Campaign to repeal the blasphemy law

Odhinn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You tried this line of guff before and got short shrift, why are you trying it again?

Muslims made him do it.

BabyCheeses

Hector Savage wrote: »

I'm wondering how liberals on here feel about this, you must really want to repeal it , but on the other hand you must really wanna keep it to protect Islam.

So which will win ?

People can probabaly look at an issue and weigh up the pros and cons.

At first I was going to ask if you'll be sticking it to the libs or muslims but then I remembered when it comes to women's and gay rights you probably always side with Islam already so why would it be different this time. You should consider converting, you would likely agree with a lot of it.

robindch

Mod:

Hector Savage wrote: »

I'm wondering how liberals on here feel about this, you must really want to repeal it , but on the other hand you must really wanna keep it to protect Islam.

Any more trolling from you, young Hector, and you'll be feeling the lash of a moderator's whip.

J0hnick

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Try


https://www.checktheregister.ie/


Although I'm not sure how up to date that is

Still not showing there, starting to get worried now, who do i phone to check up on it ?, my local council ?.

The high horse brigade

https://atheist.ie/2018/10/ronan-mullen-voted-against-blasphemy-law/?fbclid=IwAR23Si8NqjZ95vObwepGaDAd88OleE-inWe471xUzIgaWG4MtnTGFl_Ar90

Odhinn

The high horse brigade wrote: »

https://atheist.ie/2018/10/ronan-mullen-voted-against-blasphemy-law/?fbclid=IwAR23Si8NqjZ95vObwepGaDAd88OleE-inWe471xUzIgaWG4MtnTGFl_Ar90

Needs an image warning, tbh. On the other hand, those who use a boxing style fitness regime have an excellent print-out to stick on their punch bag and pads.

The high horse brigade

Odhinn wrote: »

Needs an image warning, tbh. On the other hand, those who use a boxing style fitness regime have an excellent print-out to stick on their punch bag and pads.

Yes he has one of those smarmy faces alright

Pkiernan

I'm voting to uphold the current wording.
Don't agree with it at all. Just want to cancel out one of your votes!

Odhinn

Pkiernan wrote: »

I'm voting to uphold the current wording.
Don't agree with it at all. Just want to cancel out one of your votes!

That's possibly one of the more pathetic uses of a vote imaginable.

PopePalpatine

Odhinn wrote: »

That's possibly one of the more pathetic uses of a vote imaginable.

Gammons' suffrage was a mistake.

Hotblack Desiato

Pkiernan wrote: »

I'm voting to uphold the current wording.
Don't agree with it at all. Just want to cancel out one of your votes!

Mature.

robindch

Pkiernan wrote: »

I'm voting to uphold the current wording.
Don't agree with it at all. Just want to cancel out one of your votes!

Trolling in A+A might yet turn out to be a cardable offence :rolleyes:

mcmoustache

The whole "owning de libruls" shíte has made it out of the US and into our political discourse. I suppose in was inevitable but I'd always thought that the Irish were a bit smarter than the yanks.

Mark Hamill

Came across this Twitter post via a Facebook friend.
The point in it is that seemingly at least one minority religious group (a womens Muslim group) are going to vote No on the blasphemy referendum as they feel that the blasphemy legislation is the only thing to protect themselves against hate speech.
Now I know that the blasphemy law doesn't actually give any protection from hate speech, but I haven't really followed any of the debates or reports coming up to the referendum so I am wondering has this point been made by anyone in the media and if it has been responded to?

recedite

Muslim women in "Muslims favour strict blasphemy laws" shocker
BTW although the notion that we do not have any protection against hate speech is constantly being peddled, that is just not true.


Here is the relevant legislation.
And as you already pointed out, its a separate issue to blasphemy anyway.

expectationlost

tim jackson "believe in respect" on nearfm http://nearfm.ie/podcast/?p=29018

he keeps going on about how it will undermine the fundamentals in the Constitution and government shouldn't be allowed to do that....which is why we having a referendum about it!

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

he keeps going on about how it will undermine the fundamental in the Constitution and government shouldn't be allowed to do that....which is why we having a referendum about it!

Reminds me of a letter in Saturday's Irish Times:

Sir, – Blasphemy occurs day in and day out and nothing happens. But what happens if we vote Yes to scrap all prohibition? Secularists and atheists will start to have a field day. They will immediately move on to scrap the preamble to the Constitution, which sets the whole context in which it was framed and through which alone it can be properly understood. So the apparently innocuous scrapping of the one word “blasphemous” will probably lead to the scrapping of the whole Constitution, at least as we know it. From there on in our rights will be worked and reworked for us solely by the democratic process. For example, no longer would – or could – our Constitution recognise “the inalienable and imprescriptible rights (of the family), antecedent and superior to all positive law”.

Democracy is a fragile plant and no match for modern methods of propaganda backed by big money. Please vote No. – Yours, etc,

BRIAN FLANAGAN,

Buncrana,

Co Donegal.

It's like the ranting old lady in Father Ted, "And then they'll have hoes selling their wares in the middle of the street and the pimps will be using crack cocaine to keep the whores under control..."

Pkiernan

robindch wrote: »

Trolling in A+A might yet turn out to be a cardable offence :rolleyes:

I'm not trolling.
My vote counts as much as yours does my friend.

robindch

Pkiernan wrote: »

My vote counts as much as yours does my friend.

At the ballot box, yes, that's true. Unfortunately, here in A+A, your friendly moderators hold all the cards

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

Muslim women in "Muslims favour strict blasphemy laws" shocker
BTW although the notion that we do not have any protection against hate speech is constantly being peddled, that is just not true.


Here is the relevant legislation.
And as you already pointed out, its a separate issue to blasphemy anyway.

I know it's not true that we don't have any hate speech laws, but just because I know that doesn't mean other people do. At least some people apparently do believe we don't and do think the blasphemy law is a very minor way to fill that need. They may be in a vanishingly small minority, but as it seems the be only secular argument in favour of keeping it I was wondering if anyone had argued it in any of the debates or articles and if they had been responded to.

magicbastarder

if you blaspheme on the ballot paper, does that count as a yes vote?

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I know it's not true that we don't have any hate speech laws, but just because I know that doesn't mean other people do. At least some people apparently do believe we don't and do think the blasphemy law is a very minor way to fill that need. They may be in a vanishingly small minority, but as it seems the be only secular argument in favour of keeping it I was wondering if anyone had argued it in any of the debates or articles and if they had been responded to.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it that a few people haven't a clue whats going on, and therefore other people should vote with them in solidarity, or sympathy or something?


Also, regarding the muslim group which is supporting anti-blasphemy laws which you mentioned earlier, is there supposed to be some significance attached to it being a women's group? (bearing in mind that most muslim groups tend to be single sex groups anyway) And how is that a secular argument, just because they are female?

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it that a few people haven't a clue whats going on, and therefore other people should vote with them in solidarity, or sympathy or something?


Also, regarding the muslim group which is supporting anti-blasphemy laws which you mentioned earlier, is there supposed to be some significance attached to it being a women's group? (bearing in mind that most muslim groups tend to be single sex groups anyway) And how is that a secular argument, just because they are female?

I'm not at all saying people should (they shouldn't), I'm saying people might. I have not really paid attention to any debates or articles about the referendum, as it seems pretty clear it is going to pass as there is no real argument against it, but then the other day I came across this point I had never heard of before.
A friend on Facebook made a post about how people should vote to remove blasphemy and someone else (who I don't personally know) made the point about it being a weak replacement for ireland (according to them) not having hate speech laws. He linked to the twitter post to show where he got the idea (which I linked it here as a more primary source than the facebook post).

To reiterate - I am not at all saying the idea has merit, I am saying the idea is new, at least to me. I am questioning here if it has appeared in any media about the referendum mostly just as a curiosity, I don't really think it will reach enough people to sway much if any votes. However such ideas, baseless as they are, can get traction in social media especially if they are never even mentioned in the real media.

I only mentioned that it was a women's muslim group because that was part of the original source I have.
I realise it is not completely secular, but to a person who otherwise dismiss out of hand any argument based on respecting a religion (respecting one religion may be blasphemous to another), it would certainly appear secular (hate speech laws are in theory secular).

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am questioning here if it has appeared in any media about the referendum mostly just as a curiosity, I don't really think it will reach enough people to sway much if any votes. However such ideas, baseless as they are, can get traction in social media especially if they are never even mentioned in the real media.

Well, I personally had not heard it before. I suppose it just goes to show (yet again) how social media and fake news have become very significant in all manner of votes and elections in the last few years.
We are fortunate in Ireland that the referendum commission was established a few years ago, just before this phenomenon really took off, and they do make a reasonably good effort to get a straight, uncomplicated, and unbiased version of the referendum issue which is at hand, out to the public.

magicbastarder

there was a discussion on this earlier on drivetime, with colum kenny and josepha madigan.
i'm no fan of madigan's, but she acquitted herself better; was quite funny to heak kenny repeatedly cutting across her when she was speaking and then getting shirty if she returned the favour.

Odhinn

Listening to the radio earlier, they were saying a very low turn out was expected. Would this favour the possibility of an anti-repeal win?

recedite

Low turnout usually means a higher % of pensioners at the polls, and they tend to be more conservative.
I suspect the repeal will pass, but not by as wide a margin as might be expected.

magicbastarder

the turnout for the last presidential election was 56%, for what that's worth.

Peregrinus

Odhinn wrote: »

Listening to the radio earlier, they were saying a very low turn out was expected. Would this favour the possibility of an anti-repeal win?

Probably, yes, if the anti-repeal voters are typically more highly motivated, or feel more strongly, than the pro-repeal voters. (And my hunch is that this is so.)

But note that "favouring the possiblity of an anti-repeal win" is not the same thing as "makes an anti-repeal win likely". Per the opinion poll of about a week ago, showing 50% for repeal, 20% against, if anti-repeal voters turn out at twice the rate of repeal voters, repeal would still win comfortably. The margin looks to be greater than is likely to be overcome by differing turnout rates.

Hotblack Desiato

Surely the repeal of the 8th amendment showed that the "OAP voting block" is no longer the paramilitary wing of the RCC

Almost half of over-65s voted to introduce abortion, ffs. I doubt many of those voters will be crying over the removal of blasphemy.

Excluding the "don't knows" who usually don't vote, that's a 71% for repeal of blasphemy in that poll. Very hard to see that being overturned when not a single coherent argument for voting no has been expressed by anyone.

Pero_Bueno

Well it will be a criminal offence to criticise Muhammed under the European Court of human rights
https://twitter.com/ShoaibMKhan/status/1055392526323073024
So will this supercede the Irish law if it's voted out tomorrow ?

Peregrinus

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

Well it will be a criminal offence to criticise Muhammed under the European Court of human rights
https://twitter.com/ShoaibMKhan/status/1055392526323073024
So will this supercede the Irish law if it's voted out tomorrow ?

All that the ES case says is that a state may make it a crime to disparage religious doctrines in the terms that Austria does, and that making it a crime does not infringe the European Convention on Human Rights. It doesn't say that states must or should make it a crime.

Hector Savage

BabyCheeses wrote: »

People can probabaly look at an issue and weigh up the pros and cons.

At first I was going to ask if you'll be sticking it to the libs or muslims but then I remembered when it comes to women's and gay rights you probably always side with Islam already so why would it be different this time. You should consider converting, you would likely agree with a lot of it.

?? what are you basing that on ?

Hector Savage

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Came across this Twitter post via a Facebook friend.
The point in it is that seemingly at least one minority religious group (a womens Muslim group) are going to vote No on the blasphemy referendum as they feel that the blasphemy legislation is the only thing to protect themselves against hate speech.
Now I know that the blasphemy law doesn't actually give any protection from hate speech, but I haven't really followed any of the debates or reports coming up to the referendum so I am wondering has this point been made by anyone in the media and if it has been responded to?

Whats the definition of hate speech though ?
It's a slippery slope, mere criticism of Islam is classed as "hate speech" by some.

Hector Savage

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

Well it will be a criminal offence to criticise Muhammed under the European Court of human rights
https://twitter.com/ShoaibMKhan/status/1055392526323073024
So will this supercede the Irish law if it's voted out tomorrow ?

Unreal.
just no words ...

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Low turnout usually means a higher % of pensioners at the polls, and they tend to be more conservative.
I suspect the repeal will pass, but not by as wide a margin as might be expected.

People over a certain age have always been more conservative. Why do we suppose that is?

robindch

Strawberry1975 wrote: »

Drug driving

Post deleted.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Peregrinus wrote: »

All that the ES case says is that a state may make it a crime to disparage religious doctrines in the terms that Austria does, and that making it a crime does not infringe the European Convention on Human Rights. It doesn't say that states must or should make it a crime.

true I suppose but that’s a case waiting to happen.

seamus

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

Well it will be a criminal offence to criticise Muhammed under the European Court of human rights

No. I don't know if you're deliberately misrepresenting or just completely misreading that.

The ECHR has simply said that in this case that there was no breach of the person's human rights, taking everything into account.

The ECHR has not said that criticising Mohammed is, or will be, or should be, a criminal offence. Or that blasphemy, is, will be, or should be a criminal offence.

We have an "incitement to hatred" crime here, which can already be invoked in these instances.

Hotblack Desiato

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

Well it will be a criminal offence to criticise Muhammed under the European Court of human rights
https://twitter.com/ShoaibMKhan/status/1055392526323073024
So will this supercede the Irish law if it's voted out tomorrow ?

Mohammed was a paedophile, though, that's not in dispute.

*holds out arms in handcuff-me gesture*

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Mod:Any more trolling from you, young Hector, and you'll be feeling the lash of a moderator's whip.

Ooh Matron!

Is it as good as a MkII Opus Dei cilice, that's what I want to know.

Franz Von Peppercorn

seamus wrote: »

No. I don't know if you're deliberately misrepresenting or just completely misreading that.

The ECHR has simply said that in this case that there was no breach of the person's human rights, taking everything into account.

The ECHR has not said that criticising Mohammed is, or will be, or should be, a criminal offence. Or that blasphemy, is, will be, or should be a criminal offence.

We have an "incitement to hatred" crime here, which can already be invoked in these instances.

Bit disingenuous since the ECHR mentioned keeping the religious peace.

In short we could remove blasphemy from the constitution and keep our blasphemy laws and not be in breach of the ECHR.

TheChizler

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Mohammed was a paedophile, though, that's not in dispute.

*holds out arms in handcuff-me gesture*

Only if you use the red-top definition of paedophile though. [/pedant]

Mark Hamill

Hector Savage wrote: »

Whats the definition of hate speech though ?

It's here in the legislation.

Hector Savage wrote: »

It's a slippery slope, mere criticism of Islam is classed as "hate speech" by some.

But not necessarily by the law, so that's irrelevant like all slippery slope fallacies.

Mark Hamill

TheChizler wrote: »

Only if you use the red-top definition of paedophile though. [/pedant]

Didn't he consummate his marriage to Aisha when she was 10/11? Doesn't that make him a paedophile?

Hector Savage

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's here in the legislation.


But not necessarily by the law, so that's irrelevant like all slippery slope fallacies.

From the link

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

This is left ambiguous, could be anything - if someone says the statement "Islam is a dangerous" ideology can stir up hatred - then thats it.
Hate Speech.

I work in the AI/linguistics tech - and the statement "Islam is not a real religion" is classed as hate speech.
Insert any other religion in there and it's not.
Twitter/facebook/all the big SM companies would use a similar classifier algorithm - that's why I am always so skeptical when I hear these stats and headlines about the rise of "hate" speech against Islam on social media.

The key here is how is hate speech defined.

98q76e12hrflnk

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Didn't he consummate his marriage to Aisha when she was 10/11? Doesn't that make him a paedophile?

I think its actually 9 years of age!

Hector Savage

Aubree Howling Memo wrote: »

I think its actually 9 years of age!

6 apparently , and marriage not consummated till 9.

So, if that's not peadophilia then I just don't know where to start.

Mark Hamill

Hector Savage wrote: »

From the link



This is left ambiguous, could be anything - if someone says the statement "Islam is a dangerous" ideology can stir up hatred - then thats it.
Hate Speech.

I work in the AI/linguistics tech - and the statement "Islam is not a real religion" is classed as hate speech.
Insert any other religion in there and it's not.
Twitter/facebook/all the big SM companies would use a similar classifier algorithm - that's why I am always so skeptical when I hear these stats and headlines about the rise of "hate" speech against Islam on social media.

The key here is how is hate speech defined.

It has to be somewhat ambiguous as, thanks to social media, normally neutral terms can become hate speech quite quickly. But that's why we have courts and judges to interpret all of this in cases that are actually brought forward. That Act is from 1989, so we have been on this so called "slipper slope" for 29 years.

seamus

Hector Savage wrote: »

This is left ambiguous, could be anything - if someone says the statement "Islam is a dangerous" ideology can stir up hatred - then thats it.

It's actually less ambiguous than it sounds.

The "hatred" has to be directed towards a group.

So you can say things that make other people hate you.
You can (obviously) say things that make you hate others.
You can say things that make an individual hate a group ("John, your car was stolen by travellers")
Or things that make a group hate an individual, ("Travellers, John wants to burn your homes").

But if you say something that will make a group of people hate another group, ("Travellers are driving around your town looking for babies to steal"), then you're veering into incitement to hatred territory.

And honest belief is generally a defence. If your intention is not to incite hatred, then that's a fairly basic defence.

"Islam is a dangerous ideology", would not fall into the classification.

"Muslims are coming to our country to rape our women and impose Sharia law, so we need to rise up and kick them out" - Now there's some incitement to hatred.