Blasphemy

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
8,068
Looks to be next up for the guillotine.

Can anyone give a coherent reason why it needs to be in the constitution? Will the noflakes campaign against it on vague culture war grounds or is this a 95% slamdunk?
 


showbandmanager

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
1,130
Looks to be next up for the guillotine.

Can anyone give a coherent reason why it needs to be in the constitution? Will the noflakes campaign against it on vague culture war grounds or is this a 95% slamdunk?
The last time it was up for debate we had Dr. Ali Selim and David Quinn side by side on Primetime , arguing against it's removal from the constitution
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,059
Looks to be next up for the guillotine.

Can anyone give a coherent reason why it needs to be in the constitution? Will the noflakes campaign against it on vague culture war grounds or is this a 95% slamdunk?
My understanding is that the government plan to run a triple header, either in October this year or in tandem witht he presidentials next year:

  1. Blasphemy
  2. Women in the home
  3. Elected mayors.


I'd expect 1 and 2 to be carried easily. For 3, a clearer case for change needs to be put forward than was in the Seanad vote or it will fail.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,612
In theory I support its removal from the constitution - provided it isnt replaced with essentially the same provision.

I wanted it just repealed. But the Citizens Assembly wanted it replaced with a ban on "incitement to religious hatred". What on earth does that mean? Does it simply mean banning inciting hatred against a religious group? Or - as I fear - does it mean banning criticism of religions? Because if its the latter I will vote no. I am a fierce anti-clerical and have been for many years because of the churches attitude to LGBT - an attitude that is much worse in the Islamic faith.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
8,115
all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah
 

artfoley56

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
9,759
I presume that if we're getting rid of blasphemy that there will be a new defamation act?

Defamation Act 2009, Section 36

will the proposed bill be published before the referendum?
 

A REASON

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
7,312
jesus ************************************g christ, remove this sh1te for jasus sake
 

The Nal

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
2,302
Looks to be next up for the guillotine.

Can anyone give a coherent reason why it needs to be in the constitution? Will the noflakes campaign against it on vague culture war grounds or is this a 95% slamdunk?
Loads of people will vote no. Loads of Irish people vote no for everything.

It doesn't need to be in the constitution. We need to avoid potential embarrassments like this internationally.

Stephen Fry investigated by Irish police for alleged blasphemy

It'll be a landslide yes though.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,612
In the Netherlands, incitement to hatred laws were used to try Geert Wilders when he said the Koran should be banned. The proposal from the Constitutional Convention or Citizens Assembly wanted to replace the blasphemy ban with a ban on "incitement to religious hatred". So if you criticise the Koran the law could come after you unless the wording of the proposed amendment protects the right to criticise religions.
 
Last edited:

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
In the Netherlands, incitement to hatred laws were used to try Geert Wilders when he saif the Koran should be banned.
Considering that there are passages that advocate beating women, throwing homosexuals to their death, murdering anybody who leaves the belief system, and murdering Polytheists (for example Hindus), there is a certain merit in what he said.

I would settle for an objective assessment of all holy books.

Sam Harris did exactly that and came to the conclusion that one belief system is very different in it's orientation from the others. It expects different behaviour from it's members. Very different behaviour.

But....we need oil.

The banking system, the pensions system, the level of consumption, and the real estate ponzi-scheme depend in hydrocarbons.
 

robut

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
8,729
My understanding is that the government plan to run a triple header, either in October this year or in tandem witht he presidentials next year:

  1. Blasphemy
  2. Women in the home
  3. Elected mayors.


I'd expect 1 and 2 to be carried easily. For 3, a clearer case for change needs to be put forward than was in the Seanad vote or it will fail.
Will they be coming home for any or all of these in our brave new inclusive democracy :D

Will the younger voter be mobilsed / bother to vote for these also?

Or is this whole new democracy voting thing a pick and mix .. vote for some, dont bother for others?
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
In theory I support its removal from the constitution - provided it isnt replaced with essentially the same provision.

I wanted it just repealed. But the Citizens Assembly wanted it replaced with a ban on "incitement to religious hatred". What on earth does that mean? Does it simply mean banning inciting hatred against a religious group? Or - as I fear - does it mean banning criticism of religions? Because if its the latter I will vote no. I am a fierce anti-clerical and have been for many years because of the churches attitude to LGBT - an attitude that is much worse in the Islamic faith.
That equates to censoring Athiests.

It would make "God is NOT great" by Christopher Hitchens a banned book/DVD.

Sam Harris would not be allowed speak when in Ireland.

The work of Dawkins would also be banned.

And of course, people would be breaking the law if they went on youtube and listened to Hitchens.

There will be no more jokes about Jehovah's Witnesses.

We will not be allowed to ridicule Mormons, and their funny underwear rules.




So how exactly, is such a stupid law going to be enforced ????
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,564
Looks to be next up for the guillotine.

Can anyone give a coherent reason why it needs to be in the constitution? Will the noflakes campaign against it on vague culture war grounds or is this a 95% slamdunk?
It gives the Government of the day the Constitutional Right to outlaw Hate speech against a Religion

If they remove it then legislation against it will have to covered by some other Act of the Constitution

- do you know what other Act will cover it?

For the record though I will vote NO :cool:
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,906
That equates to censoring Athiests.

It would make "God is NOT great" by Christopher Hitchens a banned book/DVD.

Sam Harris would not be allowed speak when in Ireland.

The work of Dawkins would also be banned.

And of course, people would be breaking the law if they went on youtube and listened to Hitchens.


So how exactly, is such a stupid law going to be enforced ????

It’s not the point, you aren’t the sharpest bulb in the drawer, I think it’s fair to say, however if you stopped and thought before providing us all with your anal ysis it’d be a great help to everyone including yourself.
 

Lagertha

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
4,458
In theory I support its removal from the constitution - provided it isnt replaced with essentially the same provision.

I wanted it just repealed. But the Citizens Assembly wanted it replaced with a ban on "incitement to religious hatred". What on earth does that mean? Does it simply mean banning inciting hatred against a religious group? Or - as I fear - does it mean banning criticism of religions? Because if its the latter I will vote no. I am a fierce anti-clerical and have been for many years because of the churches attitude to LGBT - an attitude that is much worse in the Islamic faith.
I think it means stopping people from pointing out what a hateful disgusting child molesting ideology Islam is and questioning whether we should be allowing the building of mosques. Take Clonskeagh mosque as an example, founded by a monster who is such an extremist that he isn't allowed to enter Ireland or Britain.
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,564
In theory I support its removal from the constitution - provided it isnt replaced with essentially the same provision.

I wanted it just repealed. But the Citizens Assembly wanted it replaced with a ban on "incitement to religious hatred". What on earth does that mean? Does it simply mean banning inciting hatred against a religious group? Or - as I fear - does it mean banning criticism of religions? Because if its the latter I will vote no. I am a fierce anti-clerical and have been for many years because of the churches attitude to LGBT - an attitude that is much worse in the Islamic faith.
Has not Pope Francis made it clear that God loves us all?
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,906
It gives the Government of the day the Constitutional Right to outlaw Hate speech against a Religion

If they remove it then legislation against it will have to covered by some other Act of the Constitution

- do you know what other Act will cover it?

For the record though I will vote NO :cool:

Well there’s a surprise. How’s the butt hurt? Sudocreme working? Good, good boy.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top