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

Blasphemous libel proposal

Options
«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Is it specifically for christians? It reads to me like its blasphemies of things considered sacread by whatever ones faith?

    I can't help but feel suspicious about it anyway.


  • Options
    #3
    jayteecork
    Site Banned Posts: 5,676 ✭✭✭jayteecork


    This has got to be some sort of a joke.

    €100,000 fine.

    Whatever.


  • Options
    #4
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    One way of reading this is that a minister who offends Muslims by saying Mohammed is not God's only prophet could be prosecuted.

    Dermot Ahern is an ass.


  • Options
    #5
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Is it specifically for christians? It reads to me like its blasphemies of things considered sacread by whatever ones faith?

    I can't help but feel suspicious about it anyway.

    It seems to for anyone who seeks to offend the sensibilities of any given religion. That would make the A&A forum a pretty quiet place. Better get all my blasphemy in before this goes through.


  • Options
    #6
    jayteecork
    Site Banned Posts: 5,676 ✭✭✭jayteecork


    The Blasphemy law was invoked a few years back in England when some young lad was arreested wearing a Cradle of Filth "Jesus is a C***" T-shirt.

    Not sure what his outsome was.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    jayteecork wrote: »
    The Blasphemy law was invoked a few years back in England when some young lad was arreested wearing a Cradle of Filth "Jesus is a C***" T-shirt.

    Not sure what his outsome was.
    That slogan could have been dealt with under ordinary decency laws. People have been done for wearing ACAB tee-shirts. How hypocritical that a godless country like the U.K. reached for blasphemy laws.

    But to the OP issue: I share the general concern expressed here. This seems a very dangerous tool against your democratic freedoms. You guys know the politics of Ireland better than me - why would a government minister come up with this at this time? Is he just an ass?


  • Options
    #8
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    But to the OP issue: I share the general concern expressed here. This seems a very dangerous tool against your democratic freedoms. You guys know the politics of Ireland better than me - why would a government minister come up with this at this time? Is he just an ass?

    The evidence suggests so. It's a little baffling, since going by the feedback here the Christians don't seem to want it and neither does anyone else.


  • Options
    #9
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I'm quite shocked that this is being proposed by the Minister for Justice. I think it is fundamentally unworkable and I don't necessarily see why non-Christians should have to abide by this.


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


    This is Ireland - not England. The law here is something to worry about at the point of it being enforced - not when it becomes law.


  • Options
    #10
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    This is Ireland - not England. The law here is something to worry about at the point of it being enforced - not when it becomes law.
    But why wait till then. Nip it in the bud. We shouldn't have to wait until some cartoonist is being dragged before the courts.

    Edit: And save some tax money by firing the people who suggested it.


  • Options
    #11
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    The evidence suggests so. It's a little baffling, since going by the feedback here the Christians don't seem to want it and neither does anyone else.
    The Christians here don't want it, but the Christians here are generally those who think about their faith.

    Ahern's proposal is designed to appeal to unthinking cultural Christians who read the Daily Mail. It is a grubby attempt at populism that deserves to get the boot - as does the ass that has proposed it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    PDN wrote: »
    The Christians here don't want it, but the Christians here are generally those who think about their faith.

    Ahern's proposal is designed to appeal to unthinking cultural Christians who read the Daily Mail. It is a grubby attempt at populism that deserves to get the boot - as does the ass that has proposed it.

    I can't hep but think there's some alterior motive behind though, i.e. its not 'just' an election stunt. Then again, I am wearing a tin foil hat:)


  • Options
    #13
    philopus109
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25 ✭philopus109


    Tommy Tiernan is lodging an appeal against the proposal!


  • Options
    #14
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    PDN wrote: »
    The Christians here don't want it, but the Christians here are generally those who think about their faith.

    Ahern's proposal is designed to appeal to unthinking cultural Christians who read the Daily Mail. It is a grubby attempt at populism that deserves to get the boot - as does the ass that has proposed it.

    Wow.

    Does anyone like Daily Mail readers...?


  • Options
    #15
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I can't hep but think there's some alterior motive behind though, i.e. its not 'just' an election stunt. Then again, I am wearing a tin foil hat:)

    To take our minds off important issues?


  • Options
    #16
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Wow.

    Does anyone like Daily Mail readers...?

    Jesus does.


  • Options
    #17
    Phototoxin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭Phototoxin


    He might be perfect Fanny, but he's not an idiot!


  • Options
    #18
    Handsome Bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    PDN wrote: »
    The Christians here don't want it, but the Christians here are generally those who think about their faith.

    Ahern's proposal is designed to appeal to unthinking cultural Christians who read the Daily Mail. It is a grubby attempt at populism that deserves to get the boot - as does the ass that has proposed it.

    Could you please elaborate PDN on just how it appeals to "unthinking cultural Christians"?


  • Options
    #19
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Phototoxin wrote: »
    He might be perfect Fanny, but he's not an idiot!

    I get what you mean but...

    lol, God is perfect fanny. [/juvenile]


  • Options
    #20
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Does anyone like Daily Mail readers...?
    The Daily Mail publishers?


  • Options
    #21
    crotalus667
    Registered Users Posts: 1,900 ✭✭✭crotalus667


    it seems to me that they may get the law passed but it wont hold up


    Corway -v- Independent Newspapers, in 1999, the Supreme Court concluded that it was impossible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists”.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Wow.

    Does anyone like Daily Mail readers...?

    Pretty sure even Daily Mail readers hate them.
    robindch wrote: »
    The Daily Mail publishers?

    Not a chance! Unless they express their love for people by constantly terrifying them.


  • Options
    #23
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    crotalus667 wrote: »
    it seems to me that they may get the law passed but it wont hold up


    Corway -v- Independent Newspapers, in 1999, the Supreme Court concluded that it was impossible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists”.
    Is that not the point of this legislation? To define what is to be considered blasphemy.

    MrP


  • Options
    #24
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Is that not the point of this legislation? To define what is to be considered blasphemy.

    MrP

    And priority number one should be removing blasphemy from any and all legal references.

    My views are blasphemous to your religion, should that be a crime to express them?

    Your religious views are blasphemous to others religions, should your local priest be prosecuted for blasphemy?


  • Options
    #25
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Not a chance! Unless they express their love for people by constantly terrifying them.
    Nah, there's lots of people out there who enjoy having the carp scared out of them on an ongoing basis. Feeds their prejudices. Energizes them.


  • Options
    #26
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    robindch wrote: »
    Nah, there's lots of people out there who enjoy having the carp scared out of them on an ongoing basis. Feeds their prejudices. Energizes them.
    Ah, you mean Republicans? :D


  • Options
    #27
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Is he just an ass?

    Absolutely, and a very large one, though that wouldn't be the primary force behind this. Apparently theres a constitutional requirement to have such a law. However a commitee recommended some years ago that this section of the constution be confined to the bin.
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ahern-defends-new-blasphemy-law-1724069.html

    Of course theres no onus on the ass to make it a particularily grevious offence, or to add on such a huge fine. Considering that one can destroy a listed building with far less consequences, its rather ridiclous. The smart thing to do, short of removing that section from the constituion, would be to make it so vague and the penalty so light that even in the unlikely event it was enforced nothing serious could come of it. But, that would be the smart thing to do.
    pts wrote:
    Ah, you mean Republicans? ?

    Judging by the recent hullabaloo at Tescos, they don't have a monopoly.


  • Options
    #28
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    Could you please elaborate PDN on just how it appeals to "unthinking cultural Christians"?

    It appeals to those who have little or no commitment to Christ, but see Ireland as a 'Christian country'. Therefore they are prone to kneejerk reactions against anything that they see as diluting our 'Irish heritage'.


  • Options
    #29
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    Nodin wrote: »
    Judging by the recent hullabaloo at Tescos, they don't have a monopoly.

    I was more talking about this kind of Republican, should have been more clear :D
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E


  • Options
    #30
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    pts wrote: »
    I was more talking about this kind of Republican, should have been more clear :D

    My apologies.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Groovy Funkster
    Registered Users Posts: 24 ✭Groovy Funkster


    Nodin wrote: »
    Absolutely, and a very large one, though that wouldn't be the primary force behind this. Apparently theres a constitutional requirement to have such a law. However a commitee recommended some years ago that this section of the constution be confined to the bin.
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ahern-defends-new-blasphemy-law-1724069.html

    Of course theres no onus on the ass to make it a particularily grevious offence, or to add on such a huge fine. Considering that one can destroy a listed building with far less consequences, its rather ridiclous. The smart thing to do, short of removing that section from the constituion, would be to make it so vague and the penalty so light that even in the unlikely event it was enforced nothing serious could come of it. But, that would be the smart thing to do.



    Judging by the recent hullabaloo at Tescos, they don't have a monopoly.

    The smart thing to do would be to have a referendum. As a letter writer to the Irish Times said today "We must be a very poor country indeed if we cannot afford freedom of speech."

    Even if the fine was reduced to 10 cent and the "crime" was defined in such a way as to make it impossible to bring to court, I would oppose the legislation.

    Blasphemy should never be a crime either in theory or in practice.


Advertisement