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

Open letter to all TDs

Options
«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    rozeboosje
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


    1) Liz McManus, Labour:

    Thank you for your email.

    I fully support your view. Its farcical to have such legislation. The Labour Party Spokesperson on Justice, Pat Rabbitte TD has voiced our strong opposition to it in the Dáil.

    Regrettably the government refused to listen.

    Yours sincerely,

    Liz.

    Liz McManus, T.D.
    Spokesperson on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources


  • Options
    #3
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Why post a few paragraphs of text in video form? Why not just post the text?


  • Options
    #4
    galwayrush
    Registered Users Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    tl:dr :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #5
    rozeboosje
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why post a few paragraphs of text in video form? Why not just post the text?

    I participate primarily on YouTube, sorry

    But I have now posted the text of the letter in the Video Description. Cheers.;)


  • Options
    #6
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Any chance you could post it here? Seeing as this is a discussion forum, like.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    rozeboosje from youtube wrote:
    Dear TD,

    I am writing you to protest against the Blasphemous Libel legislation that was recently passed by the Justice Committee.

    This arcane piece of legislation has no place in a modern western society that values basic human rights such as freedom OF and freedom FROM religion, and that enshrines Western civilisation's ideal of separating Church and Stage.

    Whilst I appreciate that the current Irish constitution does criminalise the act of blasphemy, and that the constitution must be supported by law, the fact that the constitution contains this throwback to an archaically theocratic Irish society should prompt the Minister to re-evaluate the constitution, and to ask the Irish people by referendum to remove this aberration from the most important legal document of the State.

    The "solution" that Mr. Ahern is in the process of enacting is farcical at best, introducing into the Irish statute books a law that is unenforcable and that will make Ireland once again the laughing stock of Europe.

    Please join all freedom loving people on this island in opposition to this law. Ireland must move forward into the 21st century, not back into the 19th.

    I am counting on your support.

    Yours faithfully,

    Quoted from youtube on behalf of the OP.

    I for one suport this matter.

    That is all.


  • Options
    #8
    Mario007
    Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    Max Power1 wrote: »
    Quoted from youtube on behalf of the OP.

    I for one suport this matter.

    That is all.

    thanks for posting it. i dont support the OP, because at least Ahern is defining the blasphemy in a way that it cannot be abused in the court. its unfortunate that we should tackle such a problem, however, but a referendum is just too costy at the moment. this opens up the whole discussion of being able to change the constitution by parliamentary means, which of course, is a different matter.

    still fair play to the OP, if she wants to actually send this letter to all TDs for taking some action!


  • Options
    #9
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    To clarify, i support the OP's stance on this matter, i am totally against the blasphemy law.

    TBH i dont see how anyone (religious people included) could support such a law


  • Options
    #10
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Mario007 wrote: »
    but a referendum is just too costy at the moment.

    Well print some new sheets and lump them in with the other referendum. If it needs to be fixed it needs to be goddamned fixed!

    Also, I think it's fair to say this is the governments real response to clerical child sex abuse and the Ryan report, and it's screw you!


  • Options
    #11
    Mario007
    Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    dresden8 wrote: »
    Well print some new sheets and lump them in with the other referendum. If it needs to be fixed it needs to be goddamned fixed!

    Also, I think it's fair to say this is the governments real response to clerical child sex abuse and the Ryan report, and it's screw you!

    those few papers, along with counting all of them separately,with establishing a commission, getting a group together to push forward a government's position and of course there will be the fear that it will attract many voters who would have the tendency to vote no in lisbon and the government can't simply afford that.
    so as much as i would like to see it fixed, with the system of referendums right now, at time of recession, its not possible. the question is though, how come they didnt make a referendum about this during the boom?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Mario007 wrote: »
    those few papers, along with counting all of them separately,with establishing a commission, getting a group together to push forward a government's position and of course there will be the fear that it will attract many voters who would have the tendency to vote no in lisbon and the government can't simply afford that.
    so as much as i would like to see it fixed, with the system of referendums right now, at time of recession, its not possible. the question is though, how come they didnt make a referendum about this during the boom?

    Not believable.

    Apart from the bolded bit where the government will be afraid of getting peoples real feelings on Lisbon and hope a lot of the no vote would stay home. But that's for the Lisbon discussions and off topic.


  • Options
    #13
    Mario007
    Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    dresden8 wrote: »
    Not believable.

    Apart from the bolded bit where the government will be afraid of getting peoples real feelings on Lisbon and hope a lot of the no vote would stay home. But that's for the Lisbon discussions and off topic.

    i agree, i was just putting out the arguments against having the two referenda together. but you see, even if lisbon is off topic, having two referenda on the same day will bring people to say the blasphemy referendum from the lisbon referendum that really have no stance on the issue but since they're there, they might as well vote. that is why it is important to have referenda on two different days


  • Options
    #14
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Mario007 wrote: »
    i agree, i was just putting out the arguments against having the two referenda together. but you see, even if lisbon is off topic, having two referenda on the same day will bring people to say the blasphemy referendum from the lisbon referendum that really have no stance on the issue but since they're there, they might as well vote. that is why it is important to have referenda on two different days

    You want the referenda on two different days to keep people away and stop them voting?

    Riiiiiiiiiiiiight!


  • Options
    #15
    freedom of info
    Closed Accounts Posts: 143 ✭✭freedom of info


    The problem with this legislation is this, it will send Ireland back 50 years, it is designed to keep the peoples eye of the ball as regards the corruption and ineptitude of this the worst govt in the history of the state, the biggest threat to democracy is not Sinn Fein but is FF and it is about time that we realised it. freedom of info has already been curtailed, this is merely another step upon the way to a neo Fascist future under the leadership of a bunch of gangsters, the people spoke at the council and Euro elctions but the vermon in govt refuse to go, their election manifesto wasnothing more than a smokescreen after they the traitors party had already ruined this country, the time has come to remove them for good, by whatever means at hand, and a full return to the principal of democracy can then take place, dont be fooled by these crooks again, their actions are the reason that revolutions take place, what would Lemass, Lynch and Collins have thought? these parasites are nothing more than self seving conniving liars and traitors, for gods sake lets organise and show them the power of the people


  • Options
    #16
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #17
    Mario007
    Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    dresden8 wrote: »
    You want the referenda on two different days to keep people away and stop them voting?

    Riiiiiiiiiiiiight!

    you backspinned what i was trying to say, please dont do that again. i want a referendum on one issue one day and on a second issue a different way, because it allows for greater debate on both issues and it also gets only the people who are interested in the issue thats being voted on voting, people who most likely did some research etc. i mean seeing one guy going to vote yes on the blasphemy bill, for example, who would have no interest in lisbon whatsoever and still he'd take the lisbon paper and just ticked whichever option he just happened to randomly like that moment without any consideration is really shooting democracy in the head


  • Options
    #18
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Mario007 wrote: »
    you backspinned what i was trying to say, please dont do that again. i want a referendum on one issue one day and on a second issue a different way, because it allows for greater debate on both issues and it also gets only the people who are interested in the issue thats being voted on voting, people who most likely did some research etc. i mean seeing one guy going to vote yes on the blasphemy bill, for example, who would have no interest in lisbon whatsoever and still he'd take the lisbon paper and just ticked whichever option he just happened to randomly like that moment without any consideration is really shooting democracy in the head

    Actually what you said is you didn't want the blasphemy referendum because we couldn't afford it and therefor there shouldn't be one at all.

    Having them on the one day would solve that problem.

    Both issues are un-related. I would like to think that most people could hold 2 ideas in their heads occasionally.


  • Options
    #19
    Mario007
    Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    dresden8 wrote: »
    Actually what you said is you didn't want the blasphemy referendum because we couldn't afford it and therefor there shouldn't be one at all.

    Having them on the one day would solve that problem.

    Both issues are un-related. I would like to think that most people could hold 2 ideas in their heads occasionally.

    yes we can't afford them, because even with both of them on the say day it would still require
    those few papers, along with counting all of them separately,with establishing a commission, getting a group together to push forward a government's position

    and trust me, there will be people, quite a few, who could give a damn about blasphemy laws but cared a lot for lisbon and vice versa.


  • Options
    #20
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Mario007 wrote: »
    yes we can't afford them, because even with both of them on the say day it would still require .

    The government doesn't need a position, it can ask a question. If the government in the guise of little Dermo feels that the constitutional question is so urgent it can afford to pay to sort it out once and for all rather than waste parliamentary time in the midst of our crisis.
    Mario007 wrote: »
    and trust me, there will be people, quite a few, who could give a damn about blasphemy laws but cared a lot for lisbon and vice versa.

    Good. High turnouts are good for democracy.

    And this is not about cost of referenda or anything else. It's about little Dermo and FF putting the catholic church first, they way they always have.


  • Options
    #21
    Mario007
    Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    dresden8 wrote: »
    The government doesn't need a position, it can ask a question. If the government in the guise of little Dermo feels that the constitutional question is so urgent it can afford to pay to sort it out once and for all rather than waste parliamentary time in the midst of our crisis.
    to be honest its much faster and cheaper to get it through the dail than to waste our time and money in the midst of our crisis....
    dresden8 wrote: »
    Good. High turnouts are good for democracy.
    not good if those high turnouts tend to be votes on the spot rather than someone who is interested on the issue.

    dresden8 wrote: »
    And this is not about cost of referenda or anything else. It's about little Dermo and FF putting the catholic church first, they way they always have.

    look if FF electorate are mostly catholic then its FF's right to go for catholic church first. but thats not the issue. the blasphemy law talks about any religion so discussing the catholic church alone here is not at all relevant


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Mario007 wrote: »
    to be honest its much faster and cheaper to get it through the dail than to waste our time and money in the midst of our crisis....

    It may have been cheaper but this isn't the kind of leadership we need as the ship is sinking.
    Mario007 wrote: »
    not good if those high turnouts tend to be votes on the spot rather than someone who is interested on the issue.

    A good turnout is always a good turnout.
    Mario007 wrote: »
    look if FF electorate are mostly catholic then its FF's right to go for catholic church first.

    Jesus H Christmas, we're screwed. Again.

    For the last fifty years (and probably longer) the catholic church has presided over, facilitated and covered up physical abuse and butt-fncking of children. We have a chance of putting them in their place once and for all and you come out with that.

    The government is not there to govern FF voters. It is there to govern us all. I don't remember this being in their election manifesto.


  • Options
    #23
    Mario007
    Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    dresden8 wrote: »
    It may have been cheaper but this isn't the kind of leadership we need as the ship is sinking.

    no right now, we need to save, save, save, and cut, cut, cut...simple as...
    dresden8 wrote: »
    A good turnout is always a good turnout.

    no, i dont agree with you for the reasons stated above.
    dresden8 wrote: »
    Jesus H Christmas, we're screwed. Again.

    For the last fifty years (and probably longer) the catholic church has presided over, facilitated and covered up physical abuse and butt-fncking of children. We have a chance of putting them in their place once and for all and you come out with that.

    The government is not there to govern FF voters. It is there to govern us all. I don't remember this being in their election manifesto.

    look i'm not defending FF, far from, but there are there to govern people, true, but when they got in power 42% of those people were FF people. In fact since they have a majority with the greens and independents they represent most of ireland...
    its really a cheap shot to bring up the Ryan report here to be fair. yet again we're talking about intentional abuse to anyreligion no just catholic church, so please discuss the law itself or this protest but not something that is far removed from it, we have enough of that in the lisbon discussions


  • Options
    #24
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Mario007 wrote: »

    look i'm not defending FF, far from, but there are there to govern people, true, but when they got in power 42% of those people were FF people. In fact since they have a majority with the greens and independents they represent most of ireland...
    its really a cheap shot to bring up the Ryan report here to be fair. yet again we're talking about intentional abuse to anyreligion no just catholic church, so please discuss the law itself or this protest but not something that is far removed from it, we have enough of that in the lisbon discussions

    I don't remember it being in the Greens manifesto either. And as far as representing most of Ireland, they represent that percentage of turn-out.

    I don't think this was brought in to please the Iranian mullahs.

    Little Dermo was kissing the bishop's ring.


  • Options
    #25
    Mario007
    Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    dresden8 wrote: »
    I don't think this was brought in to please the Iranian mullahs.

    Little Dermo was kissing the bishop's ring.

    wow you must really hate religion as a whole if you're willing to insult both the catholic and the islamic faiths...and to be frank i have no time for an argument with someone who has his opinion set like that with no consideration(if i'm wrong, then i am sorry, but this is what comes across from your posts)


  • Options
    #26
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Mario007 wrote: »
    wow you must really hate religion as a whole if you're willing to insult both the catholic and the islamic faiths...and to be frank i have no time for an argument with someone who has his opinion set like that with no consideration(if i'm wrong, then i am sorry, but this is what comes across from your posts)

    Where did I insult the Islamic faith?

    I didn't even insult the catholic church. I just pointed out what we all know and has been proven, they've facilitated and covered up the physical and sexual abuse of children for over 50 years.

    That's not an insult, it's a proven fact, even the church and all the congregations accept it. Time you should too.


  • Options
    #27
    Mario007
    Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    dresden8 wrote: »
    Where did I insult the Islamic faith?

    I didn't even insult the catholic church. I just pointed out what we all know and has been proven, they've facilitated and covered up the physical and sexual abuse of children for over 50 years.

    That's not an insult, it's a proven fact, even the church and all the congregations accept it. Time you should too.

    i suppose insult catholic church was not the right word, but with regards to the islamic faith:
    I don't think this was brought in to please the Iranian mullahs.

    i know a few islamic people who'd find that offensive. i accept the fact with regards to the catholic church, but yet again we're wondering off point here. there is a thread about the damage done by catholic institution here already


  • Options
    #28
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Mario007 wrote: »

    i know a few islamic people who'd find that offensive.

    Well then I withdraw the words but not the sentiment.

    Little Dermo is not protecting Islam here. He's letting the church know he's really on their side and they're back on the up.


  • Options
    #29
    Mario007
    Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    dresden8 wrote: »
    Well then I withdraw the words but not the sentiment.

    Little Dermo is not protecting Islam here. He's letting the church know he's really on their side and they're back on the up.

    ok thanks.

    why would ahern do that, though? right after ryan report, what would be the political capital from that for FF?

    i still hold onto the view that its for any faith...it can be a protestant church as well, not just catholic....


  • Options
    #30
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Mario007 wrote: »
    ok thanks.

    why would ahern do that, though? right after ryan report, what would be the political capital from that for FF?

    i still hold onto the view that its for any faith...it can be a protestant church as well, not just catholic....

    Why would FF sign an indemnity with the church where their liabilities are capped but we're totally exposed for the rest of the bill? No reason, any attempt leads you into the wacky world of conspiracy theories.

    But then again, conspiracies do exist in the real world.

    Suffice to say, FF's dealings with the church make no sense to a rational and reasonable person.

    As regards the other faiths, I'm afraid we're going to be stuck with a whole crap-load of un-intended consequences, it's the FF way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Dan I Am
    Registered Users Posts: 60 ✭✭Dan I Am


    dresden8 wrote: »

    I don't think this was brought in to please the Iranian mullahs.
    Mario007 wrote: »

    i know a few islamic people who'd find that offensive.

    I don't mean to derail your interesting debate here, but I can't see how any Muslim could find this statement offensive within this context, and the point of the statement seems perfectly valid. (I mean dresden8's statement here, although a pedantic Muslim could take offence at being referred to as an Islamic person I suppose)


Advertisement