Morality in the Irish Constitution.

Standman

Some of the Articles/Sections concerning the fundamental rights of Irish citizens in Bunreacht na hEireann (Articles 40-44), contain phrases such as "..subject to morality", "..in accordance with the common good", and as I understand most if not all of the articles are subject to be within "decency" or "morality".

I have tried to find a definition of this morality in the constitution but there doesn't seem to be one, unless I missed it.

What I don't understand is who decides on what is moral and what is not regarding the regulation of fundamental rights?

If I had to guess I would say it would be influenced by religion, as there are a couple of sections in there that explicity state the importance of god, one of which makes blasphemy a constitutional offence (Part i, Section 6, Article 40).

I didn't realise that fundamental freedoms in this country are subject to what is perceived as "decent" or "moral".

Is that not a mockery of freedom?

Here's a summary of the sections I'm referring to:

http://www.ireland-information.com/reference/congov.htm

d0gb0y

It comes down to some guy or woman in a wig & a cape to interpret whats decent & moral or indecent immoral in your behavior:eek:

The Irish constitution was written only with approval from the american financial backers some of whom where probably english:pac:

oeb

Is this a skeptics forum or a conspiracy theory forum?

Morality - conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

I do agree that the term 'morality' may seem a little ambiguous (and it certainly is) but there are advantages to using terms like that. It means that the constitution does not have to be updated every 10 minutes.

Morality is typicially defined by the society in question. The articles in question seem reasonable to me. How exactly would you like to express your rights in a manner that you believe Irish society would look on as immoral? Can you tell me of a time when these morality clauses in the constitution have been used in a manner that you (or society in general) has found objectional?

Morality is used in other aspects of society other than the constitution. A good example would be the IFCO, they constantly ban movies based on a moral standpoint. As what is seen as morally accecptable changes, so does the what they ban/unban. A typicial example would be Monthy Pythons, 'The life of Brian'. It was banned when it first came out in 1979, but then unbanned 8 years later.

If this way of doing things does not suit you, by all means run for office, or ask your local representitive to do something about it. That's the wonders of democracy, and it is your right. If enough people object to this (and to be honest, I would be supprised if they did), it can be changed (Or what do you know, new people will be in power with a more up to date expectation on morality .... like happens all the time).

d0gb0y, re:Americian and English backers financing, and dictating the content of the Irish constitution. I presume of course you have some reliable evidence for this? I would very much like to stress how big of a difference there is between a conspiracy theorist and a skeptic. As far as I am concerned, a conspiracy theorist is just another sheep.

robindch

d0gb0y wrote: »

The Irish constitution was written only with approval from the american financial backers some of whom where probably english

At the risk of missing some obscure joke or conspiracy theory, the Irish constitution of 1937 was written almost entirely by De Valera, John Charles McQuaid, John Hearne and Micheál Ó Gríobhtha. There was no American input that I'm aware of.

It replaced the 1922 Constitution which was written by Winston Churchill, Michael Collins and a few other figures whom history has forgotten. Under Churchill's influence, it was based heavily on the American constitution and, IMHO, in most measures was a much better, and much more liberal constitution than the rather narrow and religiously-prejudiced document which succeeded it.