It seems that the 'Blasphemy Law' could affect Boards

Geomy

I just don't get why one needs to be blasphemous in the first place.

If I fire something verbal in one direction and something bigger fires back, is it my fault that the person I offended who has a short fuse hurt me.

Does two wrongs make it right ?

If I turn up at the marina and tell big burly sensitive Sheamus his fishing boat is **** and obsolete, is it my fault if I get a spanner thrown at me ?

Being neutral and minding my business is easier.

Bannasidhe

Geomy wrote: »

I just don't get why one needs to be blasphemous in the first place.

If I fire something verbal in one direction and something bigger fires back, is it my fault that the person I offended who has a short fuse hurt me.

Does two wrongs make it right ?

If I turn up at the marina and tell big burly sensitive Sheamus his fishing boat is **** and obsolete, is it my fault if I get a spanner thrown at me ?

Being neutral and minding my business is easier.

While I see your point the fact is that it is the religious who tend to fire the first shot and then scream blasphemy when the spanner of disbelief is hurled at them.

If the religious stop telling me why, in their opinion, I am damned and insisting I should be legally obliged to live my life according to their tenets (sooo many conflicting tenets there are too!) then I would be perfectly content to keep me spanner in me toolbox.

Geomy

Geomy wrote: »

I just don't get why one needs to be blasphemous in the first place.

"I believe jesus christ is god" = blasphemous
"I believe allah is god and jesus was just a prophet" = blashphemous
Are you against freedom of religion?

28064212

Geomy wrote: »

I just don't get why one needs to be blasphemous in the first place.

If I fire something verbal in one direction and something bigger fires back, is it my fault that the person I offended who has a short fuse hurt me.

Does two wrongs make it right ?

If I turn up at the marina and tell big burly sensitive Sheamus his fishing boat is **** and obsolete, is it my fault if I get a spanner thrown at me ?

Being neutral and minding my business is easier.

Blasphemy is entirely dependent on the recipient. If I say "there is no god", that's blasphemous to some.

Oh, and no, physical violence is not an ok reaction to being offended. I find it difficult to believe you need to have that explained to you

Geomy

bluewolf wrote: »

"I believe jesus christ is god" = blasphemous
"I believe allah is god and jesus was just a prophet" = blashphemous
Are you against freedom of religion?

Im against both side's having a go at one another :-)

Sarky

That's a lovely soundbite, but how do you propose that going against the dogma of any religion suddenly stops being blasphemy? The only thing this law has done is highlight how f*cking stupid the whole concept of protecting easily offended religious people is.

Benny_Cake

Geomy wrote: »

Im against both side's having a go at one another :-)

So am I, but we don't need a blasphemy law for that. "Don't be a dick" should suffice. With a bit of mutual respect, everything relating to belief and non-belief should be open for discussion. It's a stupid and unjust law that lacks popular support and the sensible thing to do would have been to include it in a referendum so that it could be removed. Hopefully the fact that it is being discussed at the constitutional convention means that this will happen sooner rather than later.

robindch

Geomy wrote: »

I just don't get why one needs to be blasphemous in the first place.

Thoughtcrimes like blasphemy are useful to silence the kind of independent thinkers whom the ruling classes would prefer to keep quiet.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Thoughtcrimes like blasphemy are useful to silence the kind of independent thinkers whom the ruling classes would prefer to keep quiet.

And the very vagueness of the law in question makes it even more effective in silencing dissent.

Doctor DooM

Geomy wrote: »

I just don't get why one needs to be blasphemous in the first place.

Let me try to explain.

I will commit blasphemy by stating something I believe to be true. It is a belief that I took some time and effort to come to. It is a part of me.

"There is no god."

Some people might say this is not blasphemous, but it's about god and that statement will surely offend some of those who, well, can't play well with others. We've all met them on t'other forum occasionally and here. This seems to fit under the law.

It would now appear that I may no longer be honest about myself. I can no longer state my spiritual (lack of) belief on boards, and in fact I may be part of the only (non!) group who's not able to do so openly.

Do you think that's right? The above surely offends those that really believe in a deity. Why is their belief so much more important that I must be a second class citizen in their world?

I've been a mod on here a long time. Dav was right to delete that post where it was made but the reason given (and the total lack of understanding of the effect it could have on us) was a bit disappointing.

I've long blown off people in the real world who claim boards is overmoderated by saying "There's not one thing I believe that I can't find a way to say as long as I stay polite there". It would appear that is no longer true, to a degree.

Now, I honestly don't think that anyone is going to sweep in here and ban me for life for saying that. I don't actually think there's going to be blasphemy police here. I'm hoping, however, now you understand why the right to blaspheme might be important to some- or in fact, important to all (do I really need to point out what happens when vocal opposition to religion gets too restrained?).

Corkfeen

robindch wrote: »

Thoughtcrimes like blasphemy are useful to silence the kind of independent thinkers whom the ruling classes would prefer to keep quiet.

We'd also have to cut out much of the superb comedy of George Carlin and Bill Hicks. :mad:

Banbh

If we don't get this law overturned, we (non-religious) will be its first victims. Notice that it was Boards that was the first to get a complaint - and the first to crumble.

When the constitutional convention has kicked the can down the road and still nothing happens, then it will be necessary to challenge the thing and I think the only way to do that is to provoke a Catholic or Muslim zealot into action.

Sarky

Well that first step won't be difficult, at least :pac:

swampgas

robindch wrote: »

Thoughtcrimes like blasphemy are useful to silence the kind of independent thinkers whom the ruling classes would prefer to keep quiet.

Blasphemy law is censorship by another name.

It reflects the realisation by the powerful and autocratic that ideas can be dangerous. The only way to suppress an idea is to suppress its expression.

Christianity has this down to a fine art, as individuals are encouraged to self-censor their own thoughts. However Islam seems to have a much stronger drive to suppress any kind of public challenge to its authority. The fact that self-identifying as an atheist merits the death penalty in some Muslim countries seems to be part and parcel of the same thing; you are simply not allowed to contradict the religious orthodoxy.

It's embarrassing that Ireland, which didn't exactly cover itself in glory with its proclivity for excessive censorship for most of the last century, actually managed to be so regressive as to introduce a new blasphemy law in the 21st century.

Akrasia

The only equitable way to enforce a blasphemy law would be to ban all discussion of religion across the board.

Atheists can't talk about how there is no god, and people who believe in (any) god or other religious belief can never mention their religion ever again.


Anything else is just pandering to special interests at the expense of others.

Who wants to join me in the All or Nothing Blasphemy law reform?

Gordon

Akrasia wrote: »

The only equitable way to enforce a blasphemy law would be to ban all discussion of religion across the board.

Atheists can't talk about how there is no god, and people who believe in (any) god or other religious belief can never mention their religion ever again.


Anything else is just pandering to special interests at the expense of others.

Who wants to join me in the All or Nothing Blasphemy law reform?

I'm in!

swampgas

Akrasia wrote: »

The only equitable way to enforce a blasphemy law would be to ban all discussion of religion across the board.

Atheists can't talk about how there is no god, and people who believe in (any) god or other religious belief can never mention their religion ever again.


Anything else is just pandering to special interests at the expense of others.

Who wants to join me in the All or Nothing Blasphemy law reform?

Sounds interesting - it would get rid of the Angelus off the radio/TV into the bargain!

Knex*

swampgas wrote: »

Sounds interesting - it would get rid of the Angelus off the radio/TV into the bargain!

Reminded me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZwaQEeK7PQ

Nodin

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah here FFS folks. :eek::(:D

I doubt it TBH. Not sitebanned anyway, unless I decided to only post about Southern Baptists and how they're all kunts.

On the other side of this whole thing, the issue isn't the original muppets since banned for posting guff. The real issue is that by highlighting this in a heavyhanded way on the most popular forum on Boards, rather than letting the local mods handle it as they have always done on all forums by simply excising the trolls and dodgy posts, it has left the site and the community potentially open to every single issue muppet who wants to throw complaints around and gave them a roadmap to do so. Ironic as they were the types who kicked this off in the first place in the offending thread. Imagine a DeadOne single issue posting type reading all this guff and realising that maybe all he/she has to do to stifle debate on a subject is to email Boards? One "concerned citizen" email to Boards about the funny side of religion thread here and it's pretty much bye bye thread. If it's not bye bye thread because it may open the site to action under the blasphemy law, then neither was the AH thread. That's the problem now, not the muppets and not even the blasphemy law(utterly bloody moronic as it is).

Good point, delivered with the diplomacy I lack.


Why did you steal my diplomacy?

saltyjack silverblade

Many of the associated aspects of religion are protected by the European Convention on Human rights Article 9. One of these is vegetarianism.
In Jakobski v Poland the court said
“without deciding whether such decisions are taken in every case to fulfil a religious duty… in the present case the Court considers that the applicant’s decision to adhere to a vegetarian diet can be regarded as motivated or inspired by a religion and was not unreasonable”. (About a buddhist who wanted meat free prison food).
The ECtHR has also said that every action that is motivated by religion is protected by the same Article 9.

If Boards were to shut down every associated right with blasphemy then the website would be non-functional. You can always find an aspect of life that can be linked, however tenuously, to religion.

I would draw a distinction between direct blasphemy (Your religion is wrong) and indirect blasphemy (your view on this issue is wrong even though based on religion). However neither one should be enforceable when faced with the right of speech. And yes, there is free speech even though this is a private website. We have constitutional rights to free speech. The content of the speech here can be removed but it is still free. I am free to make it and you are free to remove it. I don't think there is a single boards user who could not be prosecuted on some level for a blasphemous statement. Many of today's moral, social and political beliefs are in direct conflict with the majority of religions eg. divorce laws, gay rights and abortion rights to name but a few.

I would propose to that the mods should look at a statement regarding the Queen of England. She is the single largest land owner in the world, high political influence, the head of her own church and governments. If someone on boards makes a statement along the line of "F**k the Queen", in a thread say about Anglo Irish relations, then arguably this could be taken as blasphemy. She is the head of the Church, believed to have been directly chosen by god to become Monarch, and is prayed for by members of her own congregation.


It would seem that an enforcement of blasphemy law is essentially saying to someone, "I am offended by that and as such it is inappropriate Remove offensive content". A suggested response for the mods: "So f**king what".

Amirani

Is the blasphemy law on the agenda for the constitutional convention at all?

Nodin

NiallSparky wrote: »

Is the blasphemy law on the agenda for the constitutional convention at all?

Atheist Ireland submitted something on it certainly.

saltyjack silverblade

NiallSparky wrote: »

Is the blasphemy law on the agenda for the constitutional convention at all?

I think it is the last issue being discussed. Eamonn Gilmore is into it. I think they are going to be discussing whether or not the oath to God should be reviewed. Which is interesting because the ECHR looked at this in 1994 and said it was completely wrong and contrary to freedom of conscience. Buscarini v San Marino in case anyone needs a reference.

Geomy

Sarky wrote: »

That's a lovely soundbite, but how do you propose that going against the dogma of any religion suddenly stops being blasphemy? The only thing this law has done is highlight how f*cking stupid the whole concept of protecting easily offended religious people is.

And you're a moderator right, less of the language ok

It wasn't long ago on boards you scurried away from a challenge. ....

Big guy.....

Kiwi in IE

Akrasia wrote: »

The only equitable way to enforce a blasphemy law would be to ban all discussion of religion across the board.

Atheists can't talk about how there is no god, and people who believe in (any) god or other religious belief can never mention their religion ever again.


Anything else is just pandering to special interests at the expense of others.

Who wants to join me in the All or Nothing Blasphemy law reform?

This would actually result in a win/win situation for us. If it were illegal for religion to be referred to in public, including schools, the legal and political systems, and all other public institutions, there would be absolutely no need to mention non belief in deities, because other peoples deities would immediately stop impacting on us. Schools would become secular, there would be no mention of deities and their doctrines allowed in debates about peoples rights (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia). There would be no need for us to even identify as atheists and say we don't believe in deities if religion ceased to exist in the public sphere.

If they want a blasphemy law, bring on an 'all or nothing' version of it! Haha

Turtwig

Geomy wrote: »

And you're a moderator right, less of the language ok

It wasn't long ago on boards you scurried away from a challenge. ....

Big guy.....

I'm a moderator too. I may not know what a tracker mortgage is but I think this post above might constitute an attempt at back seat moderation. Swearing on this forum is fine as long as it's not overdone.

SpaceTime

So does this mean the end of Father Ted?!?

It would mean most comedians would be in prison / paying off fines.

28064212

Geomy wrote: »

If I fire something verbal in one direction and something bigger fires back, is it my fault that the person I offended who has a short fuse hurt me.

Geomy wrote: »

Im against both side's having a go at one another :-)

...

Geomy wrote: »

And you're a moderator right, less of the language ok

It wasn't long ago on boards you scurried away from a challenge. ....

Big guy.....

:rolleyes:

narnar2000

SpaceTime wrote: »

It would mean most comedians would be in prison / paying off fines.

No, it wouldn't...... I think the point that is being missed, almost deliberately, is that, generally speaking, Christians, Jews, and Hindus (the targets of most comedians) don't make any sort of fuss over their religions being mocked. It happens with such frequency that it would be exhausting. Only that other religion sends round the heavies (riots/threats/beheading/bombings/etc). [Here's the obligatory "it's only a minority of them" part. Yes. A large minority, with a complicit majority.]

Comedians know this, and so without exception, they stay a million miles away from anything remotely close to offending that religion. It's a rational response to a threat. So, no, there will be no comedians "in prison / paying off fines" because they won't touch that religion, and the other religions don't pursue comedians in the courts.

Geomy

28064212 wrote: »

...

:rolleyes:

Well it didn't offend me but sure thanks for pointing it out :-)

The Black Oil

narnar2000 wrote: »

So, no, there will be no comedians "in prison / paying off fines" because they won't touch that religion, and the other religions don't pursue comedians in the courts.

Atheism, I presume?

28064212

Geomy wrote: »

Well it didn't offend me but sure thanks for pointing it out :-)

Who said you were offended?

You said:

Geomy wrote: »

If I fire something verbal in one direction and something bigger fires back, is it my fault that the person I offended who has a short fuse hurt me.

So if Sarky now "hurts" you, it's your fault for firing something verbal first, right?

Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy of following up this post:

Geomy wrote: »

Im against both side's having a go at one another :-)

with one having a go at someone

Turtwig

Point has been made Numbers. Move it along to something more cordial and cuddly please folks.

COYVB

Couldn't the blasphemy law be used to make itself implode? Eg, a catholic says anyone who's not a catholic is going to hell, someone from another religion takes offence, cites the law, and the very religion it was brought in to look after finds itself getting the brunt of it?

Michael Nugent

I will post something about this when I have time to fully read the threads about it (here and on AH), but in the meantime here is a link to the submission that Atheist Ireland has made about the blasphemy law to the Constitutional Convention:

Atheist Ireland asks Constitutional Convention to remove blasphemy offence

This is the Executive Summary:

1. Atheist Ireland is an advocacy group for atheism, reason and ethical secularism. We are participants in the dialogue process between the Government and religious and philosophical bodies. We campaign internationally against the use of blasphemy laws to infringe the human rights of religious minorities and atheists, including by hosting an event at the 2012 OSCE human rights meeting in Warsaw. We have opposed the Irish blasphemy law since it was first announced, including by lobbying Irish politicians and international regulatory bodies.

2. We argue that blasphemy laws generally are harmful for three reasons:

(a) They endanger freedom of speech and deny equality.

(b) They are used to infringe on human rights around the world.

(c) They have been condemned by reputable international bodies.

3. We argue that the Irish blasphemy law in particular is harmful for three reasons:

(a) It reinforces the religious ethos of the 1937 Constitution.

(b) It brings our parliament and our laws into disrepute.

(c) Islamic states use it at the UN to promote universal blasphemy laws.

Professor Heiner Bielefeldt, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion, advised us as we prepared this submission:

“Of course you are right that the major damage done by this legislation is the international one. I wouldn’t expect any harsh verdicts being handed down in Ireland, but those countries that continue to have an intimidating anti-blasphemy practice like to quote European countries to unmask Western hypocrisy. So I hope things will be moving in the right direction. One can also cite General Comment no. 34 of the Human Rights Committee and the Rabat Plan of Action. Both documents call upon States to move away from criminalizing so called blasphemy.”

4. Summary and recommendations

(a) Many Irish bodies have already recommended removing the offence of blasphemy.

(b) We ask the Convention to recommend the following:

(i) Remove the offence of blasphemy from Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution.

(ii) Revise Article 40.6.1 generally, modeled on Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

(iii) Include in the revised Article a clause prohibiting laws against blasphemy.

(iv) Consider the inter-related impact of the blasphemy clause and other religiously-inspired aspects of the Constitution.
.

smacl

Nodin wrote: »

Atheist Ireland submitted something on it certainly.

More details on it here; http://blasphemy.ie/ and well worth the read IMHO.

Brian Shanahan

Beruthiel wrote: »

This one however, if you wanted to go down that road, makes this whole forum against the law.

Hell, the law makes anything ever spoken, written, semaphored, sung, signed or thought potentially illegal.

oldrnwisr

Geomy wrote: »

I just don't get why one needs to be blasphemous in the first place.

Well, as Dr. Doom has pointed out, sometimes that blasphemy occurs simply by stating something that you believe to be true. However, blasphemy is also relevant in making a point of principle. Take Draw Mohammed Day for example. This event sparked outrage and criticism around the world for its blasphemous and offensive nature. However, it is an event that I wholeheartedly support because of the principle involved. In an interview with cleric Iqbal Sacranie journalist Andrew Mueller commented that Islam's teaching of not drawing the prophet assumes:

"that the values of Islam trumps anyone elses - which is what any follower of Islam does assume, just as any follower of any religion believes that theirs is the sole way, truth and light. If someone wants to love a 7th century preacher more than their own families, that's up to them, but nobody is obligated to take them seriously."

The strictures of a particular religion apply only to those adherents who choose to follow it. To respect a belief by not transgressing it is tantamount to adherence to it. Those who cry blasphemy are the same who line up outside abortion clinics to abuse vulnerable women. They're the same ones who are so vocal about the legalisation of gay marriage. In their mind, everyone should be forced to live by their rules. As Jean-Luc Picard said: "A line must be drawn, this far no further."

With specific regard to the issue that started this whole mess, I didn't see the thread which started all this off and so I can't comment in detail. However, the idea that the nature of the blasphemy law would silence open debate and in particular cause certain facts about a certain prophet to be brushed under the carpet is abhorrent to me. I try not to deliberately cause offense on boards and to be honest the relevance of Mohammed's proclivities to most debates on Islam is marginal at best but the fact of the matter still needs to be defended regardless of offense caused, lest those with odious agendas try to recast history.

Banbh

I prefer to refer to Islam as a movement rather than a religion, which is more accurate given that it has a Sunni wing and a Shi'ite wing and, maybe, other divisions.

If ever I were prosecuted by an Islamic zealot for my continuous insults, he would have to claim that Islam is a religion and given the bloody hatred between Sunnis and Shi'ites, no moslem of either persuasion would ever do that.

It's a bit like claiming that Christianity is a religion. If it is then it includes the Westboro Baptist Church as well as Father Trendy.

Nodin

oldrnwisr wrote: »

With specific regard to the issue that started this whole mess, I didn't see the thread which started all this off and so I can't comment in detail. However, the idea that the nature of the blasphemy law would silence open debate and in particular cause certain facts about a certain prophet to be brushed under the carpet is abhorrent to me. I try not to deliberately cause offense on boards and to be honest the relevance of Mohammed's proclivities to most debates on Islam is marginal at best but the fact of the matter still needs to be defended regardless of offense caused, lest those with odious agendas try to recast history.

Two to three posts in a muslim related thread calling mohammed a paedo. It was such a juvenile effort that it wasn't worth bothering with. At most - given the context - it could have been called trolling and dealt with in the usual fashion. Instead you had the clumsily handled disaster which led to this thread. Other than the problems with manner in which it was dealt with, the tone used, theres the thought amongst some that this reaction was led as much by the individuals own biases as fear of the law.

And the fact that now any eejit has a road-map to getting certain discussions shut down. That's one worth remembering.

MrPudding

Dav wrote: »

I'm still genuinely baffled as to why people are so confused about this - we do this sort of thing every day, you just rarely have the audience this particular instance did.

I can't speak for everyone but my confusion in this matter stems from your ability to know, with apparent certainty, that a particular post was in breach of a specific piece of legislation that is a) so badly defined as to be effectively useless and b) apparently intentionally so. Despite this you state with certainty that the post was in breach of this law. Now, the bit that confuses me is how you are able to determine this. Also, I am confused as to why you might make such a proclamation as it appears to me to cause more potential legal issues than it resolves.

It seems to me that by claiming to knowwhat constitutes blasphemy you have you have put yourself in a difficult position.

MrP

Zillah

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As Jean-Luc Picard said: "A line must be drawn, this far no further."

He said that during a rant which was the at peak of an irrational quest to take personal revenge on a hated enemy

Nodin

Zillah wrote: »

He said that during a rant which was the at peak of an irrational quest to take personal revenge on a hated enemy

...aren't all the best lines?

aloyisious

On the blasphemy front, if one was to state that the Romans invented the "Jesus" story as a political device to control the locals in "occupied" Judea, that Jesus never existed, how would one fare?

According to a story in today's Belfast Telegraph, there's a US Biblical Scholar named Joseph Attwill going to give this as his theory (which he claim's is backed up by the bible) at a "Messiah" conference in Holborn next Saturday 19th Oct.

Corkfeen

aloyisious wrote: »

On the blasphemy front, if one was to state that the Romans invented the "Jesus" story as a political device to control the locals in "occupied" Judea, that Jesus never existed, how would one fare?

According to a story in today's Belfast Telegraph, there's a US Biblical Scholar named Joseph Attwill going to give this as his theory (which he claim's is backed up by the bible) at a "Messiah" conference in Holborn next Saturday 19th Oct.

It would be exempt from the blasphemy law because of potential intellectual/academic value and isn't for the purpose of offending. It's so many kinds of strange as a law for 21st century Ireland.

aloyisious

Today's Irish Tines mention's that the Constitutional Commission is meeting next week to examine the blasphemy law and advise the Govt if it should be put to referendum.

SpaceTime

To be fair to the current government, at least they are taking constitutional reform seriously.

I'm still horrified at what the last lot did with the introduction of legislation to implement blasphemy laws.

What was even more bizarre was that NOBODY, including no one in the churches was calling for it. They went way out on a limb and implemented it.

I was actually wondering was it financially/fiscally motivated as a way of getting access to Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds? We were trying to pull in loans at all costs at the time and there was talk of offloading Anglo on some unsuspecting wealthy oil rich types...
There was also a lot of noise about Islamic finance and encouraging more of it into the IFSC. Perhaps this was a : hey look, we're a EU-based theocratic state.. Please invest here!

Or was it a smokescreen to whip up a media fuss over something while the bank deals were going through...

Banbh

Maybe the Green Party realised that prayer was their only hope of keeping their seats.

Pawwed Rig

Why would it need a referendum? Could they not just repeal the legislation?

link
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blasphemy-law-removal-considered-29719283.html

SpaceTime

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Why would it need a referendum? Could they not just repeal the legislation?

link
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blasphemy-law-removal-considered-29719283.html

Removing it from the constitution would be far more effective. That's where the law in this stems from.

At this stage, when we're having referenda anyway, removing it cleanly would be a worthwhile exercise.

I think we should look at implementing US-style freedom of speech constitutional provisions though. We have provisions for freedom of speech in the constitution but they are very heavily circumscribed by stuff like this.
They're reflective of the era that they were written in when Ireland was very conservative and British legal tradition fears freedom of expression. Libel / defamation laws are pretty draconian throughout British legal history.

They could do a lot to take heed of the old nursery rhyme : Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.