Campaign to repeal the blasphemy law

expectationlost

TheChizler wrote: »

Who will be on the no side for "balance" in debates so?

the article suggest there may be no TV debates (perhaps just on radio) but Ali Selim might and John Hamill mentioned the Knights of Columbus I don't know who speaks for them

Pherekydes

TheChizler wrote: »

Who will be on the no side for "balance" in debates so?

Rónán!

Can't wait...

expectationlost

Pherekydes wrote: »

R!

Can't wait...

maybe but he claims he's mostly concerned about the cost, which is lame, his suggestion I think, is go back to the situation before it was legislated for. ( I wonder what he said about this back in ~2009)

In view of all of this, why not simply introduce a Bill to amend the 2009 Act and remove the offence from our law altogether? That could be done in short order and at almost no expense. It would also leave the purely symbolic words in the Constitution where they pose no threat to pluralism and free speech, but of course that would not allow any virtue signalling. That is the problem and that is why we have to have a costly referendum.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2018-09-20a.116#g128
( I wonder what he said about this back in ~2009)

Let me raise the issue of the blasphemy amendment very briefly. It seems those who talk about it being a distraction are the ones causing the distraction. There are arguments for and against the proposal. We need to have a debate very soon on the appropriateness of international bodies putting their welly in, so to speak, on issues in respect of which we are best placed to decide the precise nuance we want in our laws. This is becoming a bit oppressive of our national sovereignty regarding important issues.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?gid=2009-05-20.41.0


he expands here https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?gid=2009-07-09.255.0 contradictions?

robindch

ELM327 wrote: »

Drawing pictures of Jesus is considered ok by the PC brigade, but drawing satirical photos of muhammad is not for some reason.

Here's an example, lets see if I get banned for this, because I know posting a similar caricature of Jesus would be fine.

Zzzzzz.... Honestly, how many times do we have to explain this?

You can post whatever you like within reason here on A+A within the broad remit of the forum charter and the longer rules provided by boards. There are lots of images of Mohammed scattered about the forum and the mod team has no intention of removing any of them.

I can't help but notice that your image links back to the neofascist propaganda website, breitbart, and your post is cluttered with terms which often trigger considerable anger in its angry, white-skinned, but occasionally red-cheeked, base.

Maybe you just need a hug and a nice cup of hot chocolate?

recedite

TheChizler wrote: »

Who will be on the no side for "balance" in debates so?

If nobody steps forward, I think the Referendum Commission should pay an actor to play the part. In the interests of balance.
Maybe Ali G (Borat)?
Or our own Gabriel Rosenstock? They should be able to create a suitable character to front the No campaign.

ELM327

robindch wrote: »

Zzzzzz.... Honestly, how many times do we have to explain this?

You can post whatever you like within reason here on A+A within the broad remit of the forum charter and the longer rules provided by boards. There are lots of images of Mohammed scattered about the forum and the mod team has no intention of removing any of them.

I can't help but notice that your image links back to the neofascist propaganda website, breitbart, and your post is cluttered with terms which often trigger considerable anger in its angry, white-skinned, but occasionally red-cheeked, base.

Maybe you just need a hug and a nice cup of hot chocolate?

I'd love a cup of hot chocolate but as I have ASD the hug might be a little difficult :P


To be honest I googled "Muhammad Caricature" and that was the first line result. I'm not a fascist, despite people's attempts to pin the "fascist" tag on right wing minded folks, it's not fascism. Not always, and fascism is more usually associated with left wing communist/socialist states (eg Italy/Germany in the run up to WW2) than right wing anti-socialist movements. It's a misnomer.




But i digress as this is the A+A forum and not the politics one. I thank you for your clarification and for humouring my somewhat in jest "see if I get banned for this" post .

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

If nobody steps forward, I think the Referendum Commission should pay an actor to play the part. In the interests of balance.
Maybe Ali G (Borat)?
Or our own Gabriel Rosenstock? They should be able to create a suitable character to front the No campaign.

I know there was someone who "debated" with Nugent on radio who was for keeping the law. His name I am pulling from memory only so apologies if I have it wrong. But it was something like Dr Ali Salim or Dr Ali Selim.

So perhaps they can keep rolling him out as the token krank against the change?

EDIT: Here it is, the link should throw you into just after the interview with David Nash and straight into Salim.

ELM327

I think it's interesting that the ilk of Iona et al are still licking their wounds after the last referendum to the point that they are not even willing to debate.
I'd wager that if there had not been an abortion referendum earlier in the year they'd have been full steam ahead defending this one.

Hotblack Desiato

ELM327 wrote: »

and fascism is more usually associated with left wing communist/socialist states (eg Italy/Germany in the run up to WW2)

Ah, not this crap again :rolleyes:

matrim

ELM327 wrote: »

I think it's interesting that the ilk of Iona et al are still licking their wounds after the last referendum to the point that they are not even willing to debate.
I'd wager that if there had not been an abortion referendum earlier in the year they'd have been full steam ahead defending this one.

One of things used against them in the last referendum was that they are always "anti". I'd imagine they want to sit out one or two so that they can come back and they say "we didn't campaign against xyz"

ELM327

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ah, not this crap again :rolleyes:

I see your crap is back again :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
See I can be condescending and rude to you too.

Do you feel better now?
Ready to join the big boy table?

matrim wrote: »

One of things used against them in the last referendum was that they are always "anti". I'd imagine they want to sit out one or two so that they can come back and they say "we didn't campaign against xyz"

But they are always anti. That's their MO. I'd suggest that they are aware they will lose this one too, and instead of being afraid of being accused of constant "anti", they will be labelled as constant "losers", which is of course much worse.

Nick Park

ELM327 wrote: »

I think it's interesting that the ilk of Iona et al are still licking their wounds after the last referendum to the point that they are not even willing to debate.
I'd wager that if there had not been an abortion referendum earlier in the year they'd have been full steam ahead defending this one.

Best to keep your money in your pocket rather than making that wager.

The Iona Institute stated their support for the repeal of the blasphemy laws in Ireland back in November 2013 and again in July 2014.

smacl

ELM327 wrote: »

To be honest I googled "Muhammad Caricature" and that was the first line result. I'm not a fascist, despite people's attempts to pin the "fascist" tag on right wing minded folks, it's not fascism.

Interesting. I just googled "Muhammad Caricature" and I didn't get any links to breitbart.com but then I wouldn't expect to as its not a site i frequent and google by default sends you to sites it thinks you'll find relevant based on your search history. So I opened an incognito window to block this behaviour and did the same thing, still no breitbart. I also tried this on another computer that's not used for browsing and again no breitbart. So while I don't doubt that's what google returned for you, that rather suggests you spend time on breitbart.com and similar related sites.

seamus

@ELM you're pretty far off the mark here.

I think you'll find the "PC" brigade very supportive of the right to utter blasphemy, including drawn pictures of Mohammed.

The only reason people in the west worry about offending Islam is because there was a brief period (which has thankfully died down), where a few fruitloops were willing to kill you for it.

On this referendum, it'll fairly obviously be a landslide. I'd go with 90%+, albeit against a very low turnout; late-20s-percent.

ELM327

smacl wrote: »

Interesting. I just googled "Muhammad Caricature" and I didn't get any links to breitbart.com but then I wouldn't expect to as its not a site i frequent and google by default sends you to sites it thinks you'll find relevant based on your search history. So I opened an incognito window to block this behaviour and did the same thing, still no breitbart. I also tried this on another computer that's not used for browsing and again no breitbart. So while I don't doubt that's what google returned for you, that rather suggests you spend time on breitbart.com and similar related sites.

My mistake, here's the link to my search from yesterday, it was "cartoon" not "caricature". And while I have never visited breitbart directly, perhaps it's linked to my facebook cache or something.
Try this link and see if it brings the same result for you as it did for me.

https://www.google.com/search?q=muhammad+cartoon&client=firefox-b-ab&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip9q_PwOrdAhXKa8AKHU_1BG8Q_AUIDigB&biw=1280&bih=910#imgrc=TKleaflJTtykVM:

ELM327

seamus wrote: »

@ELM you're pretty far off the mark here.

I think you'll find the "PC" brigade very supportive of the right to utter blasphemy, including drawn pictures of Mohammed.

The only reason people in the west worry about offending Islam is because there was a brief period (which has thankfully died down), where a few fruitloops were willing to kill you for it.

On this referendum, it'll fairly obviously be a landslide. I'd go with 90%+, albeit against a very low turnout; late-20s-percent.

I'd say turnout will indeed be very low. I'm not going to bother voting in this one in all likelihood.


I disagree that "PC brigade" would be supportive of said right, I do believe that there is a vocal brigade in favour but it's not the PC brigade.

nozzferrahhtoo

Isnt it linked to the presidential election? Having not lived in or voted in Ireland in a long time I have to admit I do not actually know how it works back home. Does turnout for one guarantee a certain level of turnout for the other? Or do you literally have to go in twice to two different places to vote on each?

If not then wouldn't the turnout be fairly ok given everyone is there to vote for the president anyway?

amcalester

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Isnt it linked to the presidential election? Having not lived in or voted in Ireland in a long time I have to admit I do not actually know how it works back home. Does turnout for one guarantee a certain level of turnout for the other? Or do you literally have to go in twice to two different places to vote on each?

If not then wouldn't the turnout be fairly ok given everyone is there to vote for the president anyway?

It’s piggy backing on the Presidential election so turn out will be higher than a stand alone referendum.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I know there was someone who "debated" with Nugent on radio who was for keeping the law. His name I am pulling from memory only so apologies if I have it wrong. But it was something like Dr Ali Salim or Dr Ali Selim.

That name came up in another thread, and Nugent responded with this post.
The problem is, a debate between these two would not be very fair, and they both know that. One has poor English, and some would say a poor grasp of reality.
The other insists on wearing his lucky red polo shirt to every debate, which gives him an unbeatable advantage.

nozzferrahhtoo

It was not his English that kept hitting me. His standard was certainly better than my German.

It was his accent that kept getting to me. He sounded EXACTLY like one of those weird Fish Headed Aliens from near the start of The Phantom Menace. I was just the whole time waiting for him, begging, hell almost praying, to utter the words "The Republic" or even just "the Senate".

smacl

ELM327 wrote: »

My mistake, here's the link to my search from yesterday, it was "cartoon" not "caricature". And while I have never visited breitbart directly, perhaps it's linked to my facebook cache or something.
Try this link and see if it brings the same result for you as it did for me.

https://www.google.com/search?q=muhammad+cartoon&client=firefox-b-ab&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip9q_PwOrdAhXKa8AKHU_1BG8Q_AUIDigB&biw=1280&bih=910#imgrc=TKleaflJTtykVM:

That link clearly does as it embeds your chosen result. Using the base search of "muhammad+cartoon" doesn't give anything on the first page and gives the brietbart link as the seventh entry if you go to images. You said

To be honest I googled "Muhammad Caricature" and that was the first line result.

Paint my cynical, but when anyone starts a sentence with the words "To be honest..." first thing I do is question their honesty

smacl

ELM327 wrote: »

I disagree that "PC brigade" would be supportive of said right, I do believe that there is a vocal brigade in favour but it's not the PC brigade.

Who exactly are the PC brigade then? I'm assuming you know this on the basis that you know how they're going to vote.

ELM327

smacl wrote: »

That link clearly does as it embeds your chosen result. Using the base search of "muhammad+cartoon" doesn't give anything on the first page and gives the brietbart link as the seventh entry if you go to images. You said



Paint my cynical, but when anyone starts a sentence with the words "To be honest..." first thing I do is question their honesty

Right we'll have to agree to disagree. The result came up in the first line for me as I stated. And I have never visited Breitbart directly. But it's not important to this discussion anyway so I don't see why you keep bringing it up

smacl wrote: »

Who exactly are the PC brigade then? I'm assuming you know this on the basis that you know how they're going to vote.

John and Jim. Oh and Mary over the road. It's not the chinese it's the greeks she's after.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Isnt it linked to the presidential election? Having not lived in or voted in Ireland in a long time I have to admit I do not actually know how it works back home. Does turnout for one guarantee a certain level of turnout for the other? Or do you literally have to go in twice to two different places to vote on each?

You just go in once, and typically get a second card for the second unconnected item.

If not then wouldn't the turnout be fairly ok given everyone is there to vote for the president anyway?

You say that but have you seen the line up of candidates? Only reason I'm voting in the presidential election is that its on the same day as the blasphemy referendum :pac:

Mutant z

The most embarrassing thing about is we will be having a referendum to remove it why not just scratch it off the books and be done with it without resorting to a pointless referendum.

Hotblack Desiato

ELM327 wrote: »

I see your crap is back again :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
See I can be condescending and rude to you too.

I call out bullsh1t when I see it. Sorry if that upsets you. It's a criticism of the post not the poster but you chose to take it personally.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Only reason I'm voting in the presidential election is that its on the same day as the blasphemy referendum :pac:

Either way, it saves a few quid and inconveniences the schools less.

IMO we should always hold several different votes at the same time.

recedite

Mutant z wrote: »

The most embarrassing thing about is we will be having a referendum to remove it why not just scratch it off the books and be done with it without resorting to a pointless referendum.

Its in the constitution.
Well, it seems Mo pictures are fine around here, but mention Breitbart and you are letting yourself in for a good kicking. (I only get it for the articles)

seamus

Mutant z wrote: »

The most embarrassing thing about is we will be having a referendum to remove it why not just scratch it off the books and be done with it without resorting to a pointless referendum.

Because we can't just "scratch it off the books" without a referendum. The consitution requires it.

Every single time, people seem to come up with this complaint - "why do we need a referendum for this?", or "Why aren't women only allowed vote in this referendum?".

It's a basic pillar of our constitution - nothing can be changed without referendum. (Though that requirement itself was an amendment!)

The lack of civics education in our system is shocking.

NIMAN

.