Proposed Blasphemy Law

A_SN

Even if the law gets in effect there's probably not much to worry about, they still have such a law in Massachusetts and they haven't tried anyone for blasphemy since the 1830s or something. It's there, just not enforced.

SoDoM wrote: »

In the defence of all things religousular, I have talked to several devout Christian friends who disagree immensely with this law. Make sure you aim your (well justified) anger in the right direction!

Why would it be surprising, this law also means they can't make fun of Muslims and Jews

eightyfish

Macros42 wrote: »

Anyone know when Atheist Ireland are going to publish their blasphemous statement now that the Act has been signed?

I kind of think this will backfire.

Dades

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

What exactly does this mean for the man on the street? Surely people can't be prosecuted for speaking ill of God in public? Sorry if this seems like a stupid question.

In my view, it's an ill-advised, embarrassing bit of legislation - enacted to avoid a referendum - that is unlikely to ever see a charge, much less a conviction.

Other people hear black helicopters.

Only time will tell what the repercussions, if any, will be.

Stercus Accidit

Well Ireland has become an international farce, it damages the countries credibility to investors and business, whatever repercussions that has remain to be seen.

Orion

eightyfish wrote: »

I kind of think this will backfire.

It may well do but it would be a good test of the law - if they prosecute it will cause outrage - if they don't it will cause outrage. Either way it will prove the law is an ass.

Stercus Accidit

It really is here isn't it.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Another nail in a coffin containing our image as a modern European country. Just what we need! When are we going to say enough is enough? I mean, are the majority really content with this sort of regression? Sure, we won't see an actual prosecution, but the principal of signing such a thing into law is just ridiculously stupid and short-sighted.

I don't think there's ever been a better time for columnists and bloggers in Ireland to unload. Bring it on I say.

Urizen

I was going to write a long winded, deeply sarcastic fake letter to the President here. And I did, but it was ****.

I just hope her imaginary sky friend will help her out of the hole she's dug for herself.

A_SN

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Another nail in a coffin containing our image as a modern European country. Just what we need! When are we going to say enough is enough? I mean, are the majority really content with this sort of regression? Sure, we won't see an actual prosecution, but the principal of signing such a thing into law is just ridiculously stupid and short-sighted.

I don't think there's ever been a better time for columnists and bloggers in Ireland to unload. Bring it on I say.

Yep, not a great PR move. I mean, even I didn't think of Ireland as much of a country where one religion rules, I thought that belonged to the past and that it was a modern secular country. Well, still feels like one, except for that nice bit of international PR stunt.

lostexpectation

drkpower wrote: »

Guys; you should be thanking her - on both Bills. And thanking her that she didnt take heed of a lot of the populist gnashing of teeth on these issues.

Judges hate interpreting law in a vacumn with no factual context and they are inclined to err on the side of a Bill being constitutional. Of course, they might have found either (or both) Bills unconstitutional; but in the more likely event the Court found the law constitutional, it would forever be constitutional and never open to constitutional challenge, no matter what the circumstances. This way, if a prosecution occurs in either case in the future, which has particular circumstances that make it clear that the law is unconstitutional, then it can be challenged. If she had referred the Bill, it was found to be constitutional, and such a case occurred in the future..... tough, it would never be open to challenge even it were patently obvious, in light of the facts, that the law was unconstitutional.

The Presedential referral is a nuclear button; one that was unwarranted and counter-productive in both these cases.

either she thinks its unconstitutional and she refers it or she doesn't think it unconstitutional.

ChocolateSauce

A_SN wrote: »

Yep, not a great PR move. I mean, even I didn't think of Ireland as much of a country where one religion rules, I thought that belonged to the past and that it was a modern secular country. Well, still feels like one, except for that nice bit of international PR stunt.

I wouldn't consider Ireland secular country until the state owns and runs all publicly-funded school of all levels, until the parliament stops praying before every session, until RTE drops the angelus, until the president and judges can hold office without a religious oath, and until that article in the constitution (among others) which essentially qualifies that the people of Ireland have a duty to worship the Christian god is expunged.

A_SN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I wouldn't consider Ireland secular country until the state owns and runs all publicly-funded school of all levels, until the parliament stops praying before every session, until RTE drops the angelus, until the president and judges can hold office without a religious oath, and until that article in the constitution (among others) which essentially qualifies that the people of Ireland have a duty to worship the Christian god is expunged.

Amen!

:pac:

Quentinkrisp

Balsphemy is illegal now?
nice one, dermot.

you just know that democracy is on the way out in this country when retarded and ill advised legislation like this has actually been (a)seriously considered (b)drawn up (c) rushed through government without any proper debate and dissection and (d) eventually passed into law. that's everyone's right to free speech taken away now, all done in the name of appeasing religious lunatics who want to dismantle society.

At least now my life has been given a bit more focus now, thanks to the idiocy of these utter tools (an autocratic, crypto - fascist control-freak of a "justice minister" and a retarded coat-stand of a "president")! - i'm gonna scrape the pennies together until i've finally enough cash to leave this hole of a country:mad: which has now been dragged into the gutter :mad::mad:thanks for selling our freedoms up the swannee and making us look like a joke to the rest of the world,dermot and mary, i thank you both from the bottom of my upraised middle finger!:mad:
actually, while an bord snip are cutting costs, couldn't they just completely abolish the office of president altogether, it's not like she does anything!!aras un uachtarain should be turned over for use as a licensed concert venue!

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I wouldn't consider Ireland secular country until the state owns and runs all publicly-funded school of all levels, until the parliament stops praying before every session, until RTE drops the angelus, until the president and judges can hold office without a religious oath, and until that article in the constitution (among others) which essentially qualifies that the people of Ireland have a duty to worship the Christian god is expunged.

+1 : IMHO, ireland won't be completely secular until wev'e banished the catholic church from this country and anyting to do with religion is banned also, and the last of the fanatics is no more in this country!
The biggest facepalm moment i've ever had in my life was yesterday which occurred the moment i went online to Atheistireland and heard that this vile, anachronistic piece of legislation was now law:Of all the dangerous stupidity that has been perpetrated our government, this surely wins the prize!
Rant over.

ChocolateSauce

Quentinkrisp wrote: »

+1 : IMHO, ireland won't be completely secular until wev'e banished the catholic church from this country and anyting to do with religion is banned also, and the last of the fanatics is no more in this country!

Of all the blind, dangerous stupidity that has been perpetrated our government, this latest stunt definitely tops the charts!
Rant over.

And you think that you're not a fanatic if you want to banish people you disagree with and ban religion because you think it is false? That's exactly what the people you hate so much would do to you if they got into power; you just ban one religion more. I would rather live in Turkey than Albania.

drkpower

lostexpectation wrote: »

either she thinks its unconstitutional and she refers it or she doesn't think it unconstitutional.

Nope; you miss the point, once again.

For a start, the Pres is not usually qualified to take such a view (which is partly why she seeks the view of the Council of State).

But more importantly, there is a danger to making this referral and even if she thinks it is unconstitutional (lets say, she is 51% sure), the prudent step may very well be not to refer it. Remember, if the judges are 51% sure it is constitutional, it will be constitutional forever, no matter what facts/real-life scenarios emerge to change that position.

So just because Mary thinks it is unconstitutional, that is not neccessarily a good reason to refer.

Goduznt Xzst

I think the main issue with this law is not it's actual weight, but the quasi-understanding of it the masses will now have.

People I've talked to in work who are aware of the law and the whole fiasco don't actually understand what they are and are not allowed to say or do because of it. It will impinge on free speech just having the law in existence and in popular consciousness, regardless of if it is executable or not.

For most people the extent of what they will garner from all this is just 2 words "Blasphemy... illegal", and this is my biggest fear, with people walking on eggshells and not speaking their mind about religion for fear of this law being used against them.

The whole thing stinks... almost as bad as one of Jesus' farts *he was human after all, and lived in a land of spices, he must of let one out on occasion*

Malari

drkpower wrote: »

Nope; you miss the point, once again.

For a start, the Pres is not usually qualified to take such a view (which is partly why she seeks the view of the Council of State).

But more importantly, there is a danger to making this referral and even if she thinks it is unconstitutional (lets say, she is 51% sure), the prudent step may very well be not to refer it. Remember, if the judges are 51% sure it is constitutional, it will be constitutional forever, no matter what facts/real-life scenarios emerge to change that position.

So just because Mary thinks it is unconstitutional, that is not neccessarily a good reason to refer.

Could it still be removed from the constitution through referendum at some stage in the future?

Dades

Malari wrote: »

Could it still be removed from the constitution through referendum at some stage in the future?

Yes. Or simply removed from legislation. Neither option is precluded by a finding of constitutionality.

drkpower

Malari wrote: »

Could it still be removed from the constitution through referendum at some stage in the future?

The law can be removed at anytime if the Oireachtas want to.
The constitutional reference to blasphemy can be removed by referendum - in fact that is what the Law Reform Commission advised - but Dermo/the Gov felt that, in the light of other issues facing the country, a referendum on this issue would be ill advised - silly reasoning, but there you go.

lostexpectation

via mn /ai There is still another stage before the law becomes operative - Ahern has to sign an order making it so

there referral to the council of state delayed this, there in no hurry to do it.

lostexpectation

drkpower wrote: »

Nope; you miss the point, once again.

For a start, the Pres is not usually qualified to take such a view (which is partly why she seeks the view of the Council of State).

But more importantly, there is a danger to making this referral and even if she thinks it is unconstitutional (lets say, she is 51% sure), the prudent step may very well be not to refer it. Remember, if the judges are 51% sure it is constitutional, it will be constitutional forever, no matter what facts/real-life scenarios emerge to change that position.

So just because Mary thinks it is unconstitutional, that is not neccessarily a good reason to refer.

ok if she thinks it may be unconstitutional then she has to send it on to the sc for them to judge.

its not for her to worry about it possibly making things worse from our point of view.

drkpower

lostexpectation wrote: »

ok if she thinks it may be unconstitutional then she has to send it on to the sc for them to judge.

its not for her to worry about it possibly making things worse from our point of view.

What?

It is precisely for her to judge whether a referral to the SC will make things worse. It is her function and her function alone. That is a very significant role. Have you ever wondered why it has been used so rarely?

Stop talking nonsense.

Quentinkrisp

[/QUOTE]The whole thing stinks... almost as bad as one of Jesus' farts *he was human after all, and lived in a land of spices, he must of let one out on occasion* [/quote]:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I think the main issue with this law is not it's actual weight, but the quasi-understanding of it the masses will now have.

People I've talked to in work who are aware of the law and the whole fiasco don't actually understand what they are and are not allowed to say or do because of it. It will impinge on free speech just having the law in existence and in popular consciousness, regardless of if it is executable or not.

For most people the extent of what they will garner from all this is just 2 words "Blasphemy... illegal", and this is my biggest fear, with people walking on eggshells and not speaking their mind about religion for fear of this law being used against them.

best point made about this whole sorry mess



+10, this post EASILY wins the WHOLE thread IMO

A_SN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

And you think that you're not a fanatic if you want to banish people you disagree with and ban religion because you think it is false? That's exactly what the people you hate so much would do to you if they got into power; you just ban one religion more. I would rather live in Turkey than Albania.

I feel him though, I hate hateful people, and can't tolerate intolerance.

My fanaticism for anti-fanaticism knows no bounds.

eightyfish

Some letters in today's Indo.

5uspect

Would suggesting the use of the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill to tackle Catholic Church Crime be considered blasphemous?

Stercus Accidit

5uspect wrote: »

Would suggesting the use of the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill to tackle Catholic Church Crime be considered blasphemous?

Nope but its a good idea

Kevin Higgins

Poets Oppose New Blasphemy Law

Galway's literary events organisation Over The Edge is seeking support from poets for 'Down With This Sort of Thing!'- Poems in opposition to Ireland's new blasphemy law

Over The Edge co-organisers, Susan Millar DuMars and Kevin Higgins said:

"freedom of expression is an absolute essential for writers. This new law represents a step backward in that regard and we wanted to give poets nationally and locally the opportunity to register their opposition."

send your poems on this theme to
over-the-edgeopenreadings@hotmail.com
and Over The Edge will publish the best of them in a special feature on their website
http://overtheedgeliteraryevents.blogspot.com

Poets such as William Wall, Dave Lordan, Alan Jude Moore and Patrick Chapman have already contributed poems.

You can see the feature at http://overtheedgeliteraryevents.blogspot.com/2009/07/down-with-this-sort-of-thing-poems-in.html

Dades

I got an emailed response from the Dept of Justice this morning to a complaint I mailed the Minister on 29th April. (Apparently their email server had been blocking outgoing attachments and their response was originally sent on 5th May).

Anyway, the response mail consisted of Ahern's letter to the IT of the 1st May justifying his decisions. Meh. At least somebody responded, I suppose.

eightyfish

ditto