It seems that the 'Blasphemy Law' could affect Boards

robindch

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

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

Yes, they could, but having the nation vote to remove the constitutional requirement to have a law in the first place firstly gets the government off the hook about having to make a decision about that Constitutional amendment itself -- I'm assuming there are some in FG like some in FF who want to keep it in for religious reasons, so doing it this way keeps religious resentment within and towards the political parties to a minimum. And secondly, with the people voting to remove the requirement, there'll be a strong political case to remove the law from the statute book too. And thirdly, I suspect they want the Convention to concentrate on the blasphemy provision because, as I think somebody's already pointed out, it's low-hanging fruit and easy for most to agree on since a religious bunfight about the rest of the religious stuff in the Constitution is likely to cause them something close to abortion-level grief.

SpaceTime

To be honest, I don't think anything in the constitution other than issues to do with abortion are likely to cause much fuss at all.

The attitudes here have changed immensely and I think the political class needs to realise that by appealing to a small and shrinking minority of religious, conservative zealots that they are alienating a very large % of the population. This isn't 1953!

I'm actually not convinced that Ireland was every particularly conservative. It was very top down oppressed and living in fear of the 'establishment' but for the most part seemed to switch to very liberal once the lid was lifted.

Pawwed Rig

Putting it to the people is always risky though. As can be seem from the last few referenda we have a very lethargic population. I would say any vote perceived to be against the church would have a high chance of failing thereby pushing back any proper reform by a decade. Bear in mind older people are more likely to vote. The churches can rally troops. Couple with this the general unwillingness of younger people to transfer their vote to where they are living rather than where their parents live means a conservative outcome is probable.

SpaceTime

I think the rest of us are just going to have to rally the troops too!

The gay marriage provision for example will have the serious might of the GLBT community to rally the troops and get the vote out.

I think we really need to make sure that those of us interested in freedom of speech get the voters out for this one!

The church of social media is bigger than anything else!!

Maybe we could host a few get the vote out events?? Get a few mates down for voting, dinner and pints?? There's a lot individuals can do!

We should be engaging with this almost unique opportunity to change the constitution rather they just switching off. Very, very few people currently have or have ever had this kind of democratic power. This goes way beyond what people can do in most EU countries, in the USA etc etc etc...
We should have a national holiday around 'referendum day'

Pawwed Rig

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think we really need to make sure that those of us interested in freedom of speech get the voters out for this one!

Agreed. A good place to start would be student unions encouraging the 20-25 demo to move their vote to where they are living.

SpaceTime

I'd encourage everyone to get their like minded buddies to register and vote. It's very easy to do.

I think as secularists and freedom of expression proponents we have to get people out voting. Nobody is going to do it for us as there isn't a mass organisation.

Brown Bomber

Look on the bright side...

This puts the nail in the coffin of any more boards "Draw Muhammad" days.

So it closes the door on people flaunting their bigotries and xenophobia and prevents any incitement to hatred.

Bannasidhe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Putting it to the people is always risky though. As can be seem from the last few referenda we have a very lethargic population. I would say any vote perceived to be against the church would have a high chance of failing thereby pushing back any proper reform by a decade. Bear in mind older people are more likely to vote. The churches can rally troops. Couple with this the general unwillingness of younger people to transfer their vote to where they are living rather than where their parents live means a conservative outcome is probable.

I read a lot about the supposed conservatism of the 'older' generation and how once they pop off we will have a 'liberal' voter base and Ireland wil be dragged into the late 20th century.

Strange, as the most radical pro-choicer I know is my 79 year old mother, followed closely by a close friend of mine who is 76.
My 80 year old goes to mass every week father but is so pro-same sex marriage that he offered to pay for my Big Gay Wedding should I wish to have one (:eek:).
My 94 year old Great Grand uncle is the most socially liberal person I have ever met.

Yet, some of the most knee-jerk social conservatives I have met have been in their 20s.

Don't forget - the generation who actually have continually stood up to the government are the pensioners. Many of whom feel cheated, were the ones who paid ridiculous tax rates most of their working lives, see their pensions decimated and suffered far more at the hands of the church than any youngster.
They were the 'condom train' generation. They were the one who voted for divorce. They were the ones who voted to have the RCC 'special relationship' clause removed from the Constitution.

Dismiss the increasingly radicalised older generation at your peril. They still believe in voting and are not apathetic.

Pawwed Rig

I'm not dismissing them at all. Just highlighting that they are more likely to vote. I do think you are over stating how radical they are.
Bear in mind they are also the generation that have kept FF/FG in perpetual government since the foundation of the state. Also remember that divorce was rejected the first time before finally suceeding (we have a good history in asking the same questions over and over till we get the right answer). They are also the demographic most likely to be lining the pews on a Sunday morning.

SpaceTime

I don't think it's as cut and dry as age profiling either. I know plenty of very liberal people who are >75.
I think it's a bit niaeve and patronising to assume young = liberal and old = conservative.

If anything older people can be far more broadminded because many of them will have encountered many more situations than some 21 year old who lived in a bubble.

I've found older people can often be very pragmatic.

Not all of them though ... You can't generalise about any generation!

Bannasidhe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I'm not dismissing them at all. Just highlighting that they are more likely to vote. I do think you are over stating how radical they are.
Bear in mind they are also the generation that have kept FF/FG in perpetual government since the foundation of the state. Also remember that divorce was rejected the first time before finally suceeding (we have a good history in asking the same questions over and over till we get the right answer). They are also the demographic most likely to be lining the pews on a Sunday morning.

I think you are underestimating just how angry older voters are with both FF and FG.

My mother was one of those FF voters while my father was one of those FG voters. Mother will never vote FF again. And life-long FGer Father left Simon Coveney publicly in no doubt as to his opinion of FG and will never vote for them again.

It is, imho, ridiculous to make sweeping statements about how 'conservative' the older generation is and how 'liberal' the younger is and such statements miss the point that we historically have little choice in Ireland as to which party is voted for - Labour have committed political suicide but (and I say this as a former party member) with few exceptions never had many who were actually socialist in their ranks anyway so it's not like we have ever had a left alternative to Fianna Gael in the first place.

If you think older people don't feel betrayed by the State they spent their lives trying to build you are mistaken. Whether it took two voted for divorce to be passed or not is immaterial - the fact remains it was the older generation who passed it.

eviltwin

Can someone explain something to me? Why is it we will need a referendum to remove the reference to the blasphemy law when we didn't have one to put it there in the first place?

Pawwed Rig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is, imho, ridiculous to make sweeping statements about how 'conservative' the older generation is and how 'liberal' the younger is

I didn't say either of these things.

SpaceTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think you are underestimating just how angry older voters are with both FF and FG.

My mother was one of those FF voters while my father was one of those FG voters. Mother will never vote FF again. And life-long FGer Father left Simon Coveney publicly in no doubt as to his opinion of FG and will never vote for them again.

It is, imho, ridiculous to make sweeping statements about how 'conservative' the older generation is and how 'liberal' the younger is and such statements miss the point that we historically have little choice in Ireland as to which party is voted for - Labour have committed political suicide but (and I say this as a former party member) with few exceptions never had many who were actually socialist in their ranks anyway so it's not like we have ever had a left alternative to Fianna Gael in the first place.

If you think older people don't feel betrayed by the State they spent their lives trying to build you are mistaken. Whether it took two voted for divorce to be passed or not is immaterial - the fact remains it was the older generation who passed it.

Not to mention the fact that the older generations were the ones who had to face the majority of the abuse that the Church-State corporatist Ireland of the past dealt out in the past.

If any generation's going to mistrust the state, it's those who lived through magdalene laundries, institutional abuse, child abuse cover ups, crazy policies on contraception, healthcare etc. Bear in mind that it's a group of mostly elderly ladies who were left with the aftermath of symphisiotomy.

They spent decades living in fear of the church and the state in many cases. How many of them lived through awful marriages because there was no divorce? Or spent a lifetime of loneliness or moved abroad because they were gay or lesbian? Others were adopted and cannot trace their birth parents because of religious nuttiness and a culture of shame around getting pennant outside of marriage that was facilitated by both the state and the church.

Many of Ireland's older generation are actually feeling completely and utterly betrayed by both the state and the Church in a lot of cases. Even those who weren't directly or indirectly impacted upon by those things saw the institutions they trusted turn to dust as revelation after revelation of absolutely sickening betrayals of trust came out.

My generation lived through a relatively prosperous and increasingly liberal Ireland, which was largely coming about because of the challenges that their generation were making. So, I wouldn't put it all down to OAPs being a bunch of conservative stick in the muds. I think they deserve a bit of respect and they are the only major group that regularly does take the Government to task and that actually reliably votes in large numbers.

eviltwin

SpaceTime wrote: »

Not to mention the fact that the older generations were the ones who had to face the majority of the abuse that the Church-State corporatist Ireland of the past dealt out in the past.

If any generation's going to mistrust the state, it's those who lived through magdalene laundries, institutional abuse, child abuse cover ups, crazy policies on contraception, healthcare etc. Bear in mind that it's a group of mostly elderly ladies who were left with the aftermath of symphisiotomy.

Many of Ireland's older generation are actually feeling completely and utterly betrayed by both the state and the Church in a lot of cases.

Ironically I find that its older women, the ones whose lives were more affected by the social norms of the time, who are the Church's biggest fans.

SpaceTime

eviltwin wrote: »

Ironically I find that its older women, the ones whose lives were more affected by the social norms of the time, who are the Church's biggest fans.

I suppose it depends on the group though. I know the older ladies in my family and their associates are about as religious as Dawkins these days. They're pretty cynical about most 'establishment' figures.

When you talk to them a lot of them used to vote FF or FG but now vote independent or SF !

Then again, I'm talking mostly about city centre OAPs in Dublin and Cork more so than rural areas.

robindch

eviltwin wrote: »

Why is it we will need a referendum to remove the reference to the blasphemy law when we didn't have one to put it there in the first place?

The provision for blasphemy was included, probably from text provided by Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, in the text of Ireland's 1937 Constitution (the current one) which was voted in by the electorate on the first of July, 1937:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ireland

The figures are odd though -- almost 10% of the electorate spoiled their votes and the plebiscite was carried by 56% to 44% - hardly a ringing endorsement, to say the least.

SpaceTime

robindch wrote: »

The provision for blasphemy was included, probably from text provided by Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, in the text of Ireland's 1937 Constitution (the current one) which was voted in by the electorate on the first of July, 1937:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ireland

The figures are odd though -- almost 10% of the electorate spoiled their votes and the plebiscite was carried by 56% to 44% - hardly a ringing endorsement, to say the least.

It's amazing how Ireland's revolutionary start was sort of hijacked by this very conservative element. We had some very high notions of republicanism, freedom and democracy on one hand and then 'holy catholic Ireland' on the other. The two concepts are not very compatible really other than they both wanted independence from the UK.

When you read the constitution you can tell it's sort of a hodgepodge of a sort of idealism of the French or American revolution bolted onto a conservative theocratic philosophy that is more reminiscent of Spain under Franco in some respects.

It's quite literally a snapshot of Irish politics in the 1930s.


----

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens in the coming years though because it looks like every pillar of 'conservative establishment' in Ireland has managed to collapse itself in a pile of scandal and betrayals of the people.

Church, de facto establishment in politics, the financial elite / upper echelons of establishment banking, aspects of the legal profession ...

A lot of pedestals have come crashing down rather spectacularly.

I suspect there's going to be a lot of change.

DeVore

Here's my (brief) take on things.

Part of why we are strict about such things as defamation and blasphemy is because of the legal threat, definitely.

But another, perhaps more subtle reason is that we shouldnt protect people from the realities of their government, society and law.
Let me try to bulletpoint the way it flows.

1. Government makes bad law, or bad law has existed for a while.

2. Boards tolerates the breaking of the law at some risk to us both commercially and *personally*

3. The populace continues on in the blissful misapprehension that all is well with their country. When its not. Nothing changes.


Or the alternative.

1. (as above).

2. Boards passes that law along to the populace ... who howl in anger at us for a while but while we have their attention we point out that its not Boards Law... its THE LAW.

3. People become aware of the idiotic law and it goes into play, politically.


Now, the second approach is a massive pain in the hole for us because people get mad with us but ULTIMATELY it is the better route... particularly if there is a referendum coming.

Bannasidhe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Putting it to the people is always risky though. As can be seem from the last few referenda we have a very lethargic population. I would say any vote perceived to be against the church would have a high chance of failing thereby pushing back any proper reform by a decade. Bear in mind older people are more likely to vote. The churches can rally troops. Couple with this the general unwillingness of younger people to transfer their vote to where they are living rather than where their parents live means a conservative outcome is probable.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I didn't say either of these things.

I was responding to that highlighted part which certainly implies that a vote 'against' the church would fail as older people are more likely to vote while young people are lethargic.

I read that as older voters = conservative so will maintain the status quo.
Younger voters = socially liberal, however as they tend not to vote their 'liberal' vote will be lost.


Is this an incorrect interpretation?

I was merely pointing out that it was those same 'older' voters who actually voted for the few socially liberal changes that have taken place in Ireland and they are the ones who are willing to take to the streets and protest.

SpaceTime

Well, the previous policy the Government had for decades was to thank their lucky stars that the supreme court ruled that there was no definition of blasphemy despite the constitutional provision and to hope that nobody ever asked anything about it and that it would just go away!

It was buried much like an old WW I weapon until someone in the last government decided to dig it up and install a new arming mechanism.

The law needs to be removed properly. Half-arsed measures are always dangerous in law.

It needs to be properly disposed of and put beyond use!

MrPudding

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Look on the bright side...

This puts the nail in the coffin of any more boards "Draw Muhammad" days.

So it closes the door on people flaunting their bigotries and xenophobia and prevents any incitement to hatred.

<Yawn> You really are a one trick pony. Do you not actually even bore yourself sometimes?

MrP

Geomy

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So the point of passing the law in the first place was? I can scarcely believe there is actually such a law.

Some in AH are comparing blasphemy to inciting hatred. But these are two entirely different things. If I say that I think all religious beliefs are a load of bullsh*t, which I assume constitutes 'blasphemy', how is that inciting hatred?

You have different people with different personalities.

One thiest might laugh it all off and accept the fact you think it's all a load of bulkshyt,and they can get on with their day without getting upset.

Then you get the hard core element who have grave emotional and mental disorders and get offended and all upset because you challenged their belief structure.

Time after time people on these forums can't differentiate the difference between attacking the post/opinion rather than attacking the poster. ...

I like fishing, if someone said fishing is ****, ill think they don't like fishing.
I won't think it's an attack on me and take it personally.

Some people just don't have the ability to detach emotionally from other people's opinions, that's a dangerous place to be....

SpaceTime

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So the point of passing the law in the first place was? I can scarcely believe there is actually such a law.

Some in AH are comparing blasphemy to inciting hatred. But these are two entirely different things. If I say that I think all religious beliefs are a load of bullsh*t, which I assume constitutes 'blasphemy', how is that inciting hatred?

You can think / say that they're a load of bull and I don't think that would come in at all under the legislation as it stands. It's pretty hard to actually 'set it off' as you'd really want to be going out of your way to deliberately cause outrage. Although the way it defines it is a little vague to put it mildly and leaves huge scope for judicial interpretation.

However, the fact that the law exists at all is ridiculous.

robindch

Geomy wrote: »

Some people just don't have the ability to detach emotionally from other people's opinions, that's a dangerous place to be....

That's especially true with religion which has gone to enormous lengths to conflate belief and identity.

The blasphemy legislation, on the one hand, says that some ideas are so dangerous that the state must ban even expressing them (let alone acting them out), while on the other hand, it legitimizes the false conflation of belief and identity by allowing people to become offended on behalf of ideas.

Amirani

Times article today is worth reading: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/blasphemy-offence-a-dead-letter-constitutional-convention-told-1.1582160

It seems certain that something will be done as a result of the Constitutional Convention. Leaving the offence as is, as a lame duck, creates an unnecessary grey area that benefits nobody. I'd be extremely surprised if the convention recommended anything other than a full removal of the blasphemy offence from the constitution. Whether the Government decide to do anything on the back of that is another thing altogether.

Brown Bomber

MrPudding wrote: »

<Yawn> You really are a one trick pony. Do you not actually even bore yourself sometimes?

MrP

Ah, personal attacks Didn't take long.

Someone mentioned previously here that incitement to hatred and blasphemy aren't the same thing; but they can be.

While I am opposed to any blasphemy law there are some benefits to it. Such as a prohibition on what I have witnessed in this forum - racism, stereotyping, ignorance, bigotry and so on. This likely unintentional incitement to hatred can have unintended consequences such as some guy attacking a Muslim in the street because of some of the anti-Muslim bile he read here.

This being prevented I'll take that as a positive.

shruikan2553

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ah, personal attacks Didn't take long.

Someone mentioned previously here that incitement to hatred and blasphemy aren't the same thing; but they can be.

While I am opposed to any blasphemy law there are some benefits to it. Such as a prohibition on what I have witnessed in this forum - racism, stereotyping, ignorance, bigotry and so on. This likely unintentional incitement to hatred can have unintended consequences such as some guy attacking a Muslim in the street because of some of the anti-Muslim bile he read here.

This being prevented I'll take that as a positive.

Im sure you have examples to back this up?

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Look on the bright side...

This puts the nail in the coffin of any more boards "Draw Muhammad" days.

So it closes the door on people flaunting their bigotries and xenophobia and prevents any incitement to hatred.

Draw Muhammad day is racist? Since when is Islam a f**king race?

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

Draw Muhammad day is racist? Since when is Islam a f**king race?

Since Cork born and bred people started converting?

MagicMarker

Does that mean I'm not allowed post this?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ah, personal attacks Didn't take long.

Someone mentioned previously here that incitement to hatred and blasphemy aren't the same thing; but they can be.

how is drawing a man and identifying it as Muhammed incitement to hatred?

While I am opposed to any blasphemy law there are some benefits to it. Such as a prohibition on what I have witnessed in this forum - racism, stereotyping, ignorance, bigotry and so on. This likely unintentional incitement to hatred can have unintended consequences such as some guy attacking a Muslim in the street because of some of the anti-Muslim bile he read here.

This being prevented I'll take that as a positive.

weeeeeee!!!! slippery slope!!! \o/


draw a picture of the prophet -> random assaults on Muslims? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Geomy

robindch wrote: »

That's especially true with religion which has gone to enormous lengths to conflate belief and identity.

The blasphemy legislation, on the one hand, says that some ideas are so dangerous that the state must ban even expressing them (let alone acting them out), while on the other hand, it legitimizes the false conflation of belief and identity by allowing people to become offended on behalf of ideas.

Well, what's a fair solution to all this ?

Corkfeen

Jernal wrote: »

Draw Muhammad day is racist? Since when is Islam a f**king race?

Also,plenty of posters loathe people who attack Muslims. For example, there was a thread ages ago on another forum where people were complaining about a Mosque being built and saying absurdly racist things as a basis not to allow it. Many posters from this forum defended their right to have a Mosque.(Myself included) However I don't believe a religion should have special rights to protect it from ridicule.

Pherekydes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This likely unintentional incitement to hatred can have unintended consequences such as some guy attacking a Muslim in the street because of some of the anti-Muslim bile he read here.

This is a very serious allegation against this site. Do you have proof?

Brown Bomber

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Im sure you have examples to back this up?

Yes. Here is an example from this forum of both blasphemy and possible incitement to hatred,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79583656

Brown Bomber

Pherekydes wrote: »

This is a very serious allegation against this site. Do you have proof?

I can easily prove the habitual negative stereotyping on this forum, though that thread I just linked to alone should suffice. Otherwise, read this:

New Research leads focus on anti-Muslim hate crime

The report finds that Muslim Londoners face a threat of violence and intimidation from three groups. Firstly from a small violent extremist nationalist milieu that has broadly the same political analysis as the British National Party (BNP). Secondly from London gangs who have no allegiance with or affinity to the BNP. Thirdly from a small number of Londoners and visitors to London who appear to be acting on prejudices gained via negative media portrayals of Muslims as terrorists and security threats.

The report illustrates how perpetrators of hate-crimes against Muslims are invariably motivated by a negative view of Muslims acquired from mainstream or extremist nationalist media reports or commentaries. These spread stereotypes and fears that stigmatise, alienate and isolate Muslims as threats to safety, security and social cohesion. As political commentator and journalist Peter Oborne, says in a foreword to the report that British Muslims now perform an ‘unenviable outcast role’ previously played by ‘Germans, Roman Catholics, Jews and West Indians’.

Dr Githens-Mazer of the University of Exeter, co- author of the report said, “Anti-Muslim hate crimes in London have caused death and serious injuries and have generally inflicted suffering, fear and distress just like racist hate crimes aimed at other minorities in the capital. However, the motivation for anti-Muslim hate crimes is not as well understood by government, media or the police as racist hate crimes.”

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_53723_en.html

Like I said, for these attacks not to happen due to the negative stereotpying I'll take as a plus.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes. Here is an example from this forum of both blasphemy and possible incitement to hatred,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79583656

Should we ban all pieces of art that upset or offend?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I can easily prove the habitual negative stereotyping on this forum, though that thread I just linked to alone should suffice. Otherwise, read this:


http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_53723_en.html

Like I said, for these attacks not to happen due to the negative stereotpying I'll take as a plus.

The views about Muslims being unable to integrate and being terrorists is rarely espoused on this forum(if ever? It's very Daily Mail). I'd view people that hold such views with contempt. I'd suspect there's very few people on the forum that have views that align with the BNP.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes. Here is an example from this forum of both blasphemy and possible incitement to hatred,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79583656

It wasn't blasphemy as the image wasn't of Muhammed, it's of an unnamed Persian soldier.

How would the image incite people to hate Muslims?

smacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes. Here is an example from this forum of both blasphemy and possible incitement to hatred,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79583656

You do realize that you're linking a post about you complaining about an image that you find offensive. As such, you alone are actively directing more people to that image. Given that it was well hidden up until now, surely that makes you as guilty of incitement as the original poster, or maybe you're keener on propagating this than you pretend?

Corkfeen

koth wrote: »

It wasn't blasphemy as the image wasn't of Muhammed, it's of an unnamed Persian soldier.

How would the image incite people to hate Muslims?

Even if it was, under Irish blasphemy law it would be classified as a piece of art(It predates any blasphemy law though) so would not fall under the blasphemy law. :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

It wasn't blasphemy as the image wasn't of Muhammed, it's of an unnamed Persian soldier.

How would the image incite people to hate Muslims?

It was purported to be of Muhammed.

Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989

View Full Act Legislation Directory Entry

Actions likely to stir up hatred.
2.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person—

(a) to publish or distribute written material,

(b) to use words, behave or display written material—

(i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or

(ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,

or

(c) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,

if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.

Delirium

I understand what incitement to hatred is. You haven't explained how the picture would incite hatred towards Muslims.

Turtwig

DeVore wrote: »

Here's my (brief) take on things.

Part of why we are strict about such things as defamation and blasphemy is because of the legal threat, definitely.

But another, perhaps more subtle reason is that we shouldnt protect people from the realities of their government, society and law.
Let me try to bulletpoint the way it flows.

1. Government makes bad law, or bad law has existed for a while.

2. Boards tolerates the breaking of the law at some risk to us both commercially and *personally*

3. The populace continues on in the blissful misapprehension that all is well with their country. When its not. Nothing changes.


Or the alternative.

1. (as above).

2. Boards passes that law along to the populace ... who howl in anger at us for a while but while we have their attention we point out that its not Boards Law... its THE LAW.

3. People become aware of the idiotic law and it goes into play, politically.


Now, the second approach is a massive pain in the hole for us because people get mad with us but ULTIMATELY it is the better route... particularly if there is a referendum coming.

As much as I love this site. I've become rather frustrated with the responses to this issue. Our issue was that there was no need to invoke the blasphemy law at all .The post was offensive it was obvious trolling. It could have just been deleted or moderated normally. Why in the heavens was the law mentioned in the first place? Why was there a threat, yes a threat, made to everyone posting in the thread under the auspices of that law? Surely it would have be more prudent and wiser to actually just remind people of the AH charter? There was as far as we can tell no reason to have mentioned this ruddy law. Yet in the feedback thread and here this point hasn't been dealt with at all. We understand why the post had to be deleted. Odds are in most fora that would have occurred anyway and that's the point. Boards made a decision on where the line in the sand was for a law that supposedly had one of the vaguest lines in the sand in the history of the state. And as far as we can tell there was no reason to make that decision on the law in the first place. The post in question contravened most other rules anyway.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ah, personal (............)a positive.

I was wondering when you'd put this nail in your stick. I have to say I'm amazed at your restraint - this thread was started on the 9th and only now the inevitable has occurred.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

I understand what incitement to hatred is. You haven't explained how the picture would incite hatred towards Muslims.

It dehumanises Muslims via the depiction of Muhammed.

And are you sure you know what incitement to hatred is? Or do you not accept the states definition?

That image ticks all the boxes - offensive, abusive material which is publically published .

shruikan2553

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes. Here is an example from this forum of both blasphemy and possible incitement to hatred,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79583656

So its a picture. There are lots of pictures making fun as jesus, I even dressed up as jesus for Halloween and walked around galway city. Was this incitement of hatred too?

Muslim are against depictions of their prophet just as homosexuality and working on Sundays is to Christians. I am not a member of either religion. Why should I be forced to stay at home on a Sunday or someone forced to pretend they are straight in case we cause incitement of hatred?

TheChizler

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It dehumanises Muslims via the depiction of Muhammed.

Through exactly what mechanism??

Nodin

DeVore wrote: »

Here's my (brief) take on things.

Part of why we are strict about such things as defamation and blasphemy is because of the legal threat, definitely.

But another, perhaps more subtle reason is that we shouldnt protect people from the realities of their government, society and law.
Let me try to bulletpoint the way it flows.

1. Government makes bad law, or bad law has existed for a while.

2. Boards tolerates the breaking of the law at some risk to us both commercially and *personally*

3. The populace continues on in the blissful misapprehension that all is well with their country. When its not. Nothing changes.


Or the alternative.

1. (as above).

2. Boards passes that law along to the populace ... who howl in anger at us for a while but while we have their attention we point out that its not Boards Law... its THE LAW.

3. People become aware of the idiotic law and it goes into play, politically.


Now, the second approach is a massive pain in the hole for us because people get mad with us but ULTIMATELY it is the better route... particularly if there is a referendum coming.

That's one way of looking at it. The other is that it was heavy handed moderation, followed by a terribly advised, patronising, thread on the subject by the one who intervened, whose personal views on the matter are - certainly in the view of most of us here - dubious in the extreme eg -
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84589661&postcount=147

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

Should we ban all pieces of art that upset or offend?

The views about Muslims being unable to integrate and being terrorists is rarely espoused on this forum(if ever? It's very Daily Mail). I'd view people that hold such views with contempt. I'd suspect there's very few people on the forum that have views that align with the BNP.

Funnily enough the views of militant atheists and the far right frequently dovetail on Islam and Muslims.