Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Campaign to repeal the blasphemy law

12346»

Comments

  • #252
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,137 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    recedite wrote: »
    ..............s, and is covertly being brought into Europe.
    ........................


    Do please be as good as to explain what that article has to do with child marriage being "covertly brought into Europe".


  • #253
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Do please be as good as to explain what that article has to do with child marriage being "covertly brought into Europe".
    When you have to get boxes of brochures printed out so that you can hand them out to mature men, to explain that marrying a child is illegal, then you have a problem in your midst.


    Recedite, The Restricting One


  • #254
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,137 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    recedite wrote: »
    When you have to get boxes of brochures printed out so that you can hand them out to mature men, to explain that marrying a child is illegal, then you have a problem in your midst.



    Deflection and evasion time, is it?

    Again - Please explain what that article has to do with child marriage being "covertly brought into Europe".


  • #255
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Deflection and evasion time, is it?
    Again - Please explain what that article has to do with child marriage being "covertly brought into Europe".
    There is a glaring loophole that child brides who have been sold off en route to Europe can be recognised as married if the "marriage" took place before they arrived. This despite the fact that in Europe it is legally impossible for a minor to give consent to such an arrangement.

    "Shameful" you say, but not "covert", it is a brazen exploitation of a loophole.

    Well, in order to continue with their child abuse, some of these "husbands" have claimed that they are in a platonic relationship, or that they are living with a niece.
    Hence the Swedes have put in their brochure...
    It is improper for you to live together if the child is under 15
    Meanwhile, here in Ireland
    David Dalton, CEO of Plan International Ireland says:
    The 100 child brides identified to date is potentially only the tip of the ice-berg. In reality, with 442,000 children arriving into Europe in the past 12 months, there are thousands of child-brides living with their ‘husbands’ across the continent.
    Certain EU governments and local authorities, in Norway and Sweden, have already issued directives that couples, involving underage girls should be separated. However, this isn’t being applied universally and many brides are being allowed to remain with their husbands. Plan International Ireland believes that the Irish Government must be ready to intervene if child marriages are identified here in Ireland.
    https://www.plan.ie/stories/child-marriage-europe/

    I call it "covert" because only the tip of the iceberg has been identified, and even then it is not widely publicised. Most Europeans would be disgusted if they knew about it.


    Recedite, The Supreme Solver


  • #256
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    All the outrage with Muslims but the Christians appear to have little issue with Mary being married off at 12 years of age.


  • #257
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Cabaal wrote: »
    All the outrage with Muslims but the Christians appear to have little issue with Mary being married off at 12 years of age.
    Scriptural sources say nothing about Mary's age at her betrothal. From our historical knowledge of that society we know that the usual age of betrothal for a girl was 12 to 14; for a boy, 14 to 17. (Boys could be betrothed at a younger age, but this was unusual, on account of the practical need to be in a position to support a spouse and family.) So (if we take Mary for the purposes of this discussion to be a historical figure) then it's likely that she was age 12-14 when betrothed to Joseph.

    Of course, this is about betrothal or marriage, not sex. If the concern is about sexual activity at an age that (by modern standards) is not acceptable, then that's obviously not an issue in Mary's case, since the whole point of the Mary story is that she didn't have sex.

    So, if you're feeling all dogmatic and judgemental and wanting to indulge your absolutist morality, you can pretty much open the throttle on righteous condemnations of first-century Palestine as a hotbed of underage sex. But you can't really accuse the Christians of endorsing it by their veneration of Mary.


  • #258
    Trent Houseboat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,116 ✭✭✭Trent Houseboat


    It's not the veneration of Mary that endorses it it's the believing in an almighty God who impregnated her.

    Sure we can say people from the time knew no better, and extend that by five hundred years for the ProMo if you want, but Yahweh should have known that he was acting the nonce.


  • #259
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Trent Houseboat wrote: »
    It's not the veneration of Mary that endorses it it's the believing in an almighty God who impregnated her.

    Sure we can say people from the time knew no better, and extend that by five hundred years for the ProMo if you want, but Yahweh should have known that he was acting the nonce.
    Even if Mary was of an age where she could possibly consent, the whole thing is still incredibly messed up when you consider the power imbalance in play here.
    Sure God gave Mary the choice, but the implications would have been there...


  • #260
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,777 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Of course, this is about betrothal or marriage, not sex. If the concern is about sexual activity at an age that (by modern standards) is not acceptable, then that's obviously not an issue in Mary's case, since the whole point of the Mary story is that she didn't have sex

    Point of the story perhaps, but on an atheist forum, if we believe from a historical perspective that Jesus existed and Mary was his mother then we also assume that she got pregnant the normal way. That said, I'm very much of the opinion that criticizing the behavior of people from a couple of thousand years ago using modern norms is patently ridiculous.


  • #261
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    smacl wrote: »
    Point of the story perhaps, but on an atheist forum, if we believe from a historical perspective that Jesus existed and Mary was his mother then we also assume that she got pregnant the normal way. That said, I'm very much of the opinion that criticizing the behavior of people from a couple of thousand years ago using modern norms is patently ridiculous.
    True, but this "whatabout Mary" was introduced as a deflection when we were actually talking about 21st Century Islam.

    Recedite, The Great Forgiver


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,777 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    recedite wrote: »
    True, but this "whatabout Mary" was introduced as a deflection when we were actually talking about 21st Century Islam.

    Recedite, The Great Forgiver

    Not really though. What we were talking about was whether certain members of the far right should be allowed refer to Mo as a pedophile as a mechanism to polarize opinion against the wider Muslim community. The idea that you can hold a large percentage a given population to account for a tiny minority of extremists among it ranks, purely because they share the same religion or nationality, is not reasonable, yet we see it done. You know the way Yaxley did once when he threatened the entire Islamic community based on the actions of a tiny number of terrorists, for which he later had to apologize. Freedom of speech versus incitement to hatred and all that. As per my previous post, would you consider yourself in any way accountable for the actions of the IRA, INLA, UVF or UDA? Because that is exactly what is being done here.


  • #263
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    smacl wrote: »
    As per my previous post, would you consider yourself in any way accountable for the actions of the IRA, INLA, UVF or UDA? Because that is exactly what is being done here.
    Not the same thing at all. I am not a member of any of those orgs, therefore I am not accountable for anything they stand for.
    Neither am I a muslim. So don't ask me to defend Islam.

    You have consistently ignored the discussion in this thread relating to child marriage being a thing in contemporary Islam, while at the same time you have deflected the discussion to ancient history.


    Recedite, The Sublime One


  • #264
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,474 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    recedite wrote: »
    Not the same thing at all. I am not a member of any of those orgs, therefore I am not accountable for anything they stand for.

    How about being Irish? Back in the day that was all the association you needed.


  • #265
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,777 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    recedite wrote: »
    You have consistently ignored the discussion in this thread relating to child marriage being a thing in contemporary Islam, while at the same time you have deflected the discussion to ancient history.

    Not at all. As I have already pointed out, with references, Islam demands that its followers obey the rule of law in whatever country they live in. Thus any underage marriage by Muslims in Western society runs directly contrary to their religious dogma. The ancient history was dragged into the discussion from the far right when they decided to try to attack all Muslims based on the actions of a dude who's been dead for over two thousand years and treating his actions as contemporary. If we're going to be critical of Islam, and I think we should be, it should be on a reasoned basis. I'm guessing the right don't do this as the criticisms you might level, e.g. anti-egalitarian, socially regressive, and overly conservative, also tend to apply to many of the far right.


  • #266
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    Point of the story perhaps, but on an atheist forum, if we believe from a historical perspective that Jesus existed and Mary was his mother then we also assume that she got pregnant the normal way.
    Yes, but if we are attacking the (presumed) attitudes of Christians to the story we have to deal with how Christians read and understand the scriptures, not with how atheists do.
    smacl wrote: »
    That said, I'm very much of the opinion that criticizing the behavior of people from a couple of thousand years ago using modern norms is patently ridiculous.
    This.


  • #267
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    recedite wrote: »
    True, but this "whatabout Mary" was introduced as a deflection when we were actually talking about 21st Century Islam.
    No, we were talking about whether the prophet Mohammed could legitmately be called a paedophile.


  • #268
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Canada is set to repeal its own law against blasphemy - now only requiring Royal Assent.

    The announcement is here, the bill's passage through parliament is here, the bill itself is here and the law being repealed is this puppy:
    Canadian Criminal Code, Section 296 wrote:
    Offence

    296 (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

    (2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel.

    (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.


  • #269
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Trivium of the day: while the last blasphemy prosucution in Ireland was in 1855 (and that resulted in an acquittal), the Canadian offence was prosecuted as recently (!) as 1935, and a conviction was secured. An Anglican minister was convicted on the basis of comments that he had made about the Roman Catholic church. I had no idea the Canadians were so intolerant. :-)


  • #270
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Blasphemy to be repealed in time for - Easter!

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/blasphemy-offence-due-to-be-removed-by-easter-1.3738321
    Irish Times wrote:
    The Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan is planning to remove the offence of blasphemy by next Easter.

    Mr Flanagan today published a Bill to give effect to the result of October’s referendum where voters overwhelmingly supported the proposal to remove blasphemy as an offence from the Constitution.

    The final result showed that 64.85% voted Yes while 35.15% voted No. Mr Flanagan said his Bill would ensure that prosecutions for blasphemy will be no longer possible. The Department of Justice expects that the legislation will be passed by mid-April, depending on what Brexit-related legislation needs to be passed before then.

    “During the course of the referendum campaign, it was made very clear that, in the event of the referendum proposal being agreed, the Government would respond by bringing forward legislation which would repeal sections 36 and 37 of the Defamation Act 2009 which provide a statutory basis for the offence of blasphemy. The repeal of those sections is the key element in the General Scheme which has been published on my Department’s website. The proposed repeal is fully in accord with the policy that it should no longer be possible to initiate a prosecution for blasphemy in this jurisdiction.”

    Mr Flanagan said he is also moving to reform defamation laws. “I would like to confirm that my Department is finalising a review of the Defamation Act 2009 which will address issues other than those falling within the scope of the cheme which has just been published.”

    He said after a public consultation, issues to be covered by the review will include the respective roles of judge and jury in defamation cases, the defences available to the media in the context of public-interest news reporting, and the level of damages which can be awarded by Irish courts in defamation cases. “This review is a priority for me and I expect that it should be completed during the first quarter of 2019”.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement