Proposed Blasphemy Law

8kvscdpglqnyr4

Looks like Ian O'Doherty has beaten blasphemy.ie to the punch.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/all-hail-the-tree-1818805.html

"BLASPEHMOUS RUMOURS, ANYONE?

So, we're now officially the most religiously deranged country in the civilised world.

Now that blasphemous libel has been introduced to the statue books, it will be a crime to have a pop at religions.

So, here we go -- Catholicism is a cannibal cult which eats its leader, Jews who believe that God wants them to settle in the Holy Land are deranged lunatics, Muslims who wants to install Islamic law are nothing but fascist terrorists and Scientologists are nothing but a bunch of brainwashed weirdos who have been suckered by the malicious rantings of a failed science-fiction writer."

Dades

I, for one, am outraged.

Sam Vimes

You and me both Dades. This is not on and I will be lodging a complaint against this scallywag

eightyfish

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There was a very loud guy saying that we should desecrate a consecrated host every day until the law is repealed. Seems a bit much for me.

I was sitting right beside this guy. He kept shouting everybody down who he didn't agree with and appeared as he could possibly explode in some small way. I kept changing my mind from agreeing with him to thinking he was OTT and back again.

Michael Nugent was calm, collected and articulate as usual. I've seen him speak three times now and he's always very good. (The senator was good also.) That said, he is not a very strict moderator. Too many comments were allowed and people kept repeating each other over and over. Then cutting out the break of a 3+ hour meeting was possibly not wise (for those who hadn't had lunch!) and resulted in a small exodus.

Overall productive. Probably will join AI now (g/f too). I feared they would go the route of the humanist association (who's brochure, available on the night, contained a lot of policy aims that I didn't agree with - atheism is not a religion) but AI seem dedicated to championing two issues only for now; the blasphemy law and secular education. I'm happy to get behind that.

Sam Vimes

eightyfish wrote: »

Then cutting out the break of a 3+ hour meeting was possibly not wise (for those who hadn't had lunch!) and resulted in a small exodus.

Overall productive. Probably will join AI now (g/f too)

Did you leave in that exodus? I did and there was a bloke and his girlfriend walking down in front of me. It was about a minute after the major group left and there was no one on the stairs but myself and them. Might have been yourselves

eightyfish

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Did you leave in that exodus? I did and there was a bloke and his girlfriend walking down in front of me. It was about a minute after the major group left and there was no one on the stairs but myself and them. Might have been yourselves

Yes, we left at about this time. Probably was us.

Would have liked to stay but we were both really hungry and had the cinema booked for 4:30.

eightyfish

Irish Times article about the meeting published today.

Galvasean

Kaylani Ambitious Spit wrote: »

Looks like Ian O'Doherty has beaten blasphemy.ie to the punch.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/all-hail-the-tree-1818805.html

"BLASPEHMOUS RUMOURS, ANYONE?

His other two bits on that page are good too (also anti-religious).

eightyfish wrote: »

Irish Times article about the meeting published today.

Will Dawkins pay my fines?

Dades

eightyfish wrote: »

Irish Times article about the meeting published today.

Wow. Now that's some heavyweight backing.

jill_valentine

A few days ago, I wrote a letter to the Independent on the subject, outlining my distaste.

Here's how it appears on their website:



Here's the letter I actually sent.



Hmm.

Galvasean

It pains me is good to see censorship back crippling free speech protecting the masses in this day and age.

eightyfish

jill_valentine wrote: »

Hmm.

It was your language, see.
If you said butthole, they wouldn't have cut it.

lostexpectation

what would happen of the jerry springer opera was brought here?

waitinforatrain

Sorry but.. was the amendment not rejected by the Seanad? It was my understanding that http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0710/1224250388598.html this meant that the bill was passed but the amendment rejected.

Otherwise I made wikipedia say some very very wrong things (which are still on it:))

Zillah

Kaylani Ambitious Spit wrote: »

Looks like Ian O'Doherty has beaten blasphemy.ie to the punch.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/all-hail-the-tree-1818805.html

"BLASPEHMOUS RUMOURS, ANYONE?

So, we're now officially the most religiously deranged country in the civilised world.

Now that blasphemous libel has been introduced to the statue books, it will be a crime to have a pop at religions.

So, here we go -- Catholicism is a cannibal cult which eats its leader, Jews who believe that God wants them to settle in the Holy Land are deranged lunatics, Muslims who wants to install Islamic law are nothing but fascist terrorists and Scientologists are nothing but a bunch of brainwashed weirdos who have been suckered by the malicious rantings of a failed science-fiction writer."

Glorious.

Zeouterlimits

Popped up on a popular (largely american) forum.
Good lord they laughed at us and rightly so for this. Utter stupidity.

Otaku Girl

So does that mean I can't do this anymore?Wow just goes to show how weak their arguements are when they need the nanny state to protect them from reality.:rolleyes:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055606449

Sanjuro

Okay, take something like South Park or one of those shows that in the past have actively made a point of parodying religious institutions and beliefs. These shows parody primarily for comedy value. But if outrage is caused, they don't exactly retract what they've said. If a show like that was made here, could the makers be prosecuted under this new legislation?

Galvasean

Sanjuro wrote: »

Okay, take something like South Park or one of those shows that in the past have actively made a point of parodying religious institutions and beliefs. These shows parody primarily for comedy value. But if outrage is caused, they don't exactly retract what they've said. If a show like that was made here, could the makers be prosecuted under this new legislation?

Like Father Ted?

Stercus Accidit

Galvasean wrote: »

It pains me is good to see censorship back crippling free speech protecting the masses in this day and age.

Sincerely, little girl.

drkpower

Sanjuro wrote: »

Okay, take something like South Park or one of those shows that in the past have actively made a point of parodying religious institutions and beliefs. These shows parody primarily for comedy value. But if outrage is caused, they don't exactly retract what they've said. If a show like that was made here, could the makers be prosecuted under this new legislation?

People people.......have none of you actually read the actual provision of the actual law.......? The amount of uninformed comment on this topic is frightening.

Jerry Springer: The Musical, South Park, Father Ted etc. etc.... even if it could be shown that they intended to cause outrage (possibly J.S.; doubtful on the other two), they would clearly come within one of the Defences, ie. artistic value.

http://oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2006/4306/b43d06s.pdf

ChocolateSauce

drkpower wrote: »

Jerry Springer: The Musical, South Park, Father Ted etc. etc.... even if it could be shown that they intended to cause outrage (possibly J.S.; doubtful on the other two), they would clearly come within one of the Defences, ie. artistic value.

http://oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2006/4306/b43d06s.pdf

All. Utterly. Irrelevant. One shouldn't need to defend it under "merit". The only defense one needs is "free speech". That's why people are pissed off. If I wanted to film a pig defecating on a Koran, it should not be illegal for any reason, full stop.

jill_valentine

So that's why they call you Mr. Popularity.

drkpower

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

All. Utterly. Irrelevant. One shouldn't need to defend it under "merit". The only defense one needs is "free speech". That's why people are pissed off. If I wanted to film a pig defecating on a Koran, it should not be illegal for any reason, full stop.

Of course, what this law actually criminalises is utterly irrelevent...... Well done.

Dont get me wrong, I do not defend the legislation; it was clearly pointless and a very bad signal symbolically. But that does not mean we should talk sh!te about what this law actually does or does not do. That does noone any good and simply serves to make people look a little uninformed and silly.

And does noone care about facts anymore or do they fall victim to a good rant?

Tar.Aldarion

Lol, what is this ****. Refused to read it until now, I'd say I don't have faith in humaity, but that's probably a crime. Sometimes I just want to go live in my little corner and let people be idiots on their own time. Off I go.

ShooterSF

drkpower wrote: »

People people.......have none of you actually read the actual provision of the actual law.......? The amount of uninformed comment on this topic is frightening.

Jerry Springer: The Musical, South Park, Father Ted etc. etc.... even if it could be shown that they intended to cause outrage (possibly J.S.; doubtful on the other two), they would clearly come within one of the Defences, ie. artistic value.

http://oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2006/4306/b43d06s.pdf

It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this
section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would
find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value
in the matter to which the offence relates

What's a reasonable person? How can you prove that one finds artistic value in something. For example South Park's artistic value varies depending on who you ask.
It also seems that the defendant has to prove it rather than the prosecutor has to prove it's not.

ChocolateSauce

ShooterSF wrote: »

It also seems that the defendant has to prove it rather than the prosecutor has to prove it's not.

Indeed, any law no matter what it is should never require the defendant to prove his or her innocence. It goes against one of foundations of modern justice as we know it.

Dades

The artistic merit thing is a defense, in the same way 'self-defense' is applied in murder cases. Both may be put forward by the defendant to defend against the actual charge which the prosecution must prove.

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

The artistic merit thing is a defense, in the same way 'self-defense' is applied in murder cases. Both may be put forward by the defendant to defend against the actual charge which the prosecution must prove.

This is true. The burden of proof will always be on the prosecution to prove that there was no artistic merit.

Dades

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is true. The burden of proof will always be on the prosecution to prove that there was no artistic merit.

On the contrary, it's my thinking that in the case of a defense - the burden is on the defendant.

Once the prosecution have proven you have "blasphemed" under Sec 36 (2) - i.e. outrage, intent etc, it is up to you to show that you can avail of the defense under Sec 36 (3).