A 'No' Campaign in the Upcoming Blasphemy Referendum?

Franz Von Peppercorn

I’d be far far more interested in this referendum if it came with a free speech amendment.

alaimacerc

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’d be far far more interested in this referendum if it came with a free speech amendment.

It very much is a free-speech amendment. Or freer speech, at any rate. A libel-whom-you-like or shout-fire-in-a-crowded theatre one would be rather more controversial.

MayoSalmon

Embarrassing that such nonsense is in the constitution to begin with.

alaimacerc

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It should go of course, to be replaced by far more potent hate crimes legislation that protects religions and other groups so yez all can be locked up.

Not on the ballot, as far as I'm aware.

Eric Cartman

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’d be far far more interested in this referendum if it came with a free speech amendment.

It really should. Free speech should be enshrined in our constitution. Considering the world seems determined to erode it these days.

alaimacerc

Eric Cartman wrote: »

It really should. Free speech should be enshrined in our constitution. Considering the world seems determined to erode it these days.

In for example other countries with a real, with teeth blasphemy law, that Ireland's supposedly "harmless" version gives diplomatic cover to?

Hotblack Desiato

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

After all, Tommy Tiernan's crucifixion sketch on the Late Late many years ago could be regarded as blasphemous

No idea. Didn't see it, and 20 years later there's not a scrap of video or even a summary never mind a rough transcript to be found anywhere.

Supposedly there was a baying mob outside RTE before the LLS had even finished, so it must have been good!

NIMAN wrote: »

Could anyone give an example of something you might say or do that would get you prosecuted under the existing law.

Nice try...!

AFAIK all of the major Christian congregations are in favour of repeal, hell (oops) even the Iona institute are in favour of repealing this. If one thinks one's god needs the protection of man-made laws then how weak must the arguments in support of that god be?

Ali Selim's crew want to keep it, but they're far from representative of Muslims here and I certainly don't want to live in a country with the laws and customs his sect would like to have in place.

hotmail.com wrote: »

I didn't understand why the thing couldn't be removed and then a separate referendum on the carers issue at a later time. Why did they have to connect the two!

I haven't the foggiest why anyone thinks carers have to be mentioned in the constitution at all. Yes they do valuable work and get little recognition but the constitution is not some sort of substitute for an honours list, or an instruction manual for the HSE or DEASP.

EdgeCase

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Embarrassing that such nonsense is in the constitution to begin with.

Embarrassing, but it's pretty much of its era and a snapshot of Ireland in 1937. At least we get an opportunity to remove it.

My big concern is that the turnout numbers will be tiny due to a rather lacklustre presidential campaign and basically no campaigning at all on the blasphemy referendum.

I've spoken to a few people who were totally unaware there even was a referendum running until they heard the ad.

In some ways, if something like the Stephen Fry incident had happened closer to now, at least it would have illustrated what it's all about.

Please, please get the vote out on this!

Itssoeasy

I see that Ronan Mullen and Ivana bacik are debating this referendum on rte. this shows the severe lack of bother even RTÉ are giving this referendum.

TheValeyard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see that Ronan Mullen and Ivana bacik are debating this referendum on rte. this shows the severe lack of bother even RTÉ are giving this referendum.

Presenter actually seems angry his has to sit through this listening to the both of them.

blackwhite

[PHP][/PHP]

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Presenter actually seems angry his has to sit through this listening to the both of them.

To be fair, it’d take some effort to find as painful a pair to be stuck in a room with.

One on their own would be torturous enough!

jmreire

expectationlost wrote: »

Seamus de Barra from the Alliance for the Defence of Families and Marriage - who is advocating a no vote in the referendum, and Liam Herrick from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties - who is calling for a yes vote - debate the upcoming Blasphemy Referendum

via RTÉ - This Week Podcast https://ift.tt/2Cg0JrI part 1

Seamus de Barra from the Alliance for the Defence of Families and Marriage - who is advocating a no vote in the referendum, and Liam Herrick from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties - who is calling for a yes vote - debate the upcoming Blasphemy Referendum

via RTÉ - This Week Podcast https://ift.tt/2CJr3LT part 2

If Mr. De Barra is that interested in preserving the blasphemy laws in this Country, I suggest he ( and any other "NO" change voters) take a trip to Pakistan where the penalty for breaching the blasphemy laws is death. The death penalty was introduced vi Zia Alhaq, and it has buried the courts ( which were already bogged down to the extent that, if you take anyone to court ( or vice versa ) you will be leaving something for your grand children to finish. It is primarily used against Christians ( google the case against Asia Bibi ) Pakistan is pushing other states to put blasphemy laws in place, and using Ireland as an example. It has no place whatsoever in Irish law. Separation of Church and State, and the bigger the separation the better !!! Get rid of it for once and for all.

expectationlost

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see that Ronan Mullen and Ivana bacik are debating this referendum on rte. this shows the severe lack of bother even RTare giving this referendum.

and flanagan vs column kenny on radio yesterday again

The high horse brigade

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

eagle eye

I didn't know that the atheists were all for repealing the blasphemy law.
I'm not religious but I refuse to call myself an atheist because of all the clowns who call themselves that name.
I'm going to have to try and find reasons why we should keep the blasphemy law now.

Bryan48

From my reading of the current law, you'd have to really go all out to seriously offend a lot of people about their religion before you'd be charged with blasphemy. Why would you want to use your free speech to deliberately hurt lots of people? Why would you think that's okay? Leave the constitution as it is, I'd say.

Amirani

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't know that the atheists were all for repealing the blasphemy law.
I'm not religious but I refuse to call myself an atheist because of all the clowns who call themselves that name.
I'm going to have to try and find reasons why we should keep the blasphemy law now.

Athiest isn't like some club, it literally just means lack of belief in God. It's binary, so you're either a theist or an atheist, regardless of what you want to call yourself.

eagle eye

Amirani wrote:

Athiest isn't like some club, it literally just means lack of belief in God. It's binary, so you're either a theist or an atheist, regardless of what you want to call yourself.

I'm aware but these groups of idiots that have formed and use the name is my issue.
They are like a religion themselves.

L1011

Bryan48 wrote: »

From my reading of the current law, you'd have to really go all out to seriously offend a lot of people about their religion before you'd be charged with blasphemy. Why would you want to use your free speech to deliberately hurt lots of people? Why would you think that's okay? Leave the constitution as it is, I'd say.

Plenty of things you might say perfectly normally would be seriously offend people of certain religions.

Additionally, that we even have a law on it gets used as a justification by tyrannical regimes for their blasphemy laws - which are enforced heavily and widely. It is irresponsible for a western society to have such a law.

BadTurtle

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm aware but these groups of idiots that have formed and use the name is my issue.
They are like a religion themselves.

In what sense are they like a religion? Do they follow a doctrine? Do they congregate for meetings? Do they celebrate feasts? Do they do anything at all you could say is exclusively religious and not, say, something activists or political militants do? Because that's by far the more valid comparison, and not this idiotic soundbite that no doubt some idiotic Bible follower spewed during a divisive issue like the marriage referendum.

Akrasia

Bryan48 wrote: »

From my reading of the current law, you'd have to really go all out to seriously offend a lot of people about their religion before you'd be charged with blasphemy. Why would you want to use your free speech to deliberately hurt lots of people? Why would you think that's okay? Leave the constitution as it is, I'd say.

Why do people keep referring to the current law? This is a referendum to change the constitution, not the law. Dermot Ahern did a solo run an brought in this law 10 years ago. Laws can be changed on a whim of a government. This is to remove blasphemy from our constitution, not our statute books.

Bryan48

Akrasia wrote: »

Why do people keep referring to the current law? This is a referendum to change the constitution, not the law. Dermot Ahern did a solo run an brought in this law 10 years ago. Laws can be changed on a whim of a government. This is to remove blasphemy from our constitution, not our statute books.

But the only reason for changing the constitution is that the government will then repeal the act, why else have a referendum? If the act goes as well, it's a free for all to be as insulting as you want to other people on religious grounds. That's not very reasonable, is it?

Hotblack Desiato

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't know that the atheists were all for repealing the blasphemy law.
I'm not religious but I refuse to call myself an atheist because of all the clowns who call themselves that name.
I'm going to have to try and find reasons why we should keep the blasphemy law now.

Universal suffrage has its downsides.

blanch152

Bryan48 wrote: »

But the only reason for changing the constitution is that the government will then repeal the act, why else have a referendum? If the act goes as well, it's a free for all to be as insulting as you want to other people on religious grounds. That's not very reasonable, is it?

That is not true.

First, the government does not have to repeal the act. Secondly, the incitement to hatred laws remain on the statute book.

Rhineshark

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't know that the atheists were all for repealing the blasphemy law.
I'm not religious but I refuse to call myself an atheist because of all the clowns who call themselves that name.
I'm going to have to try and find reasons why we should keep the blasphemy law now.

Given it was two days ago, have you found any that aren't "atheists want to get rid of it"?

I mean, vote against your own instinct based on a specific group voting the other way, sure, knock yourself out. I assume you'll be going to mass on Sunday to be absolutely sure you're not doing anything this particular group of atheists are doing!

I assume you're talking about Nugent's Atheist Ireland? If so, quite a lot of Irish atheists don't seem to like them much either, but don't give them enough headspace to care how they want to vote. I know what you mean about "religious atheism" so to speak though. There are some atheists that make a huge song and dance about it. Doesn't make them more or less atheist than anyone else though, or more representative of atheism in general.

demfad

NewIrish01 wrote: »

Being a Christian myself, I personally feel that the current blasphemy laws allow fair and constructive criticism of religion and religious groups without giving justification to persecution or to slanderous and/or hateful statements that lack advantages or utility in our society. In my eyes, a repeal of the laws would only enable hateful and violent people to express themselves without repercussions.

There is an incitement to hatred legislation covering religion.

Ever seen Mary 'mother of Jesus' described as an iron aged woman from the middle east? Me neither. But that and similar gets culled by editors because of this article and Law.

The Legend Of Kira

Interesting video from Colm Gorman from Amnesty International on this weeks blasphemy referendum in particular I quote " causing offence should not be a criminal offence ." I actually agree & the same argument applies should a future any government plan to legislate similar so called hate speech laws similar to what the UK currently has in place " causing offence should not be a criminal offence. "

https://www.facebook.com/amnestyinternationalireland/videos/p.183096915909390/183096915909390/?type=2&theater

Akrasia

Bryan48 wrote: »

But the only reason for changing the constitution is that the government will then repeal the act, why else have a referendum? If the act goes as well, it's a free for all to be as insulting as you want to other people on religious grounds. That's not very reasonable, is it?

The reason for changing the constitution is to make it not longer a requirement to have an offense of Blasphemy. It's not just about repealing this part of the defamation act.

Blasphemy is a ridiculous concept in the 21st century.

We should be allowed to make fun of anything that we feel is ridiculous. No religion or political ideology or cult should be above reproach.

We certainly shouldn't be restricting our speech to cater for the easily offended

I find it much more offensive that The Life of Brian was banned in Ireland for so long than anything anyone could possibly say to me about things I feel strongly about.

The pope came out and said he would punch someone who insulted his mother. The criminal in this case would be the pope, a perpetrator of assault, not the person who was a bit of a dick to his 900 year old mother.

BaronVon

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Interesting video from Colm Gorman from Amnesty International on this weeks blasphemy referendum in particular I quote " causing offence should not be a criminal offence ." I actually agree & the same argument applies should a future any government plan to legislate similar so called hate speech laws similar to what the UK currently has in place " causing offence should not be a criminal offence. "

https://www.facebook.com/amnestyinternationalireland/videos/p.183096915909390/183096915909390/?type=2&theater

Agreed, offence is taken, not given!

Rhineshark

infacteh wrote: »

Agreed, offence is taken, not given!

Bit of a lazy approach that though. Absolves people of the basic decency that means most of us don't go around gratuitously insulting people and taking no responsibility for our own words as adults are supposed to do, but putting it on the person being insulted to "over-react" to.

Great messages to give to kids too, btw. Your upset kid comes to you and all you can do is shrug and tell them that offence is only taken, not given, absolving the bully and putting your kid at fault for having feelings.

Or from the other side, kids will certainly pick up that they have no responsibility for hurting others, it's not *their* fault and their parents, who trained them like that, certainly won't punish them for being a bully.

Meh. For the sake of having basic empathy for others and no wish to mistreat or hurt them, that is never an ideology I'll sign up to. I'm an adult. I take responsibility for what I say.

(I'll also be voting to repeal the blasphemy amendment.)