A 'No' Campaign in the Upcoming Blasphemy Referendum?

troyzer · 24-10-2018 6:51pm

I'm really worried this one is going to fail. It's only at 51% yes in the Irish Times poll and there's huge apathy towards it.

Low participation usually results in landslide defeats.

Allinall · 24-10-2018 6:55pm

troyzer wrote: »

I'm really worried this one is going to fail. It's only at 51% yes in the Irish Times poll and there's huge apathy towards it.

Low participation usually results in landslide defeats.

Curious as to why you’re “really worried”?

We’re you really worried a year ago before the referendum was proposed?

If it’s a no vote, then absolute nothing will change.

I’ll be voting yes, but only because I’ll be there anyway .

lawred2 · 24-10-2018 6:55pm

Ronan Mullen laying out his position on RTE news.

That lad is some busted flush.

No argument other than cost. Well obviously he doesn't give a toss about the cost. Just that was the only partly credible notion that his gang of loons could settle on.

trashcan · 24-10-2018 6:55pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Imo the blasphemy law doesn't hurt anybody. It would be very hard to convict anybody under this law.

Shouldn't be missed then, should it ?

Fr Tod Umptious · 24-10-2018 9:27pm

I'm really looking forward to calling The Prophet Mohammed every name under the sun in public once this is passed.

Take that snowflakes.

feargale · 24-10-2018 9:59pm

Sycamore Tree wrote: »

That loon Ronan Mullen on 6 news ensuring a massive Yes vote. He is such a tool.

How naive can you get? Alot of older people will vote no. I get worrying vibes about the prospect of success for a yes vote.

Hotblack Desiato · 24-10-2018 11:00pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm really looking forward to calling The Prophet Mohammed every name under the sun in public once this is passed.

Take that snowflakes.

In reality there's nothing stopping you doing that now.

alaimacerc · 24-10-2018 11:12pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I do have a problem with a person who tells me how I should live my life, about how their code is the only right way. We have plenty of religious people who do this and we have atheist organisations telling us this stuff now as well.

You're listening to some very different atheist organisations as everyone else, then.

Or perhaps more likely, bringing your own very curious take on what they're saying.

Hotblack Desiato · 24-10-2018 11:16pm

If someone makes a claim and then after being asked several times to substantiate that claim refuses to do so, they are best ignored.

alaimacerc · 25-10-2018 1:31am

Listening to Mullen on PK repeat now. Starts off by "sure, I'm hardly campaigning at all, at all!", and banging on about what a disgrace it is the Dáil is legislating for the last referendum. Himself and Plank having a smug little agree-fest about "virtue signalling", one of the most lazy, hackneyed pieces of nonsense known to clapped-out rhetoric.

I do agree with him on what a flawed "Christian" he is, all right...

troyzer · 25-10-2018 7:24am

Allinall wrote: »

Curious as to why you’re “really worried”?

We’re you really worried a year ago before the referendum was proposed?

If it’s a no vote, then absolute nothing will change.

I’ll be voting yes, but only because I’ll be there anyway .

Because I want it to pass and I don't think it will. That's why I'm worried.

A year ago I thought when this came forward it would be a landslide. I didn't think removing blasphemy would be controversial.

We will continue having this embarassing clause in the constitution.

Fr Tod Umptious · 25-10-2018 7:47am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

In reality there's nothing stopping you doing that now.

But the constitution will be on my side if this passes.

salmocab · 25-10-2018 8:02am

lawred2 wrote: »

Ronan Mullen laying out his position on RTE news.

That lad is some busted flush.

No argument other than cost. Well obviously he doesn't give a toss about the cost. Just that was the only partly credible notion that his gang of loons could settle on.

There’s a reasonable chance of a NO on Friday so he’s lining himself up as the hero, also due to the requirements to give both sides equal airtime he’s everywhere as most people aren’t bothered by this one way or the other so he can get some self promotion in.

Fr Tod Umptious · 25-10-2018 8:06am

salmocab wrote: »

There’s a reasonable chance of a NO on Friday so he’s lining himself up as the hero, also due to the requirements to give both sides equal airtime he’s everywhere as most people aren’t bothered by this one way or the other so he can get some self promotion in.

Thats why some think the No side will win.

This does not have the 'hashtag appeal' that 'yes for equality' or 'repeal the 8th' had.

Lower turn out, higher chance of a No

Hotblack Desiato · 25-10-2018 10:35am

eagle eye wrote: »

First of all I said it sets off an urge in me. I didn't say I'd vote no.

eagle eye wrote: »

If that is the case then I really want to keep the law, in spite of myself.

.

Hotblack Desiato · 25-10-2018 10:38am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But the constitution will be on my side if this passes.

The constitution will be mute on the specific issue of blasphemy.

The law will stay the same, unless and until the Oireachtas change it.

EdgeCase · 25-10-2018 11:30am

Putting specific offenses into the constitution is crazy to begin with. It's a document that is meant to set out broad frameworks and rights.

The only reason someone would have put that in was to tie the hands of future governments and basically prevent it from being removed by act of parliament.

I mean when you think about it, the most serious of offenses are actually all defined in various pieces of legislation and common law, not the constitution.

blackwhite · 25-10-2018 11:34am

EdgeCase wrote: »

Putting specific offenses into the constitution is crazy to begin with. It's a document that is meant to set out broad frameworks and rights.

The only reason someone would have put that in was to tie the hands of future governments and basically prevent it from being removed by act of parliament. because JC McQuaid was in Dev's ear non-stop whilst it was being drafted

FYP :P

pumpkin4life · 25-10-2018 1:50pm

Vote no in this. This is a much more important election than people think. The plan is to bring in hate crime legislation, as this can't be done properly with the current blasphemy law.

Just ask this Fianna Gael politician what he thinks:

Some good articles explaining what's going on with this:

https://www.nationalparty.ie/after-blasphemy/#

https://www.theburkean.ie/articles/2018/10/24/love-eire-keep-blasphemy-vote-no-but-not-for-why-you-think

Seve OB · 25-10-2018 1:54pm

I'm voting no because I don't think it is right that anyone can say what they want on a derogatory manor about any religion.

Sure isn't that what most of the Wars around the globe come from.

salmocab · 25-10-2018 2:05pm

Seve OB wrote: »

.

Sure isn't that what most of the Wars around the globe come from.

No that’s not what most of the wars are coming from, plenty are about religion but not because people blaspheme. Mostly they are about money and power.

pekitivey · 25-10-2018 2:22pm

I'd guess this referendum will have a significantly lower turn out than the last one (avoiding saying its name so as not to spark a debate LOL). But I bet that wont effect the inevitable YES vote coming through.

Seve OB · 25-10-2018 2:26pm

pekitivey wrote: »

I'd guess this referendum will have a significantly lower turn out than the last one (avoiding saying its name so as not to spark a debate LOL). But I bet that wont effect the inevitable YES vote coming through.

If it was stand alone I would agree.
But because it is also presidential election it will have a decent turn out.
I cant imagine to many people will only vote in one and not the other

pekitivey · 25-10-2018 2:29pm

Seve OB wrote: »

If it was stand alone I would agree.
But because it is also presidential election it will have a decent turn out.
I cant imagine to many people will only vote in one and not the other

Please excuse my ignorance, they are being held on the same day?

storker · 25-10-2018 2:33pm

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Vote no in this. This is a much more important election than people think. The plan is to bring in hate crime legislation, as this can't be done properly with the current blasphemy law.

Some good articles explaining what's going on with this:

https://www.nationalparty.ie/after-blasphemy/#

https://www.theburkean.ie/articles/2018/10/24/love-eire-keep-blasphemy-vote-no-but-not-for-why-you-think

Those seem like pretty thin arguments rather than "good articles". They do seem to be good examples of the Slippery Slope Fallacy in action, though.

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2018 2:37pm

pekitivey wrote: »

Please excuse my ignorance, they are being held on the same day?

Yes, you will be handed two ballots, a white one for the election and a green one for the referendum.

troyzer · 25-10-2018 2:40pm

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Vote no in this. This is a much more important election than people think. The plan is to bring in hate crime legislation, as this can't be done properly with the current blasphemy law.

Just ask this Fianna Gael politician what he thinks:

Some good articles explaining what's going on with this:

https://www.nationalparty.ie/after-blasphemy/#

https://www.theburkean.ie/articles/2018/10/24/love-eire-keep-blasphemy-vote-no-but-not-for-why-you-think

A "good" article is one from the National Party?

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2018 2:44pm

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Vote no in this. This is a much more important election than people think. The plan is to bring in hate crime legislation, as this can't be done properly with the current blasphemy law.

The blasphemy clause in the constitution is not stopping them from introducing hate crime legislation.

troyzer · 25-10-2018 2:46pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The blasphemy clause in the constitution is not stopping them from introducing hate crime legislation.

We already have hate crime laws on the books.

I think he meant that hate crimes is covered by legislation already but phrased it awkwardly.

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2018 2:49pm

troyzer wrote: »

We already have hate crime laws on the books.

I think he meant that hate crimes is covered by legislation already but phrased it awkwardly.

pumpkin4life above is saying that we should keep blasphemy to prevent hate crime legislastion.

This is a bad reason to keep blasphemy, as blasphemy is not stopping hate crime legislation.

A 'No' Campaign in the Upcoming Blasphemy Referendum?

Comments