Referendum-watch - Remove "blasphemy" from the Constitution?

Delirium

The Government is set to agree to hold a referendum on removing the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution, following recommendations of the constitutional convention earlier this year.

Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald is to bring a memo to Cabinet today proposing that a referendum be held on the issue.

While no timeframe is outlined, it is claimed the vote will be held on “an appropriate date to be decided by the Government”.

full article

Should have been done when they worked on the blasphemy law previously.

robindch

Well, this one came out of left field, but no less welcome.

Minister for Justice, Frances Fitzgerald, is to propose to the cabinet to hold a referendum on removing blasphemy from the Irish Constitution.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-due-on-removing-blasphemy-from-constitution-1.1945835

Irish Times wrote:

The Government is set to agree to hold a referendum on removing the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution, following recommendations of the constitutional convention earlier this year. Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald is to bring a memo to Cabinet today proposing that a referendum be held on the issue.
While no timeframe is outlined, it is claimed the vote will be held on “an appropriate date to be decided by the Government”.

Ms Fitzgerald’s proposal, which is due to be discussed by Ministers at their weekly meeting, is to accept the convention’s recommendation of a referendum to “delete the offence of blasphemy” from the constitution.
The sixth report from the convention, submitted to the Government in January, said a “clear majority” of members of the constitutional thinktank favoured the removal of the blasphemy clause.

It also proposed replacing the offence of blasphemy with “the introduction of a new set of detailed legislative provisions to include incitement to religious hatred”.

Former minister for justice Dermot Ahern introduced a new crime of blasphemous libel in 2009, with the offence coming with a fine of at least €25,000. At the time, Mr Ahern said it was a short-term solution to avoid holding a referendum in an economic crisis.

The constitutional convention said in its report that it received “very many” submissions on blasphemy and said “there seemed to be an overwhelming support for the removal of the clause. The issue is regarded by many of those who made submissions as part of a much wider debate, including the role of God and religion in the Constitution and the separation of Church and State.” Following recommendations from the constitutional convention, the Government has already committed to holding referendums on same-sex marriage, reducing the voting age to 16 and lowering the age at which people can run for the presidency.

It is expected all three will be held next spring, probably in April, although there have been some arguments for holding the same-sex marriage referendum on its own, alongside the byelection to fill the Carlow Kilkenny Dáil seat vacated by Phil Hogan if he is made European commissioner.

lazygal

Countdown to Iona complaining begins…….

Nick Park

Ludicrous that such a silly law needs a referendum in order to get rid of it - but a positive step nonetheless.

MrPudding

Nick Park wrote: »

Ludicrous that such a silly law needs a referendum in order to get rid of it - but a positive step nonetheless.

They don't need a referendum to remove the law. They need a referendum to change the constitution to remove references to blasphemy. It is the constitutional references that caused the (supposed) requirement for the law to be written.

Two things need to happen, first, the constitutional amendment, this we are talking about here, and secondly, repealing the legislation. Do not confuse one with the other.

MrP

Turtwig

This is good, but iirc the convention recommended a "incitement to religious hatred" offence. Which imo could be even worse.

/skeptical

eyescreamcone

Up yours Allah and Thor!

MrPudding

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Up yours Allah and Thor!

Careful now. They have still not removed it, you can still get done.

MrP

robindch

Turtwig wrote: »

This is good, but iirc the convention recommended a "incitement to religious hatred" offence. Which imo could be even worse.

Well, as MrP points out, the first thing that has to go is the reference to blasphmeny in the Constitution. Following that, the law providing for the heavy fine is likely to be repealed.

Then, new legislation is likely to be brought forward in the general area of "incitement to hatred" - I can't recall in much detail what Ireland have in this area already, but countries do limit free speech in those terms, specifically hatred based upon race, ethnicity, sexuality, physical attributes etc. Incitement to religious hatred should be viewed at least a differently since religion is (supposed to be) something you choose and can change, not an innate attribute like ethnicity, race etc which you don't and can't.

keane2097

robindch wrote: »

Well, as MrP points out, the first thing that has to go is the reference to blasphmeny in the Constitution. Following that, the law providing for the heavy fine is likely to be repealed.

Then, new legislation is likely to be brought forward in the general area of "incitement to hatred" - I can't recall in much detail what Ireland have in this area already, but countries do limit free speech in those terms, specifically hatred based upon race, ethnicity, sexuality, physical attributes etc. Incitement to religious hatred should be viewed at least a differently since religion is (supposed to be) something you choose and can change, not an innate attribute like ethnicity, race etc which you don't and can't.

Presumably this is the sort of law under which people are being jailed for outlandish abuse on twitter etc?

An "incitement to religious hatred" notion seems ok to me from the POV that spitting venom at Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists because they are Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists doesn't sit well, although I suppose the idea of legislating against anti-blonde jokes is only a step further down the road then.

Ah well, yet another ethical issue I don't know where to come down on!

AshOB

lazygal wrote: »

Countdown to Iona complaining begins…….

Actually I think David Quinn is on record as saying he supports the removal of blasphemy from the constitution. Not sure what he wants it replaced with...

robindch

AshOB wrote: »

Not sure what he wants it replaced with...

The Ten Commandments?

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Well, as MrP points out, the first thing that has to go is the reference to blasphmeny in the Constitution. Following that, the law providing for the heavy fine is likely to be repealed.

Then, new legislation is likely to be brought forward in the general area of "incitement to hatred" - I can't recall in much detail what Ireland have in this area already, but countries do limit free speech in those terms, specifically hatred based upon race, ethnicity, sexuality, physical attributes etc. Incitement to religious hatred should be viewed at least a differently since religion is (supposed to be) something you choose and can change, not an innate attribute like ethnicity, race etc which you don't and can't.

Two thoughts:

First, the Convention recommended not only that the constitutional requirement that there should be a blasphemy offence should be deleted but also that it should be replaced with “a general provision to include incitement to religious hatred”. And there was a further recommendation that there should be detailed legislation to fill this out, which would again include incitement to religious hatred.

Which means that the first question the government will face is, do we simply bring forward a referendum to delete the existing constitutional provision or, as the Convention recommended, do we seek to replace it? And, if we replace it, with what, exactly? The Convention recommendation was the new provision should “include” (i.e. should not necessarily be limited to) incitement to religious hatred.

Obviously, if they are going to do as the Convention recommended, they will seek to put some high-level statement of principle in the Constitution, and this will set parameters for what the more detailed legislation can and cannot provide.

Secondly, I take the point that belief is a choice which can be changed, not an innate characteristic like gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. But how important is this? Existing equality legislation covers both inherent characteristics like gender and ethnicity and elective characteristics like marital status and religious belief or the lack of it. Indeed, a common criticism of existing equality legislation on this board is that it fails to provide sufficient protection on the religion ground (in that it allows religious schools to hire employees on the basis of religious belief). So, clearly, treating someone adversely on the basis of a choice they have made is, both in Irish law and in the minds of Boardies, capable of being regarded as just as objectionable as treating them adversely on the basis of an inherent characteristic.

Should the position be different here? Existing equality legislation limits property right and freedom of association; incitement/“hate speech” legislation will limit freedom of speech. It’s not immediately obvious that if we don’t distinguish between inherent characteristics and chosen characteristics in the former, we should in the latter.

more than S.A.D.

I don't believe your religious views are something you can change, no more than you can change your gender.
Are you an atheist? Can you change?
Ask a devoted Christian, or Jew, could they change?
Or someone who was brought up in any religion, or none, and converted (reverted?) to Islam, can they change?

/OT

lazygal

more than S.A.D. wrote: »

I don't believe your religious views are something you can change, no more than you can change your gender.
Are you an atheist? Can you change?
Ask a devoted Christian, or Jew, could they change?
Or someone who was brought up in any religion, or none, and converted (reverted?) to Islam, can they change?

/OT

What? I was raised Catholic and was pretty involved in the church growing up because I knew no different. I'm not Catholic any more. Loads of people reject religion or convert to other faiths. Religion is a choice.

Peregrinus

more than S.A.D. wrote: »

I don't believe your religious views are something you can change, no more than you can change your gender.
Are you an atheist? Can you change?
Ask a devoted Christian, or Jew, could they change?
Or someone who was brought up in any religion, or none, and converted (reverted?) to Islam, can they change?

The evidence is against you. Lots of people do change their religious views. Arguably, most people change their religious views to some extent, and a fairly signficant minority change their religious views to the extent that they change religions, or become unbelievers (or, having been unbelievers, become believers).

more than S.A.D.

What was it yer man John 3:16 said? Do not marvel what I say to you, you must be born again.

Yeah your views may change, but they are what they are at the time, and then you find the 'truth' whatever that may be for you...
It's not really a conscious decision, like what will I have for breakfast, what religion will I be today...

Absolam

more than S.A.D. wrote: »

It's not really a conscious decision, like what will I have for breakfast, what religion will I be today...

What about 'What if I read this book today?' or "What if I consider this scientific theory today'? These would be conscious decisions which could cause someone to change/abandon/embrace religions.
Or if you're feeling really philosophical one morning, 'what will I have for breakfast' could maybe do the trick even...

more than S.A.D.

Biscuit, or cake?

Absolam

more than S.A.D. wrote: »

Biscuit, or cake?

That's schism talk that is.

Peregrinus

Well, what you believe is not a decision you make as lightly as what you'll have for breakfast, or as capriciously. But it's still a decision.

Even if you take the line that you are compelled to a particular belief by the evidence, or by reason, or by your experience, or whatever, there is still a decision there - namely, the decision to shape your beliefs according to evidence/reason/experience/whatever.

lazygal

more than S.A.D. wrote: »

What was it yer man John 3:16 said? Do not marvel what I say to you, you must be born again.

Yeah your views may change, but they are what they are at the time, and then you find the 'truth' whatever that may be for you...
It's not really a conscious decision, like what will I have for breakfast, what religion will I be today...

Why must I be born again? Suppose I never come across the bible, does that mean I'm doomed? We're not raising our children in a faith, do you think they should be? Would they be making a conscious decision if they decided to follow a faith?

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, what you believe is not a decision you make as lightly as what you'll have for breakfast, or as capriciously. But it's still a decision.

Even if you take the line that you are compelled to a particular belief by the evidence, or by reason, or by your experience, or whatever, there is still a decision there - namely, the decision to shape your beliefs according to evidence/reason/experience/whatever.

This is a tricky thing, for me anyway. We are told by a number of the more evangelical poster that we must beleive before we will get proof. If we decide to believe then we will be entered by something and changed. Aside from the fact that I find this kind of creepy, I literally cannot force myself to believe something I find patently ridiculous. I can't choose to beleive god exists.

But, perhaps you are right... Perhaps I could somehow make a decision to ignore what I beleive and believe in god but first, I can't see a way to do this and secondly, even if I somehow could, I would just be pretending. There is also the fact that I really don't want to, because I genuinely believe it is rubbish and I see no benefit in trying to make myself beleive.

MrP

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

This is a tricky thing, for me anyway. We are told by a number of the more evangelical poster that we must beleive before we will get proof. If we decide to believe then we will be entered by something and changed. Aside from the fact that I find this kind of creepy, I literally cannot force myself to believe something I find patently ridiculous. I can't choose to beleive god exists.

But, perhaps you are right... Perhaps I could somehow make a decision to ignore what I beleive and believe in god but first, I can't see a way to do this and secondly, even if I somehow could, I would just be pretending. There is also the fact that I really don't want to, because I genuinely believe it is rubbish and I see no benefit in trying to make myself beleive.

MrP

Well, just to put this in the context of hate speech legislation, it’s Robin back in post #9 who suggests there may be a distinction between hate speech focussed on something like gender or ethnicity, which is inherited and is difficult or impossible to change, and hate speech focussed on religious belief which, OK, is also inherited to a significant extent, but is (Robin’s words, but I’m inclined to agree with him) “something you choose and can change”.


I take the point that you (that’s the generic “you”, not you, MrPudding) will be unable to believe certain things, because they are flatly contradicted by evidence (“the moon is made of green cheese”) or because while theoretically possible they seem wildly unlikely (Russell’s teapot) or because your upbringing and condition predispose you to reject them strongly even before you get to sober consideration of the evidence (“black people are inferior and their natural condition is as dependent slaves of white people”). But once you rule those out there are still a wide range of beliefs you could entertain. And while you don’t choose them in the sense of choosing them capriciously, you do select your beliefs on the basis of definite decisions that you make, or that other suggest to you and you accept. Richard Dawkins, for example, is forever urging people to adopt “evidence-based beliefs”, and he clearly regards that as a choice that people can make. Do you think he is wrong?

And of course people can also choose beliefs for unacknowledged reasons - unacknowledged even to themselves, that is. Whether you describe that as a “choice” is perhaps debatable; maybe it’s only a choice in a qualified sense.

more than S.A.D.

lazygal wrote: »

Why must I be born again? Suppose I never come across the bible, does that mean I'm doomed? We're not raising our children in a faith, do you think they should be? Would they be making a conscious decision if they decided to follow a faith?

Im just amusing myself here rather than trying to get into a philosophical debate, but...

I suppose what I meant was 'born again' in a very broad sense, you have whatever faith you were brought up in, you explore that faith, have some 'awakening' (in a very general sense), and are born again into... a stronger version of that faith? a different faith? no faith? Whatever.

You might have put a lot of thought into which 'faith' (or none) suited you, but how much of a choice did you really have?

Nick Park

I'm not convinced by this argument that hate speech against people who have made a choice (eg atheists or Christians) should be treated as any less objectionable than hate speech against people because of an inherent characteristic (colour of skin or gender).

For example, surely homophobic acts or speech are equally reprehensible whether they are directed at each of the following:
a) Someone who strongly believes they were born gay.
b) A bisexual person who has chosen a same sex relationship rather than a heterosexual relationship.
c) A person who sees themselves as heterosexual but has, due to circumstances (eg being in prison) embarked on a same sex relationship.

I don't see that any of these scenarios are less deserving of protection from hateful speech or acts than the others.

keane2097

I'm not convinced by the prevailing attitude to what belief is.

The fact that it is subject to change doesn't, to my mind anyway, make it something that's subject to choice. I didn't choose to not believe in a god any more than I choose the people I get attracted to.

Anyone here up for taking on the experiment of choosing to believe the Bible for a month?

Both are open to change but I don't really have all that much conscious control over them.

robindch

keane2097 wrote: »

Anyone here up for taking on the experiment of choosing to believe the Bible for a month?

Interesting challenge, but I'm not sure that my mind is bendy enough to "choose to believe" something.

I'll never be able to find the bible credible any more than I'll ever be able to eat celery and find that tasty. Now, one can certainly pretend to believe, or one could proceed as if one believed, but actual belief? Nope + never.

keane2097

robindch wrote: »

Interesting challenge, but I'm not sure that my mind is bendy enough to "choose to believe" something.

I'll never be able to find the bible credible any more than I'll ever be able to eat celery and find that tasty. Now, one can certainly pretend to believe, or one could proceed as if one believed, but actual belief? Nope + never.

Yeah that's how it seems to me as well.

Am I missing something or does that not lead us to the idea that belief or lack of should be as much or little protected as the other stuff mentioned, since we can't control what we believe?

I don't think inciting people to hate Hindus should be any more or less legal than inciting people to hate gay people, say.

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/10/02/for-the-love-of-god/

Seriously, Bannon is a fool. FG seem to be screwing up things in all directions at this stage.

Deputy James Bannon (Fine Gael) speaking in the Dáil this morning on retaining blasphemy legislation in the Constitution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNk2NlB3_nk

Deputy Clare Daly speaking on the same subject said that in 2011, Ireland’s blasphemy legislation was applauded by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

She said “Let’s face it for Ireland to be cited by countries like Pakistan as having the best practice really makes us worse than bedfellows.”

Cabaal

keane2097 wrote: »

Anyone here up for taking on the experiment of choosing to believe the Bible for a month?

But how does that work exactly?

If I choose to believe it I'd have to seriously hurt and/or kill several people I know in the first week.

PopePalpatine

You should see the AH thread on this, everyone's favourite ultramontanist troll has arrived.

shruikan2553

I wont have enough popcorn to last me until the end of this. Seems much like the children argument for SSM, the blasphemy side are going to run with the "PC gone mad" angel because they cant think of anything else.

Absolam

"worse than bedfellows" is quite a strange turn of phrase. Is she saying that being praised by Pakistan is worse than being allied with them? That seems a bit silly... if not quite as silly as Bannons assertion that preventing people from blaspheming preserves the rights of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions, when it would, on the face of it, appear to do the exact opposite....

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Interesting challenge, but I'm not sure that my mind is bendy enough to "choose to believe" something.

Now hold on jest a cotton-pickin’ minute!

This particular line of discussion was started by you, in post #9:

robindch wrote: »

. . . Then, new legislation is likely to be brought forward in the general area of "incitement to hatred" - I can't recall in much detail what Ireland have in this area already, but countries do limit free speech in those terms, specifically hatred based upon race, ethnicity, sexuality, physical attributes etc. Incitement to religious hatred should be viewed at least a differently since religion is (supposed to be) something you choose and can change, not an innate attribute like ethnicity, race etc which you don't and can't.

Now I’m confused. Are you:

(a) changing your position, or

(b) saying that some people can choose their beliefs, but you’re not one of them, but the fact that some people can is grounds for treating incitement with respect to belief differently from incitement with respect to ethnicity, etc, or

(c) saying that in reality we can’t choose our beliefs, but the fact that we are supposed to be able to choose them is grounds for treating incitement with respect to belief differently from incitement with respect to ethnicity, etc, or

(d) saying something else, or

(e) saying two inconsistent things, and damn the consequences?

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Now I’m confused.

Not half as confused as I am as I can't immediately see a link between the two, at least not on a first glance.

Pray, clarify!

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Not half as confused as I am as I can't immediately see a link between the two, at least not on a first glance.

Pray, clarify!

Well, in your earlier post you said that religion is supposed to be something that we choose, and can change, and you seemed to suggest - my apologies if I have picked this up wrongly - that there was enough substance in this supposition that it justified treating religion differently from gender or ethnicity in incitement legislation.

But in your later post you seem to deny that you yourself can choose a religious belief.

There seems to me a tension there. If you can't choose a religious belief, to what extent is religion a choice? And if its not a choice why, in the context of hate speech, would we handle it any differently from gender or ethnicity?

oscarBravo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, in your earlier post you said that religion is supposed to be something that we choose, and can change...

Isn't that objectively true? People choose and change religions all the time.

But in your later post you seem to deny that you yourself can choose a religious belief.

And lots of religious people feel the same way: they can't imagine choosing not to believe what they do.

I can't realistically see myself choosing to believe anything religious in the future, but I can't say it definitely won't happen. The question then, is: are your religious beliefs something you choose, or something that's inherent to you? The former seems more likely to me.

Peregrinus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Isn't that objectively true? People choose and change religions all the time. And lots of religious people feel the same way: they can't imagine choosing not to believe what they do.

I can't realistically see myself choosing to believe anything religious in the future, but I can't say it definitely won't happen. The question then, is: are your religious beliefs something you choose, or something that's inherent to you? The former seems more likely to me.

But there is a tension here; is it meaningful to say that you choose the religious beliefs you have and at the same time to say that you couldn't choose different religious beliefs? If you believe A and assert that you could not choose to believe alternatives B, C or D, in what sense is your belief in A a choice?

keane2097

oscarBravo wrote: »

Isn't that objectively true? People choose and change religions all the time. And lots of religious people feel the same way: they can't imagine choosing not to believe what they do.

I can't realistically see myself choosing to believe anything religious in the future, but I can't say it definitely won't happen. The question then, is: are your religious beliefs something you choose, or something that's inherent to you? The former seems more likely to me.

I don't think it's clear that it's the subject of conscious choice at all.

As I mentioned above, you could try the experiment of choosing to believe in Jesus for the rest of the day?

Brian Shanahan

more than S.A.D. wrote: »

I don't believe your religious views are something you can change, no more than you can change your gender.

I was a committed catlick from age five (when I was the nerdy little fellow who answered all the bish's questions when he came to visit) to about 18, when I went to college. Both before and after I have been an atheist (before because I wasn't yet indoctrinated, after because I grew up and stopped believing). So you can change your religion, just as you can change the team you support or your favourite musician, because it is simply following a human created organisation.

As I said to a previous post, this one is also full of derp.

oscarBravo

Peregrinus wrote: »

But there is a tension here; is it meaningful to say that you choose the religious beliefs you have and at the same time to say that you couldn't choose different religious beliefs? If you believe A and assert that you could not choose to believe alternatives B, C or D, in what sense is your belief in A a choice?

Let's move away from religion for a bit, and talk about beliefs in general.

For a time, people believed that the earth was the centre of the universe. As evidence to the contrary was gathered, people were persuaded otherwise, and believed that the earth orbited the Sun.

If you were to ask someone who had been taught from childhood that the earth was the centre of the universe whether they could ever believe otherwise, they would probably say that no, they couldn't choose to change their beliefs. If you then presented them with compelling evidence, they could be persuaded to believe otherwise.

Did they choose to believe in a geocentric universe? Did they subsequently choose to stop believing in it? Maybe not.

But is their belief somehow intrinsic? Definitely not.

Perhaps the question of whether or not it's a choice is too simplistic.

Peregrinus

Sure, beliefs in general can change. I think we can all agree on that.

Scientific beliefs, as you point out, can change in response to new evidence. But just to run with scientific beliefs for a moment, you do get people who, faced with the same evidence, arrive at different beliefs - you get scientific disagreements. Usually this is because the evidence is ambiguous or incomplete. And in those cases, where beliefs A and B can both be reconciled with the evidence, can we say that adopting A over B is a choice?

Or, consider beliefs about non-scientific questions - ethical beliefs, say, or political allegiances, or judgments about artistic or literary matters. Do we choose those?

And the question which everyone is studiously avoiding - especially you, Robin, since you introduced it but have since resisted all blandishments to discuss it further - why does this matter in the present context? Is is true that beliefs can change, and it may or may not be fair to call changing beliefs a choice, but why is any of this relevant? Why would incitement to hatred on the basis of a malleable characteristic be any less objectionably than incitement to hatred on the basis of an immutable one?

Banbh

One is incitement to hate certain people and the other isn't.

Does anyone have an inkling of what the wording is likely to be in the referendum. As I recall, that Constitutional farce was plugging a much more restrictive form of law than the unenforceable blasphemy one. If the Minister comes up with some new formula, other than a simple removal, we are in for another divisive debate.

We'll know on Tuesday anyway.

Brian Shanahan

What I don't understand is why the perceived need for an "incitement to religious hatred clause". It is already covered by the country's perfectly adequate incitement to hatred law which states in the first section that:

Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 wrote:

“hatred” means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation;

It is already specifically catered for under the law. At best this thinking is an example of unnecessary redundancy to throw a sop to a minority (the committed religious are most definitely a minority in Ireland), where the equivalence in relation to theft would be to have the normal prohibitions against all thefts in one law while the next law will specifically mention the "stealing of valuable jewellry" as a specific offence. But a worse and, in my opinion, more likely interpretation is that the government are leaving the "religious hatred" bit in because they are either too lilly-livered or too tied to the church, still, to come out and openly declare the state to be secular, and are trying in every case to protect the unearned privliges of religion (specifically catholicism) in the constitution, which is a disservice to the people of the country, and frankly borders on treason, by having our national rights document beholden to a foreign power.

Peregrinus

In the real world, we don;t have to speculate about motives the government mighty have for proposing a constitutional reference to incitement to hatred. If they do propose it - and we don't yet know that they will - it will be because that is what the Constitutional Convention has recommended, along with the recommendation to remove the reference to blasphemy. The Constitutional Convention doesn't really count as a foreign power, and implementing its recommendations is unlikely to be widely regarded as bordering on treason.

Hotblack Desiato

As you well know, the foreign power referred to is the Vatican pretend-state.

And screw the constitutional convention tbh, they decided that separation of church and state wasn't really that important but chose to discuss other topics which received far fewer representations from the public. Yes, I made a representation to it on the separation of church and state.

They are supposedly representative of the general public, but in reality many working people and parents chose/were forced to opt out of it, and there was a sizeable contingent of politicians added in just in case the hoi polloi got notions above themselves. They have no mandate from the public and no authority.

The amendment had better be a simple deletion. We should be reducing the special pleading on behalf of religion in our constition, not maintaining or increasing it.

Banbh

The Convention was a veil for the Government to hide behind. It only recommended removing the word blasphemy from the Constitution, not the concept.

"Rather than removing the offence altogether, the members voted by a margin of 53 to 38 to replace it with a general provision to include incitement to religious hatred which would protect religious minorities." - The Journal.

The phrase 'religious hatred' is open to several interpretations. Is it hatred of religion, or of people who practice a religion or hatred by a religious person? I am after all subjected to religious hatred for my opposition to religion but this is not what they are planning on changing.

I read somewhere that the wording would be available from next Tuesday but cannot find that reference.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why would incitement to hatred on the basis of a malleable characteristic be any less objectionably than incitement to hatred on the basis of an immutable one?

This idea generally seems to stem from the acceptance that said characteristic is "wrong", but if it can't be changed, then just accept the person, don't hate them, but try to forgive them. It seems like a quasi-religious sort of morality, in that there is a moralistic judgement going on. So in the case of homosexuality, it is supposedly less hateful if this is not actually a "lifestyle choice".
But what if someone could change their skin colour or their sexuality, would it be any more acceptable for others to incite hatred against them? I don't think so.

Hotblack Desiato

Banbh wrote: »

The phrase 'religious hatred' is open to several interpretations. Is it hatred of religion, or of people who practice a religion or hatred by a religious person? I am after all subjected to religious hatred for my opposition to religion but this is not what they are planning on changing.

Hatred of religion is my religion, I demand that the state vindicate my rights

When you legislate to give favours for something as vague and frankly stupid as religion, there's just no end to the recursive dumbness.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hatred of religion is my religion, I demand that the state vindicate my rights

When you legislate to give favours for something as vague and frankly stupid as religion, there's just no end to the recursive dumbness.

In the interests of keeping the discussion at least marginally connected with reality, existing Irish discrimination legislation deals on a uniform basis with discrimination between people having different religious beliefs, and between people having religious beliefs and those not having religious beliefs.

In other words, religion doesn't get any favours. The non-religious enjoy the same protection as the religious. And presumably any "incitement to hatred" legislation would be framed in a similar way.