It seems that the 'Blasphemy Law' could affect Boards

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It dehumanises Muslims via the depiction of Muhammed.

Not Muhammed. And how does this picture dehumanise Muslims even if it was?

does this picture dehumanise Greeks?

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

Not Muhammed.

Will you give it a rest with that. It was published purporting to be Muhammed. Of course it isn't actually Muhammed anymore than the other Islamophobic images such as Muhammed/Muslim as a pig with a beard covered in it's own **** is

koth wrote: »

And how does this picture dehumanise Muslims even if it was?

Are you actually asking me how images depicting beastiality are dehumanising?

koth wrote: »

does this picture dehumanise Greeks?

I don't see how.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

............

I don't see how.

If a picture of an individual Greek God/Godess does not dehumanise Greeks, then why does a picture of Muhammed dehumanise muslims?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Will you give it a rest with that. It was published purporting to be Muhammed. Of course it isn't actually Muhammed anymore than the other Islamophobic images such as Muhammed/Muslim as a pig with a beard covered in it's own **** is
Are you actually asking me how images depicting beastiality are dehumanising?


I don't see how.

so a picture of a Persian man having sex with a donkey is dehumanising to Muslims but a Greek woman having sex with a swan isn't dehumanising to Greeks?

Brown Bomber

shruikan2553 wrote: »

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?

You aren't comparing like with like. If you had an anti-gay forum on boards where a thread was opened for people to draw "humorous" /hateful cartoons depicting various gay stereotypes suvh as a graphic cartoon of Elton John raping a young boy, or a Graham Norton stereotype character hanging around outside a boys school with a bag of sweets then you'd be on the right path .

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You aren't comparing like with like. If you had an anti-gay forum on boards where a thread was opened for people to draw "humorous" /hateful cartoons depicting various gay stereotypes suvh as a graphic cartoon of Elton John raping a young boy, or a Graham Norton stereotype character hanging around outside a boys school with a bag of sweets then you'd be on the right path .

"gay stereotypes" are not the same as taking the piss out of one very specific gay man, which would be the correct parallel here.

Again - If a picture of an individual Greek God/Godess does not dehumanise Greeks, then why does a picture of Muhammed dehumanise muslims?

Delirium

so now this is the anti-Muslim forum?

TheChizler

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You aren't comparing like with like. If you had an anti-gay forum on boards where a thread was opened for people to draw "humorous" /hateful cartoons depicting various gay stereotypes suvh as a graphic cartoon of Elton John raping a young boy, or a Graham Norton stereotype character hanging around outside a boys school with a bag of sweets then you'd be on the right path .

I think you'd be heading into libel territory there... But seriously, these are gay stereotypes?

And also by examining your analogy are you saying having sex with a donkey is a Muslim stereotype?

Banbh

I am offensive to all religions as they are offensive to me. I am particularly offensive to Islam as it is the most evil.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

"gay stereotypes" are not the same as taking the piss out of one very specific gay man, which would be the correct parallel here.

Yes, but in "art" by anti-gay people these stereotypes could manifested in a single person who represents the whole e.g. Elton John, Muhammed, The Pope, MLK etc

Brown Bomber

Banbh wrote: »

I am offensive to all religions as they are offensive to me. I am particularly offensive to Islam as it is the most evil.

Keep up the good work.

and in response to the last post -

Pedophilia and predation

It is a common stereotype that gay men are sexual predators and/or pedophiles.[38]

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes, but in "art" by anti-gay people these stereotypes could manifested in a single person who represents the whole e.g. Elton John, Muhammed, The Pope, MLK etc

O - "could". According to you. Well it hasn't happened so far.

My worry is that some person with a grudge would use the blasphemy threat to undermine and harass the object of their hostility. What do you think there?

You might abandon any notion you have that ignoring the following question is going to make it go away btw.

If a picture of an individual Greek God/Godess does not dehumanise Greeks, then why does a picture of Muhammed dehumanise muslims?

Geomy

I think they have you there Brownbomber,I would never play chess with these guy's lol

Corkfeen

Nodin wrote: »

O - "could". According to you. Well it hasn't happened so far.

My worry is that some person with a grudge would use the blasphemy threat to undermine and harass the object of their hostility. What do you think there?

You might abandon any notion you have that ignoring the following question is going to make it go away btw.

If a picture of an individual Greek God/Godess does not dehumanise Greeks, then why does a picture of Muhammed dehumanise muslims?

Jesus is in South Park most weeks and has been depicted in fairly dodgy ways including death by Kyle. Christians have been dehumanised as a result. :O

MrPudding

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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 .

Did you not take your theory to the islam forum, where you were told to cop on. Clearly I am paraphrasing here, but I am sure that was the gist of it.

MrP

Banbh

Anyone watch the Constitutional Convention today? I'm curious to know what way the debate went as at a recent public session I got the impression from the chairman that they favoured a very basic document without all the pitfalls and special positions for interest groups.

aloyisious

It seems to me that the issue of what offends one person on religious grounds being included as part of civil law is very dicey for personal and speech freedom, if done under the guise of defending personal religious rights and/or public morals. It'd be only a short step to banning of books all over again. Down with this sort of thing.

It's not only Christians who pose a danger to liberty. The higher courts of a Far East country of Moslem majority have approved a law banning the use of the name of Mohammed (the founder of Islam) by Christians and others as an alternative to "God" (the Christian Deity) as an insult to Islam. If one was to reply "oh yeah, God" when someone mentioned Mohammed, it might end up in court.

recedite

SpaceTime wrote: »

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!

But it was not just a constitutional provision, it was a constitutional imperative. It could not be ignored permanently. Either a law had to be drafted, or the constitutional requirement for it had to be withdrawn by referendum. Unfortunately the govt. of the day chose the easier option.

So in our Constitution freedom of speech is guaranteed, except in the case of blasphemous, seditious or indecent material.

It follows then that the law would have to define the boundaries of what is blasphemous, seditious or indecent.
IMO it would be sensible to delete all three references and restrict freedom of speech only by some kind of reference defining "incitement to hatred".

Article 40.1.1 wrote:

The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions...
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

BTW I notice "the internet" or even "television"are not included there as listed organs of public opinion (only cinema, the press and radio) so the Article is in dire need of updating either way
The Article assumes that the State has the ability to fully control the content of any media consumed within the State, which as we all know has been an archaic viewpoint since the advent of TV and internet.

SpaceTime

recedite wrote: »

But it was not just a constitutional provision, it was a constitutional imperative. It could not be ignored permanently. Either a law had to be drafted, or the constitutional requirement for it had to be withdrawn by referendum. Unfortunately the govt. of the day chose the easier option.

So in our Constitution freedom of speech is guaranteed, except in the case of blasphemous, seditious or indecent material.

It follows then that the law would have to define the boundaries of what is blasphemous, seditious or indecent.
IMO it would be sensible to delete all three references and restrict freedom of speech only by some kind of reference defining "incitement to hatred".


BTW I notice "the internet" or even "television"are not included there as listed organs of public opinion (only cinema, the press and radio) so the Article is in dire need of updating either way
The Article assumes that the State has the ability to fully control the content of any media consumed within the State, which as we all know has been an archaic viewpoint since the advent of TV and internet.

Well, the document was written in the 1930s.
Television was a new fangled, relatively experimental technology when that was written and the digital computer hadn't been invented, never mind the internet and the dial-telephone had only begun to be rolled out!

The press, the cinema and the new-fangled 'wireless' was about as high tech as it got and that was almost totally state controlled in most of Europe.

States did tend to have very heavy control of the media in those days and also in the Irish context there seems to have been a very heavy dose of state-controlled media and using the media for 'cultural identity building' purposes. You'll note that in almost all EU countries the state kept a tight control of the broadcast media until the 1970s (and even later) in most cases. There were very few commercial broadcasters in Europe until then and the ones that were there were hugely regulated.

The Twitter of the day was distributing pamphlets.

Europe of that period wasn't very liberal or forward thinking when it came to media freedom. The press for some reason was treated as totally different to broadcasting which was seen as something that should be handed over to the Post Office to do with absolutely no competitors or opening of the airwaves.

The same applied in the UK with BBC, France with RTF (PTT) etc etc.

Likewise they kept an iron grip on the telecommunications infrastructure until quite recently too.
Sure, even in the US today, look at how the NSA is plugged into the telecoms infrastructure and how much regulation there is. Governments have a tendency to want to control telecoms, even in the most liberal democracies.

I wouldn't really regard Ireland as having become a liberal democracy until sometime in the 1970s. It had been quite an odd-ball conservative, corporatist regime until then really.

I mean, take a look at our history of censorship of publications. It was absolutely ridiculous stuff where a faceless, unaccountable committee went around just randomly banning books based on all sorts of flimsy arguments to keep us 'pure and innocent'.
Films were also edited, hacked and banned willy-nilly all over the place.

Even in Hollywood in the 1950s there was severe censorship.

Take a look at :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_censorship_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code

We live in a different world entirely to the one that existed when that constitution was written.

robindch

DeVore

Nodin wrote: »

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

Thats a fair point, though it bears mentioning that the religious-stuff that kicked all this off WASNT his religion. At the same time I have pointed out that we live in a world of "optics" these days and the handling of this could be better. We're all human though, and I dont have an issue with the final outcome arrived at (for the reasons I posted).

Nodin

DeVore wrote: »

Thats a fair point, though it bears mentioning that the religious-stuff that kicked all this off WASNT his religion. At the same time I have pointed out that we live in a world of "optics" these days and the handling of this could be better. We're all human though, and I dont have an issue with the final outcome arrived at (for the reasons I posted).

Well the worrying thing about the quote I linked to (which I took issue with at the time) was its general nature. Whether the individual in question has a faith of any description or not I've no idea.

As regards "optics", that would imply something that just looked bad. A great deal of what happened was in fact bad and showed some condescending views, as well as piss poor judgement. "braggadocio" and "penis wielding" were descriptions that came to mind at the time and still do.

Obviously I'm not pleased with the result, though I suppose its a valid question as to whether I'd be as sanguine if it were my (financial) bollocks on the line .

Banbh

If the Constitutional Convention does not come up with a proposal that eliminates this blasphemy nonsense, then it will have to be challenged in the courts and that will mean engineering a test case.
It is unfair to expect others to put their money on the line - though it is unfortunate that it was Boards and not a newspaper that crumbled first to the zealots. Still, we (democrats, free-thinkers) may have to fund-raise to fight a case some day soon.

Doctor DooM

DeVore wrote: »

Thats a fair point, though it bears mentioning that the religious-stuff that kicked all this off WASNT his religion. At the same time I have pointed out that we live in a world of "optics" these days and the handling of this could be better. We're all human though, and I dont have an issue with the final outcome arrived at (for the reasons I posted).

...and that resolves nothing for us, the sword of Damocles continues- if the blasphemy law is still being interpreted the way it was.

By the way, I don't think the following has been addressed or even thought about:

"Jesus Christ is the son of god" is definitely blasphemous to several religions. The blasphemy law doesn't mention any particular religion.

No one can go about their daily business on boards in any way without offending the letter of this law. It is a law of thought crime.

I cannot disagree with Dav's standpoint on this more, btw: A good example would be Mormonism.

Until very recently, there was institutionalised racism as part of that church, black people were considered inferior and even possibly tainted by the demonic.

I will always oppose and yes mock that viewpoint. However, I do not think that Mormons are intrinsically racist, and they can be perfectly lovely people. An attack on a religion is not an attack on its followers.

In fact if we were to take his viewpoint further, the only viewpoint that could be mocked is atheism, as we don't have any religion to be offended by.

Never thought I'd be having this conversation here.

SpaceTime

It recommended removing it and just having a general anti religious hate crime type legislation.

I think we were already covered for that though under normal legislation though.

Brian Shanahan

SpaceTime wrote: »

The same applied in the UK with BBC, France with RTF (PTT) etcetc.

Actually, up until very recently the BBC was an independent organisation, which often stuck its middle finger up to the governement of the day. It was only with the advent of TB that the organisation lost its editorial independence (well Maggie wanted dearly to do what her love-child did, but like with the NHS was too afraid of being linched if she destroyed Auntie).

We live in a different world entirely to the one that existed when that constitution was written.

Honestly we're living in a more censorious period than at any time since at least the mid 1800's, with both government control of what is published, and the decreasing numbers of media owners (for example Hearst would be shocked at the extent of the Murdoch media empire) leading to many important issues not being covered for both commercial and political reasons (often both the same thing).

Brown Bomber

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Actually, up until very recently the BBC was an independent organisation, which often stuck its middle finger up to the governement of the day.

Established by Royal Charter; hardly independent.

Brown Bomber

Banbh wrote: »

though it is unfortunate that it was Boards and not a newspaper that crumbled first to the zealots. Still, we (democrats, free-thinkers) may have to fund-raise to fight a case some day soon.

When do these free-thinkers start the campaign to have Mein Kampf sold in Germany? To legalise the sieg heil and to lobby for the release of racist Holocaust Deniers?

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Established by Royal Charter; hardly independent.

A Royal Charter is simply a legal mechanism used in the UK (it technically being a monarchy) by which an entity is incorporated.

Given that the Monarchy in the UK has zero political power I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

SpaceTime

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Actually, up until very recently the BBC was an independent organisation, which often stuck its middle finger up to the governement of the day. It was only with the advent of TB that the organisation lost its editorial independence (well Maggie wanted dearly to do what her love-child did, but like with the NHS was too afraid of being linched if she destroyed Auntie).



Honestly we're living in a more censorious period than at any time since at least the mid 1800's, with both government control of what is published, and the decreasing numbers of media owners (for example Hearst would be shocked at the extent of the Murdoch media empire) leading to many important issues not being covered for both commercial and political reasons (often both the same thing).

I don't honestly think we are. Yeah there's a bit of consolidation of print but there's a vast and unprecedented wealth of online media and television news is unrecognisably more competitive and more open. There is television without borders. You can listen to or watch broadcasts from anywhere online or on satellite.

Mudrock is floundering online. His empire had tried but failed to gain serious traction on the internet.

Bear in mind in the UK in the 1960s the BBC and Government wouldn't even allow pop music on the radio.

The BBC certainly always had high notions and talked about being independent but it censored itself quite heavily in the past.
The most challenging programming on UK television has tended to come from Channel 4 and the most challenging news coverage tended to come from investigative print journalism not the BBC.

The Life of Brian was banned when it came out etc etc.

The 'new' media is basically impossible to censor. Even the great firewall of China isn't working.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

When do these free-thinkers start the campaign to have Mein Kampf sold in Germany? To legalise the sieg heil and to lobby for the release of racist Holocaust Deniers?

You're unlikely to win many people in A+A to your point of view by godwinning yourself.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

When do these free-thinkers start the campaign to have Mein Kampf sold in Germany? To legalise the sieg heil and to lobby for the release of racist Holocaust Deniers?

The technique of running away and hiding until your health recovers is usable in many video games - Call Of Duty series, Metro 2033 etc. However this is a message board that uses real people as opposed to 'bots'. The damage doesn't fade, and we don't forget.

If a picture of an individual Greek God/Godess does not dehumanise Greeks, then why does a picture of Muhammed dehumanise muslims?

kylith

And if one picture of someone purported to be Mohammed dehumanises Muslims, why is there no campaign to stop the decades long joking about bestiality in rural areas? Isn't it dehumanising to people from Kerry, Wales, or New Zealand?

MrPudding

And if people that are muslim aren't particularly bothered, like those on our very own islamic forum informed you when you asked (and many, many more around the world I am sure have the same attitude), why do you insist on being outraged for them?

MrP

Gbear

SpaceTime wrote: »

It recommended removing it and just having a general anti religious hate crime type legislation.

I think we were already covered for that though under normal legislation though.

I don't really see the difference between the blasphemy law and hate crime laws relating to speech (as opposed to actual violence - different subject).

The former just happens to inconvenience those on this forum more.

robindch

Gbear wrote: »

I don't really see the difference between the blasphemy law and hate crime laws relating to speech (as opposed to actual violence - different subject).

Hate speech happens when you insult an individual or a group. Blasphemy is when you insult an idea.

Big difference.

Bannasidhe

Gbear wrote: »

I don't really see the difference between the blasphemy law and hate crime laws relating to speech (as opposed to actual violence - different subject).

The former just happens to inconvenience those on this forum more.

You don't see the difference between saying 'I do not believe Jesus Christ was the Messiah' and 'I think anyone *insert minority group here* is inferior and should be treated as such'? Really????

Banbh

Gbear is right; it is the same thing. If I were to say that the Koran is a pile of garbage, clearly written by an illiterate camel trader, that would be taken as an incitement to hatred by any Muslim, although I am merely offering a literary criticism of a book.

Bannasidhe

Banbh wrote: »

Gbear is right; it is the same thing. If I were to say that the Koran is a pile of garbage, clearly written by an illiterate camel trader, that would be taken as an incitement to hatred by any Muslim, although I am merely offering a literary criticism of a book.

The difference being that Muhammad is long dead and what you are disputing is a belief whereas members of minorities are alive and still being dumped upon as the hysteria surrounding the possibility that Roma might have blond haired, blue eyed children just demonstrated.

There is, to my way of thinking, a huge difference between saying - 'I think this religious belief is wrong' (i.e. blasphemy) and 'I think these people are inferior and we should treat them as such' (i.e. incitement to hate).

Saying the Koran is a load of bovine excrement is not the same as saying Muslims are 'sub' human - it is saying 'I don't agree with them and I do not think their particular Holy Book is what they say it is.'

SpaceTime

I think though the existing laws against hate crimes in Ireland would already protect minority groups from persecution or attack when/if this notion of blasphemy is removed.

There's a big difference between criticism of an idea and attacking a group. It's a bit like the boards.ie mantra of 'attack the post and not the poster'.

I don't think religion needs to be given a special treatment in this case. If anything, the biggest sources of hate crime in Ireland at present tend to be racism based on skin colour and homophobia and neither of those two are getting any special extra laws in the constitution, yet they're areas that actually affect people on a pretty regular basis. There isn't a whole load of religious persecution going on in Ireland and really never has been. If anything, religions were given way too much power and respect in the past to the point that we had crimes being hidden behind notions that Canon Law was superior to national law!

I would be far more in favour of law based on fundamental human rights, freedom of speech and democracy rather than political correctness.

Gbear

robindch wrote: »

Hate speech happens when you insult an individual or a group. Blasphemy is when you insult an idea.

Big difference.

Is calling someone a ****ebag "hate speech"?

What is the purpose of hate speech legislation?
What is the purpose of blasphemy legislation?

In both cases it's about protecting the recipients from being offended.

Which is ludicrous because offence can only be taken. It cannot be given.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You don't see the difference between saying 'I do not believe Jesus Christ was the Messiah' and 'I think anyone *insert minority group here* is inferior and should be treated as such'? Really????

It depends what you mean by "don't you see the difference?". I don't think the law should make a distinction. And that's a disingenuously benign form of blasphemy you've used to suit your argument.

I cannot say that the offence taken when I tell a muslim, for example, that "Islam is a load of ****e and Muhammed was a warmongering ****" is any less legitimate than saying "Black people are mentally inferior".

Gordon

I know a few people called Muhammad, which person are we talking about?

Bannasidhe

Gbear wrote: »

It depends what you mean by "don't you see the difference?". I don't think the law should make a distinction. And that's a disingenuously benign form of blasphemy you've used to suit your argument.

I cannot say that the offence taken when I tell a muslim, for example, that "Islam is a load of ****e and Muhammed was a warmongering ****" is any less legitimate than saying "Black people are mentally inferior".

Because in one instance you are stating that you do not agree that Mohammad was the spokesman for an almighty creator - albeit in an inflammatory manner designed to insult but no where in that statement did you state that because you believe "Islam is a load of ****e and Muhammed was a warmongering ****" all Muslims should be treated as lesser human beings.

Unlike saying "Black people are mentally inferior" which is saying that they lack the mental capacity of other races and should be treated as if they cannot make fully informed decisions for themselves.

28064212

Gbear wrote: »

What is the purpose of hate speech legislation?
What is the purpose of blasphemy legislation?

In both cases it's about protecting the recipients from being offended

Ummm, no, it's not. You can be guilty of hate speech without ever talking to the group you are making hate speech against. The 'hatred' in the phrase "Incitement to hatred" does not refer to hatred felt by the targets of hate speech, it refers to inciting more hatred in others against the targets. That's a pretty fundamentally important distinction

swampgas

Gbear wrote: »

In both cases it's about protecting the recipients from being offended.
Which is ludicrous because offence can only be taken. It cannot be given.

What's so bad about being offended? Seriously?

A lot of the time when "people get offended" there is a power play going on to try to shut down the unwelcome message or to avoid answering difficult questions.

If something offends me, I will either ignore it or engage with it. My response to something I find offensive may be considered offensive in turn by someone else, that's inevitable but I don't see it as a problem.

I certainly don't want to live in a world so restricted that nobody can ever offend me, or I them, without fear of legal penalty.

Bannasidhe

swampgas wrote: »

What's so bad about being offended? Seriously?

A lot of the time when "people get offended" there is a power play going on to try to shut down the unwelcome message or to avoid answering difficult questions.

If something offends me, I will either ignore it or engage with it. My response to something I find offensive may be considered offensive in turn by someone else, that's inevitable but I don't see it as a problem.

I certainly don't want to live in a world so restricted that nobody can ever offend me, or I them, without fear of legal penalty.

Hey - I am a left-wing atheist lesbian mother academic who is allergic to cats, thinks cars are nothing more than a form of transport and finds 'metal' dull and I don't play any of those silly computer games (:P) - I could find something to be 'offended' by in nearly every forum on boards and I 'offend' a lot of poster simply by existing. .

smacl

Gbear wrote: »

Is calling someone a ****ebag "hate speech"?

What is the purpose of hate speech legislation?
What is the purpose of blasphemy legislation?

In both cases it's about protecting the recipients from being offended.

The difference is that the former relates to protecting one or more individuals, whereas the latter to protecting an abstract idea. The former is imho basically the equivalent of banning ad hominem attacks during a debate such as this. As for the latter, you poke an abstract idea with a pointy stick and it doesn't bleed.

worded

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So what constitutes 'blasphemy'? Does anyone know? It seems very vague, non specific and undefined!

The life of Brian explains it all

smacl

swampgas wrote: »

I certainly don't want to live in a world so restricted that nobody can ever offend me, or I them, without fear of legal penalty.

Fair enough, but would you consider public displays of racism or homophobia acceptable? Freedom of expression is fine and dandy, but most people would place limits somewhere. It really comes down to where. For me where these lines line are far from obvious.

Banbh

There must have been a quare few Jesuits at the that convention.
So, is this it?:
'Mohammed was a paedophile' is not hate speech but it is blasphemous.
'Muslims worship a padeophile' is hate speech but is not blasphemous.