, are media whores...for lack of a better phrase.

I think the problem stems from the chairman as to the way Atheist Ireland is run. The whole blasphemy hullabaloo served one purpose: it was used by Mr. Nugent to up his media profile off the backs off the blindsided membership as did his assumption of power from the start.

I thinking someone might be hoping to get onto the Irish quango gravy train in the future.

The acolytes have come to loathe certain questions as you can already see from this thread.