Campaign to repeal the blasphemy law

Michael Nugent

There will be a public meeting at 3 pm this Saturday, 15th Sept, in Buswells Hotel Dublin, to shape the campaign for a Yes vote to repeal the blasphemy law from the constitution.

There will be a referendum on 26 October (along with the Presidential election) in which we can vote to repeal this anachronistic offence.

We support the right to freedom of religion or belief, the right to freedom of speech, and the separation of church and State. The Irish blasphemy law infringes all of these principles. It has no place in a modern democratic republic.

Our blasphemy law is harmful. In Ireland, it has caused media outlets to self-censor themselves. Globally, it has emboldened States with more authoritarian blasphemy laws, who have cited the Irish law at the UN to support theirs.

Please attend this public meeting on Saturday where you can help to shape the campaign to repeal this law. We will also hold other public meetings around the country, along with information tables, leaflets, canvasses, and a media campaign.

Kidchameleon

I will be voting to repeal obviously, but I don't know which is worse, the blasphemy law, or the unwritten "cannot criticize Islam" law. Our media outlets self sensor themselves against that too.

Hotblack Desiato

Didn't take long for the whataboutery to start.

ELM327

I will vote to repeal this of course.
Agree with the above point, there should be a replacement stating that any and all religions are expressly open for rational criticism. Including Islam

magicbastarder

ELM327 wrote: »

there should be a replacement stating that any and all religions are expressly open for rational criticism. Including Islam

disagree. the constitution should be silent on the matter.

ELM327

magicbastarder wrote: »

disagree. the constitution should be silent on the matter.

Silence is better than prohibition of course.
If something is not prohibited then it's permitted.

magicbastarder

ELM327 wrote: »

If something is not prohibited then it's permitted.

the constitution is just the first layer, of course. this is not the first - or last - issue which should be taken out of the constitution and dealt with using legislation where required or sensible.

ELM327

magicbastarder wrote: »

the constitution is just the first layer, of course. this is not the first - or last - issue which should be taken out of the constitution and dealt with using legislation where required or sensible.

Agreed.
At this stage it would have been easier to just write a new constitution and have a referendum to scrap the old one and replace en masse.
It's a far way from the '37 council of bishops we are now

magicbastarder

i know where you're coming from on that, but can you imagine the committees, focus groups, public consultation, research, you name it, we'd have to go through for the proposed constitution to be shot down in the end?
the general reaction from joe soap would be that they would not be willing to vote in a constitution they see as flawed - and everyone would find something they'd consider a flaw.

The high horse brigade

We need to completely rewrite the Constitution, it's a prayerbook

Michael Nugent

At the opening meeting yesterday of the campaign to remove the blasphemy law, I outlined the history of the law and why it is important to vote yes to remove it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CEY12WWkF0

Muppet Man

Michael Nugent wrote: »

At the opening meeting yesterday of the campaign to remove the blasphemy law, I outlined the history of the law and why it is important to vote yes to remove it.]

Thx Michael, your first argument on self censorship reminds me of the first post here in our own joke thread...

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057062433/1/#post87043081

Keep up the good work.

Muppet man

ancapailldorcha

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I will be voting to repeal obviously, but I don't know which is worse, the blasphemy law, or the unwritten "cannot criticize Islam" law. Our media outlets self sensor themselves against that too.

Easy. One is real while the other is just today's right wing fetishisation of victimhood.

Kidchameleon

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Easy. One is real while the other is just today's right wing fetishisation of victimhood.

Im not sure, would you stand on a milk crate with a megaphone in the middle of temple bar screaming about everything wrong with Islam? You would be dragged off kicking by the guards, if on the other hand your subject was Christianity / Catholic you would be left alone

ancapailldorcha

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Im not sure, would you stand on a milk crate with a megaphone in the middle of temple bar screaming about everything wrong with Islam? You would be dragged off kicking by the guards, if on the other hand your subject was Christianity / Catholic you would be left alone

This is just nonsense to be honest. There have been plenty of far right anti-Muslim marches and the police have facilitated them, not prohibited them.

Michael Nugent

It is interesting that Mattie McGrath supported the blasphemy referendum during yesterday’s Dail debate.

Here are his reasons.

It is worth familiarising ourselves with them for responding to conservative concerns.

Mattie McGrath (extract from his Dail speech yesterday) wrote:

I am happy to speak on this Bill. I acknowledge that the issue of removing the offence of blasphemy is a source of deep concern for a very significant proportion of the population. I share those people's view that respect for authentically held religious values has been on the decline for decades. Anti-Catholic rhetoric in particular is rampant. Indeed, some have even described such views as the last acceptable public prejudice. That said, I support the Government's Bill to repeal the blasphemy clause from the Constitution. As Our Lord said: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's”.

Ever since the 1996 Constitution Review Group found that the contents of the offence of blasphemy "are totally unclear and are potentially at variance with guarantees of free speech and freedom of conscience in a pluralistic society", the end has been coming for this particular clause in Article 40.6.1o. The issue also received a substantial and detailed analysis in the sixth report of the Constitutional Convention, which was established by the then Government in 2012. As I understand it, however, the convention voted in favour of including a new constitutional provision against religious hatred, with 53% of members in favour, 38% against and 9% undecided.

I am aware that many people will see the position I am taking as some kind of concession to those who want to remove even the mention of God or the sacred from our culture and society. That is emphatically not the case. I simply hold the view that it is not tenable for the State to involve itself in the making of theological judgments, much less enforce specific theological or philosophical judgments by any one particular creed or church. I believe in the separation of church and state. I do not believe, however, that that separation should become a division, which some people would like it to be. The church has a vital role to play in our society and it works effectively in a spirit of collaboration with the State on many issues. That role needs to be respected and protected. It is not appropriate for the State to act as the guard dog of any particular church. Such a position harms both church and State, an outcome that is in no one's interests. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Im not sure, would you stand on a milk crate with a megaphone in the middle of temple bar screaming about everything wrong with Islam? You would be dragged off kicking by the guards, if on the other hand your subject was Christianity / Catholic you would be left alone

Idle, paranoid and completely inaccurate speculation - as you well know.

Michael Nugent

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Im not sure, would you stand on a milk crate with a megaphone in the middle of temple bar screaming about everything wrong with Islam? You would be dragged off kicking by the guards, if on the other hand your subject was Christianity / Catholic you would be left alone

If you stood on a milk crate with a megaphone in the middle of temple bar screaming about anything, the police would stop you.

recedite

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is just nonsense to be honest. There have been plenty of far right anti-Muslim marches and the police have facilitated them, not prohibited them.

Can you give examples?
A quick Google search returns the opposite, though in this case Google may not be entirely impartial.

Kidchameleon

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is just nonsense to be honest. There have been plenty of far right anti-Muslim marches and the police have facilitated them, not prohibited them.

Plenty? I have never ever seen even one. Would you be able to back up your claim that there have been "plenty" or anti-muslim marches in this country? I never mentioned far right by the way.

robindch wrote: »

Idle, paranoid and completely inaccurate speculation - as you well know.

As far as I know, no person would be able to criticize Islam in this country.

Michael Nugent

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As far as I know, no person would be able to criticize Islam in this country.

I regularly criticise Islam (and other religions) while also working with Muslims as people to protect their human rights.

For examples, feel free to go to my website and use the search box to search for the word Islam.

However, mainstream media outlets do self-censor themselves with regard to statements that they fear might be considered blasphemous.

In my experience, this self-censorship spans all religions. Mainstream media outlets generally just don't want to get involved.

ancapailldorcha

recedite wrote: »

Can you give examples?
A quick Google search returns the opposite, though in this case Google may not be entirely impartial.

I can have a look once I see proof for the assertion that Islam can't be criticised.

Kidchameleon

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I can have a look once I see proof for the assertion that Islam can't be criticised.

AH the old prove a negative argument (I'm just being humorous)

Kidchameleon

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I regularly criticise Islam (and other religions) while also working with Muslims as people to protect their human rights.

For examples, feel free to go to my website and use the search box to search for the word Islam.

Thanks ill look into that now.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

However, mainstream media outlets do self-censor themselves with regard to statements that they fear might be considered blasphemous.

In my experience, this self-censorship spans all religions. Mainstream media outlets generally just don't want to get involved.

I'm all for removing blasphemy from the constitution but I wonder, will that make the media relax? Will the start to (rightly) criticize religions when necessary? Or will they feel free to criticize some and leave others untouched?

Kidchameleon

robindch wrote: »

Idle, paranoid and completely inaccurate speculation - as you well know.

In your opinion, would I be free to start a thread in After Hours, criticizing Islam?

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

In your opinion, would I be free to start a thread in After Hours, criticizing Islam?

Any reason to think you wouldn't? No shortage of taking the mickey out of Allah and friends on the funnies thread here so couldn't see it being an issue on AH.

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As far as I know, no person would be able to criticize Islam in this country.

Well, in fairness that's not a statement of fact, it's a statement about what you know

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

Any reason to think you wouldn't? No shortage of taking the mickey out of Allah and friends on the funnies thread here so couldn't see it being an issue on AH.

As discussed on this thread, the media are afraid to do it, I seemingly wrongly thought Boards would be afraid to host such content. Perhaps I will give it a try...

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As discussed on this thread, the media are afraid to do it, I seemingly wrongly thought Boards would be afraid to host such content. Perhaps I will give it a try...

It is something that is often asserted but rarely well supported. From my experience it is mostly empty rhetoric from anti-immigration conservatives and right w(h)ingers. Pretty much every poster on this board denigrates Islam as leading the poll as the most misogynistic and homophobic religion out there, and the appalling human rights record for places like Saudi Arabia which relate to Islam. IMHO, this doesn't make muslims bad people any more than Catholicism makes catholics bad people, merely that the religion and its hierarchy are highly dubious. I'm of the opinion that we should be highly critical of it on that basis. YMMV.

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

Any reason to think you wouldn't? No shortage of taking the mickey out of Allah and friends on the funnies thread here so couldn't see it being an issue on AH.

I started a thread in after hours about funny Muhammad pics, it was locked within half an hour, so I have every reason to think so now...

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I started a thread in after hours about funny Muhammad pics, it was locked within half an hour, so I have every reason to think so now...

Link please? Don't see it either in AH or in the threads started by you in your profile.

The high horse brigade

smacl wrote: »

Link please? Don't see it either in AH or in the threads started by you in your profile.

I saw it, it was locked by a mod but most likely deleted since

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

Link please? Don't see it either in AH or in the threads started by you in your profile.

I need to take care not to discuss mod actions but it appears to have been deleted.

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

Any reason to think you wouldn't? No shortage of taking the mickey out of Allah and friends on the funnies thread here so couldn't see it being an issue on AH.

Just out of interest, would you have a link to an example?

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Just out of interest, would you have a link to an example?

One of my own posts from just a few weeks back on this very thread; https://touch.boards.ie/thread/post/107571627

Also check the funnies thread for anything on Mo (pbuh) who is regularly depicted as a paedo, or just do a search for Islam on this forum. The burqa thread also makes for some good reading. Islam is not treated with kid gloves here.

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I need to take care not to discuss mod actions but it appears to have been deleted.

I'm guessing that usually a mod would PM you with a reason for this, i.e. where your post specifically broke the charter for that forum. Difficult to know, but are you sure it was actually for criticising Islam? e.g. If I started a thread saying all Muslims are ****, I'd expect it to be deleted and get reprimanded. Same would be true if I said all Christians are **** or all Man United fans are ****. The offensive bit isn't criticism of Islam, Christianity or Man United, it is calling any group of people ****. Worth remembering there's a difference between criticism and unsupported slagging, even on AH.

Kidchameleon

It was a thread where I asked posters to draw a picture of Muhammad in MSPaint. I was not allowed to start one about Jesus either.

recedite

A person can be a mod on one forum, but only a regular poster on another. And different forums have different regimes. So you can challenge ancapailldorcha to back up an assertion on this forum, but if you made the same challenge on the after hours or politics forums, your post would disappear pronto.

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It was a thread where I asked posters to draw a picture of Muhammad in MSPaint. I was not allowed to start one about Jesus either.

This clearly shows that the issue isn't specifically about criticising Islam, more about inciting others to blasphemy which as per this thread, is currently illegal. It could also be seen as inciting religious discrimination which is against the charter. What it does illustrate (pardon the pun) is why repealing blasphemy laws are important, e.g. Allah, Jesus, Thor, Unicorns and the Wicked witch of the west, don't deserve protection under the law for pretty obvious reasons. At the same time, it isn't acceptable to discriminate against groups of people (or incite others to do so) based on their religious beliefs.

A core secular principal is balancing freedom of religion with freedom from religion.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

A person can be a mod on one forum, but only a regular poster on another. And different forums have different regimes. So you can challenge ancapailldorcha to back up an assertion on this forum, but if you made the same challenge on the after hours or politics forums, your post would disappear pronto.

Whereas if we challenge you to back up an assertion we don't hear squat :rolleyes:

Kidchameleon

When blasphemy is repealed, I will start a thread (with mods permission) asking people to draw any deity in ms paint, we will see how free we are then.

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

When blasphemy is repealed, I will start a thread (with mods permission) asking people to draw any deity in ms paint, we will see how free we are then.

Excellent, I'll practice my rendition of Ah Pook*. I'm wondering if you'd said any deity to start with would it be allowed already, as in this case it would be neither discriminator or directly blasphemous.

*

Just waiting for someone to come along and say Ah Pook is ficticious and not a real god :pac:

Niska

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As discussed on this thread, the media are afraid to do it, I seemingly wrongly thought Boards would be afraid to host such content. Perhaps I will give it a try...

The Humour forum has both a Mohammed LOL and Jesus lol threads (both stickies):

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=225541

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054885222

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

Excellent, I'll practice my rendition of Ah Pook*. I'm wondering if you'd said any deity to start with would it be allowed already, as in this case it would be neither discriminator or directly blasphemous.

*

Just waiting for someone to come along and say Ah Pook is ficticious and not a real god :pac:

I don't want to pester the mod so I'm not going to ask, but I believe it would not be OK at the moment. I'll wait until the referendum is done.

Kidchameleon

Michael Nugent wrote: »

For examples, feel free to go to my website and use the search box to search for the word Islam.

Hi I went to your website, it is great thank you, lots of great articles. I noticed in the "cartoons" section, there are no pictures of Muhammad, would you consider putting one there? Apologies, I'm not trying to derail the thread, I'm just wondering if we repeal blasphemy, then what is the point if we still have to sensor ourselves?

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

In your opinion, would I be free to start a thread in After Hours, criticizing Islam?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As far as I know, no person would be able to criticize Islam in this country.

Well, you yourself have made at least one uncivil, blanket assertion about muslims over in After Hours, the incivility of which was not only completely ignored by the mod team there, but by everybody else too:

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Op is very easily offended. Sounds more like a muslim actually...

As ever, it seems that the people telling us that everybody else is easily offended are actually the ones most easily offended themselves.

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I don't want to pester the mod so I'm not going to ask, but I believe it would not be OK at the moment. I'll wait until the referendum is done.

There are plenty of comments, articles and cartoons critical of islam, just as there are plenty of comments, articles and cartoons critical of other religions too - islam having fewer of them, since it's a much less pervasive religion here in Ireland.

You are entirely free to start whatever thread you like in A+A once you meet the forum charter. Your claim that you're frightened to open a thread because the constitution's provision for blasphemy remains in place is completely ridiculous.

Here, for your admiration, is an open thread with almost 300 posts on the topic of drawing Mohammed. I note that you haven't contributed to it:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65838472

ancapailldorcha

Schrodinger's right winger. Constantly censuring Muslims and Islam while moaning about being unable to censure Muslims and Islam.

mcmoustache

Kidchameleon wrote: »

When blasphemy is repealed, I will start a thread (with mods permission) asking people to draw any deity in ms paint, we will see how free we are then.

I'll happily join in. I'll see if I can draw the "Mohamed with a bomb in his turbin" costume that I wore to a Halloween party 8 or 9 years ago.

Kidchameleon

robindch wrote: »

Your claim that you're frightened to open a thread because the constitution's provision for blasphemy remains in place is completely ridiculous.

I opened a thread and was warned I would be banned if I opened another one. Its not ridiculous, its literally happening. I asked the mod for the reason and I was not given one so I'm not sure what part of the charter I violated.

*EDIT* Also, where did I claim I couldn't open the thread because of what was in the constitution? I still have not been given a reason as to why the thread was closed and why I received a warning. I may have speculated as to that being the reason but to be clear, I don't know what the reason is.

Kidchameleon

robindch wrote: »

As ever, it seems that the people telling us that everybody else is easily offended are actually the ones most easily offended themselves.

I genuinely don't know what you mean or what a post I made * years ago has to do with it. Could you elaborate. If it helps, I'm pretty sure never said anyone was offended by my thread, if I did could you show me where.



* when was the post you quoted made?