Pope condems blasphemy laws

MitchKoobski · 10-01-2011 4:22pm #1

Pope condems blasphemy laws after Pakistan use Ireland's blasphemy law as an example to the UN that defamation of religion should be part of international law.
http://newswhip.ie/national-2/pontiff-condemns-blasphemy-laws-and-calls-for-religious-freedom

The pope has condemned laws making blasphemy a crime and called for their repeal, saying they serve as a pretext for violence against religious minorities.
In a speech to ambassadors, the head of the world’s smallest state, the Vatican State City, said religious freedom was a fundamental human right and should be protected in law.
Pakistan’s blasphemy laws carry a death sentence for insulting Islam, and last week a regional governor, Salman Taseer, was assassinated for saying the laws should be repealed, as reported by NewsWhip.
Ireland’s blasphemy laws has fallen into disuse since the 1960s, and were effectively declared unenforceable by the Supreme Court in the 1990s, shortly after the Law Reform Commission called for a constitutional amendment to remove them from Bunreacht na hÉireann.
But justice minister Dermot Ahern revived the laws in the Defamation Act 2009, with a potential €25,000 fine for anyone who 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.”
Pakistan subsequently led a group of Islamic states who used the Irish law as an example in arguing that the United Nations should recognnise “defamation of religions” in international law.

Pope says something helpful...wait...what?

GLaDOS · 10-01-2011 4:26pm

Even the pope thinks we're backwards, how embarrassing

Lumen · 10-01-2011 4:27pm

FF in "even more retarded than the Pope" shocker.

bonerm · 10-01-2011 4:31pm

Thank you Minister Ahern. ..... cúnt.

biko · 10-01-2011 4:32pm

News clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyw5MugK0sk

Dyr · 10-01-2011 4:34pm

Wonder if dermy ahern ever played golf with any saudi's?

scientific1982 · 10-01-2011 4:38pm

What the fcuk possessed Dermot Ahern to introduce this legislation in the first place. We are so complacent in this country.

First Post · 10-01-2011 4:40pm

scientific1982 wrote: »

What the fcuk possessed Dermot Ahern to introduce this legislation in the first place.

The constitution. Try reading it without getting annoyed.

prinz · 10-01-2011 4:44pm

scientific1982 wrote: »

What the fcuk possessed Dermot Ahern to introduce this legislation in the first place. We are so complacent in this country.

Perhaps it was something to do with certain folk in the world who were deliberately stirring up trouble resulting in deaths and large financial losses and he didn't fancy sitting back watching Irish citizens being murdered because some chancer back here decided to get smart? It's not ideal but I can see the reasoning behind it. It's a reminder that with a certain freedom of speech comes certain responsibilities.

Lumen · 10-01-2011 4:44pm

scientific1982 wrote: »

What the fcuk possessed Dermot Ahern to introduce this legislation in the first place. We are so complacent in this country.

First Post wrote: »

The constitution. Try reading it without getting annoyed.

Indeed. History here, including some quite odd distinctions on the part of the Irish government between blasphemy and "defamation of religion".

Perhaps the difference is that the 2009 act includes mens rea, so if you do not intend to cause outrage you're not guilty under current Irish law.

I'm not quite sure how that works in practice, presumably there is some sliding scale of "acting the maggot" with a line drawn somewhere arbitrarily.

reprazant · 10-01-2011 4:45pm

First Post wrote: »

The constitution. Try reading it without getting annoyed.

He could have removed it from the constitution by tacking it onto the next vote as a referendum instead of actually demanding that it be enforced.

The Supreme Court says it unenforceable so he decides to enforce it.

gurramok · 10-01-2011 4:46pm

First Post wrote: »

The constitution. Try reading it without getting annoyed.

He could of tried to introduce legislation to repeal such references in the constitution by referendum if necessary but oh no he chose to uphold it.

Johro · 10-01-2011 4:48pm

biko wrote: »

News clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyw5MugK0sk

Yeah but '.........R HAS SCORED 34 GOALS IN 92 APPEARANCES FOR THE CANADIAN SENIOR WOMEN'S SIDE'!

First Post · 10-01-2011 4:48pm

gurramok wrote: »

He could of tried to introduce legislation to repeal such references in the constitution by referendum if necessary but oh no he chose to uphold it.

Oh I agree completely, but Fianna Fail are first and foremost a populist party. Removing it would annoy the old people.

sbsquarepants · 10-01-2011 4:51pm

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps it was something to do with certain folk in the world who were deliberately stirring up trouble resulting in deaths and large financial losses and he didn't fancy sitting back watching Irish citizens being murdered because some chancer back here decided to get smart? It's not ideal but I can see the reasoning behind it. It's a reminder that with a certain freedom of speech comes certain responsibilities.

Not being smart, but i have absolutely no idea what you mean! How does this law protect Irish citizens from the dreaded death by smart chancer? Or from anything else for that matter?

TheZohanS · 10-01-2011 4:53pm

MitchKoobski wrote: »

Pope condems blasphemy laws after Pakistan use Ireland's blasphemy law as an example to the UN that defamation of religion should be part of international law.
http://newswhip.ie/national-2/pontiff-condemns-blasphemy-laws-and-calls-for-religious-freedom
Pope says something helpful...wait...what?

Ah yes but he's only condemning the law because it protects the Muslim faith. If all the blasphemy and dissent was aimed at the RC church he'd agree with the law.

prinz · 10-01-2011 4:55pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Not being smart, but i have absolutely no idea what you mean! How does this law protect Irish citizens from the dreaded death by smart chancer? Or from anything else for that matter?

For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4684652.stm

Now, I'm not advocating giving in to what amounts to blackmail, but like I said such a law does remind us that the so-called freedom of speech can be abused. It's also worded in such a way to be virtually unusable in practice IMO.

prinz · 10-01-2011 4:56pm

TheZohan wrote: »

Ah yes but he's only condemning the law because it protects the Muslim faith. If all the blasphemy and dissent was aimed at the RC church he'd agree with the law.

Actually it protects them all.

Edit: Ours anyway.

gurramok · 10-01-2011 5:03pm

prinz wrote: »

Actually it protects them all.

Does it protect those of no faith?

GLaDOS · 10-01-2011 5:06pm

prinz wrote: »

For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4684652.stm

Now, I'm not advocating giving in to what amounts to blackmail, but like I said such a law does remind us that the so-called freedom of speech can be abused. It's also worded in such a way to be virtually unusable in practice IMO.

The cartoons would have been allowed for their artistic merit

prinz · 10-01-2011 5:08pm

gurramok wrote: »

Does it protect those of no faith?

Perhaps you should look up blasphemy. Can someone of no faith be blasphemed?

Edit: By the way it's contained within the Defamation Act which applies to all, so you're safe.

bronte · 10-01-2011 5:09pm

Perhaps Canon law is next on his list.

TheZohanS · 10-01-2011 5:10pm

prinz wrote: »

Actually it protects them all.

Yes I am aware of that, I didn't say otherwise in my post.

prinz · 10-01-2011 5:14pm

ScienceNerd wrote: »

The cartoons would have been allowed for their artistic merit

That's great. Did anyone say otherwise? I used it as an example of what deliberate blasphemy could result in.

prinz · 10-01-2011 5:16pm

TheZohan wrote: »

Yes I am aware of that, I didn't say otherwise in my post.

Implied. There is plenty that could be described as 'blasphemous' against the RCC out there.

sbsquarepants · 10-01-2011 5:18pm

prinz wrote: »

For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4684652.stm

Now, I'm not advocating giving in to what amounts to blackmail, but like I said such a law does remind us that the so-called freedom of speech can be abused. It's also worded in such a way to be virtually unusable in practice IMO.

I think the real villains in this story weren't the cartoonist or the newspaper editor! We already have laws against murder and arson and so on.
A blasphemy law is idiotic in this day and age. It's an embarrasment to this country and should be abandoned.

TheZohanS · 10-01-2011 5:19pm

TheZohan wrote: »

Ah yes but he's only condemning the law because it protects the Muslim faith. If all the blasphemy and dissent was aimed at the RC church he'd agree with the law.

prinz wrote: »

Actually it protects them all.

Edit: Ours anyway.

prinz wrote: »

Implied. There is plenty that could be described as 'blasphemous' against the RCC out there.

In my initial post I acknowledged that the law protects the RC church, have a look at the emboldened part of my quote.

eamo12 · 10-01-2011 5:19pm

So, under Irish law drafted by Ahern, could I be imprisoned of drawing a picture of Mohammed with a bomb fuse as a turban?

ejmaztec · 10-01-2011 5:21pm

First Post wrote: »

Oh I agree completely, but Fianna Fail are first and foremost a populist party. Removing it would annoy the old people.

Even the old folks have had a gutful at this stage, and were only pretending to go with the flow to avoid a good whipping like they had when the local priest used to knock the sense out of them years ago.

prinz · 10-01-2011 5:21pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think the real villains in this story weren't the cartoonist or the newspaper editor! We already have laws against murder and arson and so on..

Of course they weren't. However actions have consequences... and if someone set out to deliberately stir up that kind of reaction again I'd be happier that something could be done about it.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

A blasphemy law is idiotic in this day and age. It's an embarrasment to this country and should be abandoned.

Most countries cannot say anything, almost all have laws that could be considered an embarrassment by someone.

sbsquarepants · 10-01-2011 5:28pm

prinz wrote: »

Of course they weren't. However actions have consequences... and if someone set out to deliberately stir up that kind of reaction again I'd be happier that something could be done about it..

That's called appeasement, it doesn't work. What should be done is educate people in tolerance, not ban the expression of opposing views!

prinz wrote: »

Most countries cannot say anything, almost all have laws that could be considered an embarrassment by someone.

That doesn't make it right.

TheZohanS · 10-01-2011 5:28pm

eamo12 wrote: »

So, under Irish law drafted by Ahern, could I be imprisoned of drawing a picture of Mohammed with a bomb fuse as a turban?

Technically yes. In reality probably not.

prinz · 10-01-2011 5:29pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's called appeasement, it doesn't work. What should be done is educate people in tolerance, not ban the expression of opposing views!

Opposing views are fine. Opposing views are rarely blasphemous. Can you understand the difference between having an opposing view than somebody else and defaming/slandering/libelling them?

Lumen · 10-01-2011 5:33pm

prinz wrote: »

Opposing views are fine. Opposing views are rarely blasphemous. Can you understand the difference between having an opposing view than somebody else and defaming/slandering/libelling them?

Boards trolling 101:

"You are an idiot" = LOSE
"Your views are those of an idiot" = WIN

GLaDOS · 10-01-2011 5:40pm

prinz wrote: »

That's great. Did anyone say otherwise? I used it as an example of what deliberate blasphemy could result in.

Do you think art should be censored then?

prinz · 10-01-2011 5:42pm

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Do you think art should be censored then?

I believe people should have the cop on to censor themselves from time to time.

sbsquarepants · 10-01-2011 5:44pm

prinz wrote: »

Opposing views are fine. Opposing views are rarely blasphemous. Can you understand the difference between having an opposing view than somebody else and defaming/slandering/libelling them?

Of course i can, defamation, slander, libel etc all involve the telling of lies.

Explain to me how blasphemy works and how it's in anyway related?

I'm not allowed to say "x" about something you "believe" to be true, even though i also fully believe what i'm saying. I'm not lying, i just don't share your beliefs cos i've never seen a shred of evidence to back them up. I see no reason to show reverence to what i believe in my heart of hearts to be an imaginary figure.

Personaly speaking, i would be far more upset at someone saying bruce springsteen was a crap songwriter, than i would by a drawing of mohammed being analy raped by budha. No one would suggest making it illegal to mock bruce. (though of course it should be!)
I'm a big boy, people can question what i believe as much as they like. Infact if they make their points well i might even change what i believe and thank them for it. No belief system should be protected, if it's a worth a damn it will withstand questioning and mockery and so on.

GLaDOS · 10-01-2011 5:45pm

prinz wrote: »

I believe people should have the cop on to censor themselves from time to time.

"Cop on" a very subjective rule though, when does taking a stand end and being stupid about it begin?

10-01-2011 5:49pm

So is it OK to say that Jesus is an arsehole now then?

prinz · 10-01-2011 5:55pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Of course i can, defamation, slander, libel etc all involve the telling of lies. Explain to me how blasphemy works and how it's in anyway related?

Intent. Simples.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not allowed to say "x" about something you "believe" to be true, even though i also fully believe what i'm saying. I'm not lying, i just don't share your beliefs cos i've never seen a shred of evidence to back them up. I see no reason to show reverence to what i believe in my heart of hearts to be an imaginary figure.

That's great and you can be as irreverent as you like, more power to you. There is a line somewhere however where your goal to be irreverent about X because you don't believe X strays into the territory of you being irreverent about X just to get a rise out of someone else.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Personaly speaking, i would be far more upset at someone saying bruce springsteen was a crap songwriter, than i would by a drawing of mohammed being analy raped by budha. No one would suggest making it illegal to mock bruce. (though of course it should be!)

..and you're entitled to that opinion and entitled to get upset. Did that person say Bruce Springsteen was a crap songwriter, not because it is their objective opinion.. but because they knew it would upset you? If the former, then they have the right to that opinion. If the latter then they are just being an arse.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm a big boy, people can question what i believe as much as they like. Infact if they make their points well i might even change what i believe and thank them for it. No belief system should be protected, if it's a worth a damn it will withstand questioning and mockery and so on.

Again to an extent I agree but it comes down to the intent of the people doing it tbh. Questioning, satire and mockery can be done well, and can be hilarious when done the right way. Poking a bear with a stick on the other hand isn't clever.

That's the difference between sharing your opinion and incitement to hatred.

prinz · 10-01-2011 5:56pm

ScienceNerd wrote: »

"Cop on" a very subjective rule though, when does taking a stand end and being stupid about it begin?

...and there's the great grey zone that makes the legislation basically uselss as I have already said.

Craebear · 10-01-2011 5:59pm

With **** like the Blasphemy law, I wonder what the rest of the world thinks of Ireland?

Also is there a formal way to have your citizenship removed?

sbsquarepants · 10-01-2011 6:15pm

prinz wrote: »

Intent. Simples..

Too simple i think. I don't know what the intention of that cartoonist was, but i do know for certain what the intention of the gunmen/arsonists and so on were. It's people like that we need protection from, not bloody cartoonists! We need protection from them and from the system that breeds them ie militant religion of any creed, banning upsetting them is not the answer, people like that will always find something else to be upset about. There may well be a case to argue for the mandatory teaching of tolerance in schools all across the world, but not for the slavish observance of, in my opinion, ridiculous values.

prinz wrote: »

That's the difference between sharing your opinion and incitement to hatred.

How much religion is incitement to hatred? Surely i should be entitled to love or hate whatever i want based on my experience of the world? And to be able to tell people how i feel? I'm not saying people should be advocating the hatred of any group, but accepting or questioning ANY set of values should be for the individual to decide, not a matter for legislation. A belief can not be defamed, it is ONLY a belief.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 10-01-2011 6:20pm

First Post wrote: »

The constitution. Try reading it without getting annoyed.

I've seen people use this as an excuse for ahern(and I'm not suggesting you're doing that) but I just don't buy it.

Why couldn't he just have slapped a maximum fine of one euro on it?

Good on the pope. Now when we get a referendum on it the only opposition will be that MPAC muslim nut crowd.

prinz · 10-01-2011 6:23pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Too simple i think. I don't know what the intention of that cartoonist was, but i do know for certain what the intention of the gunmen/arsonists and so on were. It's people like that we need protection from, not bloody cartoonists!

..and as you said already there are laws to deal with them.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not saying people should be advocating the hatred of any group, but accepting or questioning ANY set of values should be for the individual to decide, not a matter for legislation. A belief can not be defamed, it is ONLY a belief.

So anti-semitism gets your green light does it? Can you honestly not appreciate the difference between having a differing of opinion and setting out to deliberately antagonize people? Some people carry their belief's close to heart by the way. Perhaps you can't grasp that at all but there you go. You can't decide your skin colour but you can decide your beliefs, why should one be protected and not the other which you have more of a say in as an individual?

2011abc · 10-01-2011 6:39pm

Wasnt the painting of birthday boy , Brian Cowen depicting his genitals , much of the motivation behind this embarassing legislation?

Overheal · 10-01-2011 6:53pm

Craebear wrote: »

With **** like the Blasphemy law, I wonder what the rest of the world thinks of Ireland?

I find it hard to say. Unless other countries do something horrendous (like Iran's Blasphemy Law and killings) nobody pays much attention. I haven't heard anything about the connection to Irish Law. But I haven't been listening that hard either.

Also is there a formal way to have your citizenship removed?

By seeking Citizenship in another country. Dual-Citizenship is a separate process to that. Regular Citizenship process removes your original citizenship.

Selected · 10-01-2011 7:10pm

scientific1982 wrote: »

What the fcuk possessed Dermot Ahern to introduce this legislation in the first place.

Diplomatic pressure exerted by the ADL to reign in Tommy Tiernan – Ahern, like RTE, buckled under the pressure.

PeterIanStaker · 10-01-2011 7:32pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Now when we get a referendum on it the only opposition will be that MPAC muslim nut crowd.

if there were a referendum on this, Coir/Youth Defence, Patricia McKenna David Quinn and the Joe Duffy Fan Club would be shrilly and incoherently involved. :mad:

Conor · 10-01-2011 7:37pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Why couldn't he just have slapped a maximum fine of one euro on it?

Or simply require that the offended deity give evidence in the case.

sollar · 10-01-2011 7:48pm

Dermot ahern is such an embarassment. Such an thing to get us tied up in.

Pope condems blasphemy laws

Comments