Blasphemy bill passed in Dail :O

DrumSteve

come on lads... whats the problem? jesus was a good bloke. same with allah and all them other lads... are we confusing hatred of the church with hatred of these blokes... cos I know them. and they really dont deserve it. I mean really. well maybe not buddha. he's a ****ebag.

Burkatron

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

i would like to know who is really behind this Bill

who is pulling the strings

is there a TD who perhaps belongs to a extreme right wing conservative catholic
organisation???

questions questions

It just looks more & more that the banks & church are the 1's in control of this country.This is so ****ing unbelieveable.Ive also read somewhere before that Dermot Ahern is a practicing Catholic,so hes protecting his beliefs interests before he loses his position of power.

That thread on church ex communication is making more & more sense to me.They have so many people that arent catholics registered on the Census as catholics it gives them more sway then they should have!

IvyTheTerrible

This is such a backward step. They might as well bring back censorship while they are at it. Grr.

Delirium

Wonder how long it'll be before the inter-faith lawsuits??

MrStuffins

So hang on, has it gone through?

Just to clear up, blasphemy is now illegal?

javaboy

Just bear in mind that though you may not like the new bill, it is the law and Boards.ie as an Irish website must respect that law.

See the updated charter: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61068423&postcount=13

Wazdakka

javaboy wrote: »

Just bear in mind that though you may not like the new bill, it is the law and Boards.ie as an Irish website must respect that law.

See the updated charter: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61068423&postcount=13

I understand..

But I happen to think that Religion is complete pants and jesus if he did exist was most certainly a cunt!!

DrumSteve

javaboy wrote: »

Just bear in mind that though you may not like the new bill, it is the law and Boards.ie as an Irish website must respect that law.

See the updated charter: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61068423&postcount=13

this is seriously weak... but not much we can do about it i suppose.

We can still take the piss out of our rotten church though cant we?

cos thats not religion... just a bunch of men dressed like girls and touching up kids.

Earthhorse

Wazdakka wrote: »

I understand..

But I happen to think that Religion is complete pants and jesus if he did exist was most certainly a cunt!!

Post reported.

DrumSteve wrote: »

this is seriously weak... but not much we can do about it i suppose.

We can still take the piss out of our rotten church though cant we?

cos thats not religion... just a bunch of men dressed like girls and touching up kids.

Post reported.

Sorry guys. It's the law.

javaboy

Wazdakka wrote: »

I understand..

But I happen to think that Religion is complete pants and jesus if he did exist was most certainly a cunt!!

Careful now.



There's a certain irony in quoting Father Ted to admonish someone for blasphemy.

DrumSteve

Earthhorse wrote: »

Post reported.



Post reported.

Sorry guys. It's the law.

you reported my post? well **** you.

there is nothin in my post abusing religion. just the church.

IvyTheTerrible

So what exactly constitutes blasphemy in terms of this law? Is it just blasphemy against the Catholic religion or all religions or what?

Wazdakka

javaboy wrote: »

Careful now.
There's a certain irony in quoting Father Ted to admonish someone for blasphemy.

As far as I know it's not Law Yet
But if it gets passed I'll go out of my way to break it very publicly and very loudly every day. It's a complete bloody infringement of freedom of speech.
I'll have public viewings of Father Ted in St. Stephens Green twice a day

golum

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

i would like to know who is really behind this Bill

who is pulling the strings

is there a TD who perhaps belongs to a extreme right wing conservative catholic
organisation???

questions questions

Futile law and one that is unlikely to ever be put to much use IMO. I think the group most likely to attempt to invoke it will be Muslims though-they seem to be a bit more "sensitive" to criticism than most other religious groups these days

WindSock

Well in fairness, paedos in the church do not = God. Nor does the Pope. We still have the right to speak out against the order, afaik.

MrStuffins

Correct, it is not law yet, it still must be passed by The President. She can bring it to the Supreme Court if she thinks it is not in agreement with the constitution.

So until then...................

I love Jesus

Cookie_Monster

Surely our useless wonderful President will refuse to sign this into law as it is so stupidly ridiculous

Earthhorse

DrumSteve wrote: »

you reported my post? well **** you.

there is nothin in my post abusing religion. just the church.

WindSock wrote: »

Well in fairness, paedos in the church do not = God. Nor does the Pope. We still have the right to speak out against the order, afaik.

Not true. God created man in his image. Therefore, any slight against man is a slight against God and hence blasphemous.

QED

DrumSteve

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not true. God created man in his image. Therefore, any slight against man is a slight against God and hence blasphemous.

QED

we might be an image but we are not the original.

I.E. If you were a guitarist would you hold the same reverence for a 2009 epiphone les paul copy as you would for a 1969 gibson les paul? sure it might LOOK the same but its inherently not the same.

QED.

WindSock

Fine, but we can still abuse women then, right?

markopantelic

what does this mean for father ted? what a ****ing joke but in ireland the majority don't care about things like free speach.

Overheal

So, religious folk aren't confident enough to let me say I think the whole God Thing is a Crock [hasn't been made law yet. Eat it] so they have to push it into law like whimpy little sheeple? To be perfectly honest I had more faith in the religious community. Turn the other cheek, and all that.

markopantelic

what is blasphemy? if i say religon is a load of ****ing bull****, is that blasphemy? i mean i dont know.

Earthhorse

DrumSteve wrote: »

we might be an image but we are not the original.

I.E. If you were a guitarist would you hold the same reverence for a 2009 epiphone les paul copy as you would for a 1969 gibson les paul? sure it might LOOK the same but its inherently not the same.

QED.

Look, I am just trying to do the right thing here, both by javaboy and by Jesus. It's in the constution. It's in the law. And now it's in the AH charter, just like God is in each and every one of us.

WindSock wrote: »

Fine, but we can still abuse women then, right?

Sure. Knock yourselves out.

javaboy

markopantelic wrote: »

what is blasphemy? if i say religon is a load of ****ing bull****, is that blasphemy? i mean i dont know.

If you're not sure, PM a mod before posting.

Mossy Monk

The country is going to **** and this is what those useless ***** in Dáil Éireann are working on. I am fed up of this bull****.

DrumSteve

Earthhorse wrote: »

Look, I am just trying to do the right thing here, both by javaboy and by Jesus. It's in the constution. It's in the law. And now it's in the AH charter, just like God is in each and every one of us.

not yet it aint....?

and god is in me...ewwwwwww

philologos

Overheal wrote: »

So, religious folk aren't confident enough to let me say I think the whole God Thing is a Crock [hasn't been made law yet. Eat it] so they have to push it into law like whimpy little sheeple? To be perfectly honest I had more faith in the religious community. Turn the other cheek, and all that.

A lot of Christians oppose this law. Theres a good letter on it here:
http://www.irishtimes.net/newspaper/letters/2009/0509/1224246187450.html

I'd prefer if people spoke freely and criticised religion to my face to be honest with you. At least that way I can clear up the misconceptions.

I'm a supporter of free speech.

dlofnep

It's not law yet?

Great!

God's a very nice chap.

Wazdakka

DrumSteve wrote: »

**** is never illegal. ever.

I have a pending court case that begs to differ..

My name is URL

Fcuk this for a game of toy soldiers.

Earthhorse

markopantelic wrote: »

what is blasphemy? if i say religon is a load of ****ing bull****, is that blasphemy? i mean i dont know.

That's a big problem with drafting a law such as this. However, the framers of the law were clever enough to foresse this and decided to define it in terms of whether someone takes offence to what is uttered. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder so too is blasphemy.

sub-x

Good bye free speech,good bye freedom of expression,people always said that Ireland was backwards and heres the proof.Very sad day for this country.


Has anybody news links for this

Flaccus

Isn't the problem that blasphemy has always been punishable under the constitution (jail sentance) but there is no law to back it up as there is really no definition of what blashemy is. Hence noone has ever been brough up on blashpheming charges. That being the case, why didn't they just remove it from the constitution with a referendum or leave it as it is, since noone has/can be prosecuted. Perhaps it was certain religious groups who lobbied for this.

So does this bill add this definition ? I can't see how legislation is going to hold up unless they define what blashemy is very precisely. And what sort of punishments are they talking about ? Jail, fine, right of person allegedly being blashphemed against to sue. I assume they will water down the punishment and remove the jail sentence and probably allow a person to take a civil action against someone they think has blashphemed against them. And then there is the problem of religious fundamentalists and freedom of speech. I'm confused.

DrumSteve

Wazdakka wrote: »

I have a pending court case that begs to differ..

dont worry dude just say you were doing it in the name of jesus. say he told you to do it and if they disagree say they are being blasphemous...

Or that it was just the real second coming.

My name is URL

So is it now illegal to dis religion in general or is it only when its aimed at a particular faith?

grizzly

This is like going back in time! Next thing you know people will be seeing visions of the virgin mary everywhere :rolleyes: (is it blasphemy not to capitalise the name of a deity?)

Biggins

If they think they are going to shut me the fcuk up and what I say on my self-owned websites - they can go screw themselves.

grizzly

Also will this include scientology and jedi faiths?

Ajos

Flaccus wrote: »

Isn't the problem that blasphemy has always been punishable under the constitution (jail sentance) but there is no law to back it up and the problem has always been that there is no definition of what blashemy is, so noone has ever been brough up on blashpheming charges. That being the case, why didn't they just remove it from the constitution with a referendum or leave it as it is, since noone has been affected. Perhaps it was certain religious groups who lobbied for this.

So does this bill add this definition ? I can't see how legislation is going to hold up unless they define what blashemy is very precisely. And what sort of punishments are they talking about ? Jail, fine, right of person being blashphemed against to sue. I assume they will water down the punishment and remove the jail sentance and probably allow a person to take a civil action against someone they think has blashphemed against them. And then there is the problem of religious fundameltists and freedom of speech. I'm confused.

From what I understand this is the entire point. The bill has been deliberately drafted in such a way as to make it almost impossible for a successful prosecution to be brought. Nobody really wants this, but unfortunately it's in the constitution and therefore there has to be a law. It's all very well to say "why not just have a referendum?" but those things are time consuming and expensive, and from what I understand there's not a lot of money to be thrown around at the moment. I'm sure the next time there's a referendum about something more pressing they'll chuck it in.

When I first heard about this I was as appalled as anybody, but on further research it appears to be a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, it's disturbing that blasphemy is a criminal offense, but that's not new and it's not Dermot Aherne's doing. Blame it on Dev!

Wazdakka

My name is URL wrote: »

So is it now illegal to dis religion in general or is it only when its aimed at a particular faith?

Not sure I still cant figure out the rules..
If I said "I want to bust a nut over the virgin Mary's face"?
If this passes would I receive an infraction or ban?

Biggins

My name is URL wrote: »

So is it now illegal to dis religion in general or is it only when its aimed at a particular faith?

The proposed statute says in part “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000” and defines blasphemy as speech that is “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion.”

http://blog.atheist.ie/?p=75

One step forwards, ten steps backwards into the dark ages again.
We are becoming the laughing stock of the EU once again. Fcuking FF is screwing things up even more before they feck off on their 3 months holidays!!!

They should all be hung by the Bolsheviks!

conchubhar1

this is not what jesus would do

jesus would bang a couple of hos

DrumSteve

grizzly wrote: »

Also will this include scientology and jedi faiths?

well there not real... so yes.

Flaccus

what's a substantial number ? 10% of the religious followers, 20% ? And what's grossly abusive as opposed to just abusive ? Can't see this holding up in court.

Dinter

This bill is being introduced so it can be challenged. I wouldn't worry a whit about it.

i.e what constitutes a substantial number of adherents? It's completely unworkable.

Still with the economy in the state it is maybe the Government are thinking, "if we're nice to God . . .

Overheal

Jakkass wrote: »

A lot of Christians oppose this law. Theres a good letter on it here:
http://www.irishtimes.net/newspaper/letters/2009/0509/1224246187450.html

I'd prefer if people spoke freely and criticised religion to my face to be honest with you. At least that way I can clear up the misconceptions.

I'm a supporter of free speech.

Glad to hear it

It leaves the question though: who is pushing this damn thing?

ScumLord

Flaccus wrote: »

what's a substantial number ? 10% of the religious followers, 20% ? And what's grossly abusive as opposed to just abusive ?

Well accusing Jesus of raping his own mother to give birth to himself. That's pretty gross.

Pop's Diner

DrumSteve wrote: »

well there not real... so yes.

One of them is! :mad: (the Jedi one).

javaboy

Overheal wrote: »

It leaves the question though: who is pushing this damn thing?

Basically the constitution says blasphemy is a crime but we've no law against it. So the Law Reform Commission says "Oi! Sort out this discrepancy. Either make a law or amend the constitution."

So rather than go with a potentially expensive referendum, they decided to write up an unworkable law that they know will never achieve a conviction. That's the prevailing thinking on it anyway.

What worries me is that they made the fine so high. If it's just being drafted in to fulfil a technicality until a chance to tack it onto another referendum, why did they not make the fine a notional amount like 1 cent. Or make the law clearly and absolutely unworkable e.g. define blasphemy as "utterances against religion or God which offend 1 trillion people or more".

It's not quite vague or unworkable enough for my liking. And the fine is suspiciously high.