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
Blasphemy Law comes into effect Jan 1st 2010
Options
Comments
-
What is worrying about this is that in times of recession, with the troubles in the North, tsunamis, housing crisis, flooding etc, that there are actually people sitting down somewhere being paid to think of and come up with stuff like this.
No wonder we are broke.
Also, now that "thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain" is law, how long will it be before the rest of the 10 commandments are brought in as Law.
I wonder, will the bring in some tasty old testament punishments for people, stonings etc.
Maybe we should all wear togas, grown our hair and beards long and start really acting like we are living in the dark ages.0 -
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
which is why the published 25 of them ,there just examples
its a defence.. not an out,(a) he or she publishes or utters matter 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, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the
matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
(3) It shall be a defence
it will be quit difficult to get a case court or prosecuted but people are going to try one way or another and thats still a problem.
the law is unnecessary.0 -
lostexpectation wrote: »the law is unnecessary.
The constitution requires a law against publishing blasphemy.
The law is stupid, but 100% necessary until/unless a referendum is held.0 -
-
"People who need government to enforce their religion must not have much faith in the power of its message." - unknown
:cool:0 -
Advertisement
-
lostexpectation wrote: »it will be quit difficult to get a case court or prosecuted but people are going to try one way or another and thats still a problem..
Indeed, some eejit will have a go and try this out.
I wonder how it will relate to music, lots of thrash, black and death metal would be on the blasphemous side
"You go to the church, you kiss the cross
You will be saved at any cost
You have your own reality
Christianity
You spend your life just kissing ass
A trait that's grown as time has passed
You think the world will end today
You praise the Lord, it's all you say
Jesus saves, listen to you pray
You think you'll see the pearly gates
When death takes you away
For all respect you cannot lust
In an invisible man you place your trust
Indirect dependency
Eternal attempt at amnesty
He will decide who lives and dies
Depopulate Satanas rise
You will be an accessory
Irreverence and blasphemy
Jesus saves, no need to pray
The gates of pearl have turned to gold
It seems you've lost your way
Jesus saves, no words of praise
No promised land to take you to
There is no other way "0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »Indeed, some eejit will have a go and try this out.
I wonder how it will relate to music, lots of thrash, black and death metal would be on the blasphemous side
"You go to the church, you kiss the cross
You will be saved at any cost
You have your own reality
Christianity
You spend your life just kissing ass
A trait that's grown as time has passed
You think the world will end today
You praise the Lord, it's all you say
Jesus saves, listen to you pray
You think you'll see the pearly gates
When death takes you away
For all respect you cannot lust
In an invisible man you place your trust
Indirect dependency
Eternal attempt at amnesty
He will decide who lives and dies
Depopulate Satanas rise
You will be an accessory
Irreverence and blasphemy
Jesus saves, no need to pray
The gates of pearl have turned to gold
It seems you've lost your way
Jesus saves, no words of praise
No promised land to take you to
There is no other way "
Slayer are so 80's..0 -
If you read the actual law you'll notice an exemption for creations with artistic merit. And no, with my moderator hat on that's in no way an in towards discussing whether Slayer or your own favourite grouping of yowl-merchants have artistic merit. Under the law they do.
Not that I'm that bothered but if you're not familiar with what's actually been made illegal under the new legislation, I'd suggest reading a little about it. Just being blasphemous isn't enough. The new law has requirements. Even if you just read the relevant section of this article, you'll be reasonably equipped to discuss it. For convenience, the relevant section is:Under the new law, anyone who says, publishes or otherwise makes public comments that are found to be grossly abusive or insulting to matters that are held sacred by any religion are guilty of blasphemy if such material causes offence or outrage to a "substantial" number of people who follow the religion.
and adding it to this from this article:
Put the two together and that's your cliff notes. It'd be totally cool if any future contributors to the thread were aware of the above.Those found guilty of breaking the blasphemy law may try to defend themselves by proving that a reasonable person would find literary, artistic, political, scientific or academic value in what they said or published, the law says.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
-
Advertisement
-
Slayer are so 80's..
Received a warning for this comment, hypocrisy reigns. Surely its all about freedom of speech. How ironic would it be if under a democracy you cannot express yrself?
Slayer are 80's thrash. Deicide, darkthrone, immolation & burzum all promote the same take on putting down christianity. Surely we need a balanced society?0 -
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
Indeed, difficult to define "grossly" and impossible to quantify "substantial" and where would those adherents live, in Ireland, Worldwide?0 -
-
Received a warning for this comment, hypocrisy reigns. Surely its all about freedom of speech. How ironic would it be if under a democracy you cannot express yrself?
Slayer are 80's thrash. Deicide, darkthrone, immolation & burzum all promote the same take on putting down christianity. Surely we need a balanced society?
As you may be unaware, it's a policy across the entirety of the boards.ie site that moderator decisions aren't questioned/discussed/criticised on the thread in which they were made. This isn't a newthing, actually it's been the way things have been done for the past decade.
The dispute resolution procedure (as highlighted by a recent user-dismissable sitewide announcement which you may have missed) is here. Feel free to follow it if you feel you have been wronged. The moderator of the first instance would be me. Send me a PM if you wish to discuss it (not an on-thread discussion, which will be deleted for reasons explained in the site FAQ). I'm all ears.
However, your musical views are irrelevant to this thread and will remain so. There is an entire music category for you to discuss whatever you like or don't like to listen to. Feel free to use it for that.
Yes, this is a moderator post. Please regard it as such.0 -
Broadly speaking, they have to live in Ireland. While we can legislate with extra-territorial effect under existing legislation and constitutional provisions, the offended essentially wouldn't have locus standi to be offended under our laws/this law if they were in foreign parts.Indeed, difficult to define "grossly" and impossible to quantify "substantial" and where would those adherents live, in Ireland, Worldwide?
We're far more of a multicultural and multiorigin society in Ireland these days - you can find an adherent of pretty much any religion in this jurisdiction if you look hard enough.0 -
So they have, in effect, created a law that nullifies itself.
Also, on the paragraph mentioning organisations that use "oppresive psychological manipulation" (phrasing could be wrong) includes the Catholic Church then. Having been brought up a Catholic, this is what I, and my class in school and no doubt coutless others, were subjected to.
To me, this legislation was brought about more for its articles on defamation, and not on blasphemy.0 -
-
how about we challenge the religious conservatives that run this state huh?0 -
It's interesting that eldin brings up (for a second time) the Kurt Westergaard affair without having anyone highlight the significance of it either time.lostexpectation wrote: »how about we challenge the religious conservatives that run this state huh?
It's rare in the past decade or two for something to anger a group of religious people as much as his series of cartoons. The last time I can think of before that was when Viking Penguin published The Satanic Verses. Even Mary Whitehouse's efforts in the 1970s against the likes of Denis Lemon and Gay News (and remember, Whitehouse v Lemon was a private prosecution for blasphemy) didn't bring anywhere near the amount of outrage that either Salman Rushdie or Kurt Westergaard did.
The prospect of a Rushdie prosecution failed mainly because a House of Lords select committee stated that the UK laws on blasphemy applied only to Judeo-Christianity. There is no such restriction in the new Irish law.
My opinion is that it's very difficult to outrage a sufficient number of Christians in Ireland (or England and Wales[1], where incidentally anti-blasphemy legislation was finally being completely abolished in 2008 while we were framing new anti-blasphemy laws).
If Monty Python's Life of Brian can't do it well enough (bearing in mind that the movie was banned in Ireland), if The Last Temptation of Christ wasn't enough to get us a prosecution in the UK (despite those fantasies of Jesus that paled in comparison to those of the Jesus of Gay News and the depiction of Jesus as having a nice happy life with Mary Magdalene later), if Jerry Springer: The Opera isn't quite enough to do it in the UK (though specifically there as stage productions and broadcasts were exempt, as they would be here in this case due to the artistic exemption) despite 63,000 complaints to the BBC after their broadcast, then what actually can cause a prosecution on the basis of annoying the Christians? I'd say virtually nothing.
Incidentally, here's a link to the poem (The Love that dares to speak its name) at the centre of the Whitehouse v Lemon case in 1976. There's a chance that your grandmother might be a bit miffed about it if she's a churchgoer. Personally, as I've mentioned before on these boards, I begin to laugh at line 6 as it's not a very good poem. I have sincere doubts that even this is enough for a reliable breach of the new anti-blasphemy laws.
Put short, the odds are extremely high that for a prosecution someone's going to have to insult the Koran. Severely. As the Christians are just too used to it in the past few decades. It's bloody hard to annoy enough of them these days.
[1] It hasn't been abolished in Scotland, where the Crown Office thought about a prosecution for Jerry Springer: The Opera before realising that they'd be laughed at.0 -
OK, If i were to set up the Church of Gump whereby i would worship Forrest Gump and take moral direction from the movie and i convinced 2 other people to join my Church of Gump then someone came along and said to us "What are you worshiping him for? Sure he's a fkn retard" we would have a situation where a vast proportion of the adherants of a religion were grossly offended by a statement about the object of our worship. Could we take a case against the person who made the statement?
The Church of Gump is a non profit organisation and does not have any oppressive manipulative practises.0 -
Advertisement
-
how about CIRA blaspheme protestantism that might be more akin to your example0
-
You'd be wasting your time. Mostly because a court wouldn't take you seriously. The Atheism Ireland crowd declared that they were setting up the Church of Dermotology in response to the anti-blasphemy laws (worshipping Dermot Ahern) but they might as well have used the ink or time on something more useful. Merely copying them won't even get the little bit of press coverage they got for having a catchy name.OK, If i were to set up the Church of Gump whereby i would worship Forrest Gump...
Even joining the Pastafarians and their church of the noodly goodness (or any of the funnier parody religions) would be a better use of your time. And that'd still be a waste of your time from the point of view of opposing the law as well.
The above is purely opinion by the way. There has obviously been no test case. But despite occasional views to the contrary, our judges aren't complete idiots and aren't going to be fooled by something you begin purely as a means to badly test these legal provisions. Yes, even if you grow your hair long and wear sandals.
How, may I ask, do the CIRA (why specifically the CIRA?) blaspheme protestantism? Especially given that it's pretty goddamn hard to blaspheme against a particular flavour or subset of Christianity. Even by telling transubstantiation jokes. Targetting presbyterians with petrol bombs isn't blasphemy. Not even if you say that Catholic Jesus told you to do it.lostexpectation wrote: »how about CIRA blaspheme protestantism that might be more akin to your example
Apologies if I seem a bit tetchy (I'm not really but I'll bet I look that way) but it's pretty simple and we're still going over old introductory ground. Perhaps discussion will be better when people have office time to waste. I'll come back as a poster if anyone wants to address my point in my previous post.0 -
oh dear lads we're still not meeting sceptre's standards, for shame, i was just saying there is bit more heat there.
you were just waiting to introduce muslims as the target for this, i'd prefer to deal with the "staunchly Catholic Ireland" (as CNN decribes us today), that implemented that law, if you want to continue insult to muslims and think there all thats wrong in this world you can to CT or stormfront.
apologies for being tetchy
desecrating a communion host might get the Catholics ire up, see how pharyngula did it last year http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php0 -
You'd be wasting your time. Mostly because a court wouldn't take you seriously. The Atheism Ireland crowd declared that they were setting up the Church of Dermotology in response to the anti-blasphemy laws (worshipping Dermot Ahern) but they might as well have used the ink or time on something more useful. Merely copying them won't even get the little bit of press coverage they got for having a catchy name.
Even joining the Pastafarians and their church of the noodly goodness (or any of the funnier parody religions) would be a better use of your time. And that'd still be a waste of your time from the point of view of opposing the law as well.
The above is purely opinion by the way. There has obviously been no test case. But despite occasional views to the contrary, our judges aren't complete idiots and aren't going to be fooled by something you begin purely as a means to badly test these legal provisions. Yes, even if you grow your hair long and wear sandals.
How, may I ask, do the CIRA (why specifically the CIRA?) blaspheme protestantism? Especially given that it's pretty goddamn hard to blaspheme against a particular flavour or subset of Christianity. Even by telling transubstantiation jokes. Targetting presbyterians with petrol bombs isn't blasphemy. Not even if you say that Catholic Jesus told you to do it.
Apologies if I seem a bit tetchy (I'm not really but I'll bet I look that way) but it's pretty simple and we're still going over old introductory ground. Perhaps discussion will be better when people have office time to waste. I'll come back as a poster if anyone wants to address my point in my previous post.
I'm not setting up a religion or copying anyone else. I'm just hypothesising. I'm also wondering what seperates a religion from a cult as Christianity was often referred to as a cult, Islam the same, although i'm sure thats for a different forum.
Say for example some lunatics come along and genuinely put their faith into some bizzare set of beliefs , maybe along the lines of the Preslytarian church of Elvis or something based on Star Trek, and there are churches like that out there, they would have grounds to take legal action against a person that told them their beliefs were complete balderdash. The defence that Trekism was based on a work of fiction could be counteracted by claims that Gene Roddenberry was actually a Prophet and you can't argue against the word of a prophet.
While the judges of the country are obviously not stupid there are plenty of people out there who will contemplate wasting their time testing this. Not having a blasphemy law takes away their opportunity to act the bollox and in my own opinion it is a bit daft to think that the state is putting in place a law to protect the sensitivities of people who believe something that could very easily be a pile of absolute sh!te.
Church and State should be kept seperate. Let God/Allah/Q deal with the blasphemers.0 -
Some days they're pretty high:)lostexpectation wrote: »oh dear lads we're still not meeting sceptre's standards, for shame, i was just saying there is bit more heat there.
Oh I'm not angling at the muslims or proposing the use of them as a tool at all. It's just that it's pretty hard to blaspheme against the Christians these days in a way that'd get enough of them angry. They haven't risen up as an angry group in Europe against blasphemers since the inquisition and the reformation after all, and even then it was top-driven. There isn't even the requirement for a riot in the Irish law, unlike some other countries like Germany.lostexpectation wrote: »you were just waiting to introduce muslims as the target for this, i'd prefer to deal with the "staunchly Catholic Ireland" (as CNN decribes us today), that implemented that law,
CNN might think we're "staunchly Catholic Ireland" but I'll bet the journalist was merely a few words short on his word target. Besides, Ireland is about as staunchly Catholic as Scandinavia at this point. Possibly even less and they're majority state-run Lutheran. Staunchly Catholic Ireland is irrelevant, even if it exists somewhere on this island.
As for recent European days out in court for blasphemy...
The UK obviously managed a prosecution in 1976 as I already mentioned. And the last guy to go to jail for it (Lemon got a £500 fine and a suspended sentence) was in 1921. But they abolished blasphemy as a crime in England and Wales two years ago, progressive scamps that they seem to be despite their state-embedded religion, so they're no good to us.
Finland managed to convict one in 1969, one in 2008 and one last September (the former for a picture of a crucified pig, the second one for offences against Islam and the third for Finnish politician Jussi Halla-aho testing the law by doing what the second guy did).
Germany managed a prosecution (and conviction) in 2006 (Manfred van H for printing the Koran on toilet paper and related matters like sending it to mosques and TV stations and describing it as a "terrorist's cookbook" (obviously he hasn't read it). Mind you he's currently in hiding after subsequent death threats so that suspended prison sentence didn't help him. Indeed, without the death threats, he probably couldn't have been convicted as Germany has a high requirement of effect - merely being blasphemous is nowhere near enough, like ours it has to grossly offend.
Greece managed to convict Gerhard Haderer in 2003 for publishing a book depicting Jesus as a hippy, which sounds promising but the appeal court overturned it and acquitted him.
Now, Malta. Might be our best bet. They prosecuted over 600 people in 2008 for blasphemy. Mind you, their blasphemy fines tend to be 11 euros and ours is 25,000 so perhaps they're a bit more inclined to knock out the court dates. When I find out what these people were prosecuted for, I'll let you all know (or better still, organised anti-blasphemy-law groups, please do this part for me even if you end up telling the Irish Times you discovered it yourself - it's time better spent than printing a list of 25 quotes you won't be prosecuted for).
The Netherlands. They convicted a guy in 1966 for publishing a book where the book's narrator describes a sexual encounter with God, who happens to be occupying the body of a donkey (like the Greek gods used to do but see above). Then they quashed the conviction two years later, the scamps. In April 2009 they charged a guy for publicly displaying a poster referring to Islam as a tumour but he wasn't convicted.
That's pretty much it for court appearances in Europe in the past few years. Other countries like Austria, Italy and Norway have legislation but while I've had a particular interest in blasphemy and defamation since my law degree days there's limited time for me to keep up even with the odd few cases each decade as my interests often lie elsewhere. I don't believe there have been any court appearances in those countries in the past 30 or 40 years though. Not very promising.
Ignoring possibly Malta (hopefully news to follow on their 11-euro fines), there hasn't been a conviction-that-stuck in a European court for Judeo-Christian blasphemy since the 1970s. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Oh I'm afraid you're completely wrong with intention there but rather than give it the continued oxygen of publicity, I'll just say you're completely wrong there. Besides, you can see from above (like everyone else obviously can) why I'm drawing a distinction between prosecutions based on Judeo-Christian blasphemy and Muslim blasphemy. Even without including the House of Lords select committee ruling in 1989 (which as I've already mentioned wouldn't apply here as precedent as there's no distinction drawn in the new Irish law - at least it's finally fair in its unfairness). If you think anything I've posted is an insult to either muslims or any other individual religion, you need to re-read. I haven't even insulted religions as a whole group yet.lostexpectation wrote: »if you want to continue insult to muslims and think there all thats wrong in this world you can to CT or stormfront.
Oh, I fully recognise that. And while your hypothesis doesn't mean you're actually copying someone else, what you're suggesting is already there a bit and hasn't raised a blip in Ireland and is highly unlikely to. But I can definitely see where you're coming from.I'm not setting up a religion or copying anyone else. I'm just hypothesising.
Probably is for another forum though it's an interesting question. I believe it's "I am part of the one true religion, you are part of a dangerous cult, he has joined a bunch of loopers." It's an irregular verb. Seriously though, I half suspect it comes down to something as silly as the size of the userbase, in which case they're all cults when they begin.I'm also wondering what seperates a religion from a cult as Christianity was often referred to as a cult, Islam the same, although i'm sure thats for a different forum.
Key word is "genuinely", isn't it... It's an interesting question. It's hard enough in the modern age to start a new religion, most of the successful ones for the past few thousand years have been splitter groups (actually, all of them when I think about it). But as you ask it, eventually at least they'd have grounds for both legitimacy and a case for defence under this law. I'm really hoping that it gets repealed long before then though. Ireland being Ireland, we'd probably decide if they're regarded as legit by other countries we'd be fine with it. I'm relatively sure that Germany's legal attitude towards scientology has played a significant part in our legal attitude towards that grouping (as opposed to our general attitude, which has nowt to do with them being legally slapped by the Germans). As for that would happen with a home-grown faith, I suspect (but again this is pure opinion) that they might have to make headway in another jurisdiction before our own courts would regard them as more than a cult.Say for example some lunatics come along and genuinely put their faith into some bizzare set of beliefs , maybe along the lines of the Preslytarian church of Elvis or something based on Star Trek, and there are churches like that out there, they would have grounds to take legal action against a person that told them their beliefs were complete balderdash. The defence that Trekism was based on a work of fiction could be counteracted by claims that Gene Roddenberry was actually a Prophet and you can't argue against the word of a prophet.
Of course it is. Actually, even if the (or 'a') second coming was tomorrow and went on for a few months I'd still be in favour of repealing this silly legislation. But that's my thing about not being into gods that are afraid of a bit of criticism or satire. Or any of the other ones but I particularly don't like the jealous ones that supposedly want praise all the time.While the judges of the country are obviously not stupid there are plenty of people out there who will contemplate wasting their time testing this. Not having a blasphemy law takes away their opportunity to act the bollox and in my own opinion it is a bit daft to think that the state is putting in place a law to protect the sensitivities of people who believe something that could very easily be a pile of absolute sh!te.
Again for what it's worth, completely agree. For some reason I now fear that I wasn't clear enough earlier that I don't like our new anti-blasphemy laws (as opposed to our new defamation laws, which actually are a step forward). But lest I be unclear, I don't like our new anti-blasphemy laws. At all. Though I'm still searching for a viable "screw you" test case. I will definitely be looking up Malta (see previous post).Church and State should be kept seperate. Let God/Allah/Q deal with the blasphemers.0 -
Does anyone know the specific logic behind investing time in this law originally? Was it to protect politicians? Was it based on religious beliefs?0
-
Does anyone know the specific logic behind investing time in this law originally? Was it to protect politicians? Was it based on religious beliefs?
Very short answer (tl;dr version): Dermot Ahern, Minister for Justice, reckons we need it because he reckons the constitution requires it. I reckon you should read the longer answer instead.
Longer (and hopefully better) answer:
I'm assuming by this law you mean the blasphemy bits of the 2008 Act that have just come into force? Originally-originally it moved from church courts to civil ones in 1656 when James Naylor got convicted of blasphemy before the Second Protectorate parliament for what they said was an impersonation of Jesus on Palm Sunday and that he claimed to be the messiah. Realistically he was one of the early Quakers and the Puritans really didn't like them. Four years later when Charles II came to power he'd have been a bit safer but he was the wrong Quaker in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Originally-more recent, the 1937 constitution says (art 40.6.1): "The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law."
Blasphemy was included as an offence in the 1961 Defamation Act but wasn't defined. There's an interesting Dail debate at the time where Charles Haughey tells Patrick McGilligan that "everyone knows what blasphemy is". Incidentally in addition to being a TD, McGilligan was also a TCD lecturer in constitutional law. He wasn't best taken with Haughey's line.
The Law Reform Commission (1991) and the Constitution Review Group (1996) both recommended that the constitutional provision be deleted. DIffering reasons but primarily reasons of practicality. before we get too excited about this, both bodies made a large list of recommendations as changes to the 1937 constitution. Hundreds as a matter of fact.
But the secondary recommendation of the 1991 body was that in the absence of a deletion, as a temporary position, the Dail should enact legislation creating a new offence of publication of blasphemous matter to replace the old common law offence of blasphemous libel. "Temporary" is an important word here - they very much saw it as an interim position. But their recommendation was very close to what we now have in law - substantial offence caused to a large number of adherents, a deliberate attempt by the offender and covering Christian and non-Christian religions.
Dermot Ahern has taken that ball and suddenly run with it. Now part of the reason he's run with it is that the Defamation Act 1961 was being replaced by the Defamation Act 2008. The blasphemy section of the 1061 Act would be washed away in the absence of something replacing it (note: the constitutional section I mentioned above would still be intact). Ahern's position is that not including a crime of blasphemy will leave a legal void precluded by the provisions of the 1937 constitution.
As a secondary issue, the 1999 Corway case in the Supreme Court (Corway wanted leave from the High Court to take a prosecution against the Sunday Independent for a 1995 cartoon that was published during the divorce referendum which he believed to be blasphemous) established that there was no legal definition of blasphemy in Irish law (see 1961 comments by CJ Haughey that I mentioned above). Hence Ahern's view is that the constitution requires a definition as part of the offence he considers the constitution to require.
Oh as an aside, possible relevant or possibly irrelevant (you can decide for yourself), Ahern is apparently one of Ireland's remaining staunch Catholics, repeatedly identified as such in the papers and he hasn't corrected them. Whether his supposed position somewhere to the religious far right of Genghis Khan is relevant or not to all this is something I don't know but the papers occasionally drop it in like a cheeky sugar titbit.
You may agree with him or disagree with him but that's the logic behind it (and that's what I think you're after:)). I don't think I've left anything significant out. Hope that helps, if there appear to be gaps, please ask.0 -
I wasn't really sure what you meant by this until I saw your later comments about muslims. Muslim and Christian is all the same to me, I think they are equally crazy. I linked the cartoons because under this new legislation they would be illegal here now and Kurt Westergaard would be avoiding state prosecution on top of murder attempts from religious people. Over cartoons. Drawings.lostexpectation wrote: »how about we challenge the religious conservatives that run this state huh?
The constitution will have to be amended sooner or later, putting these religious laws into place in 2010 is idiotic. If atheism ireland had any teeth they would be putting billboards with those mohammed cartoons up, or 'jesus does judas' billboards outside churches.0 -
this nonsense about Atheist Ireland , or atheists in Ireland being cowardly by not attacking Muslims is ridiclous and the type of thing i was warning about, talking about a country with ~95% of primary schools being owned by the church, could indeed be described as staunchly Catholic.
At least half of the people in Ireland who consider themselves atheists would probably be formerly 'Catholics', I think its fairer to go challenge your former religion and the reason this law exist ie the Irish Catholic church and the close ties they have with our legislator who implemented this law.
welcome to Judeo-Christian land people.0 -
Advertisement
-
From an unqualified, inexperience, lay man's perspective I find this law is over engineered. It clearly wants to stamp out intentional offence by the backward. Especially where such offence has a whiff of malice and more than a hint of being a weapon against individuals rather than their beliefs. But it starts of saying you mustn't do X and then seems to say, in a somewhat disjointed way that it only matters if you intentionally do so and then goes on to say that if you're clever enough then it doesn't really apply to you, so don't worry about it.
As for measuring grossly offended.. I'm guessing someone who can claim to have been struck down with an anxiety related illness could prove that point.
What I'm not sure of is if a representative of the religion, by virtue of position in it (Bishop, Iman, Rabbit) will be accepted as spokesman for a substantial number of the adherents of that religion
This is how I read this law.
A member of the Intelligentsia and a reasonable person are one of the same, and such a person may freely and intentionally cause any level of offence in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, because a person capable of finding genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic merit for the offence is the only type of person capable of deciding when such an act of aggression is valid, cos, like, they're the only ones wot would be cleaver enough to do so and can like, see the validity of war, an stuff.
And so the irony of such top down formation of law is that if you're not a member of the intelligentsia, keep you mouth shut. Do not express a view. Instead, harbour them and in time you will find your own forms of expression through prejudices, bigotry, discreet discrimination and, or physical assault.0
Advertisement