Yeah fair play to Michael Nugent for doing this is what I say.
Printable View
Yeah fair play to Michael Nugent for doing this is what I say.
If I had my way, I would be staying here but I want to go to University and the International student fees over here are too steep. Don't worry, I'm not planning on staying in Ireland permanently, but I plan on being much more active socially (including politically) than before I left. It's my country and I want to do my bit to make it a better place to live - and a horse poop law like this does the opposite!Quote:
Originally Posted by thischarmingman
Bloody economic migrants, coming back here, rapin' our lecturers and an' stealin' our books...
As long as you dont become like Michael Hyland just back from Thailand.
Weird that I find myself defending a FF minister here, but I think the law is simply 'tidying up' what is already in the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
This recent law doesn't create the crime of blasphemy, per se. It simply makes it apply to religions other than Christianity, defining blasphemy as anything "that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunreacht na hÉireann
If we're going to have a law on blasphemy, it should be applied to all blasphemy of any religion, as well to atheism.
Personally, the new law doesn't bother me all that much, I don't see much of a change.
A far greater concern, IMO, is what's in the Constitution with regards religion.
For example, the opening lines,
We should have a referendum to get rid of stuff like this from the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunreacht na hÉireann
However, in the mean time, 'updating' the law on blasphemy (which we technically agreed to create in the first place) to include all religions is the right thing to do.
All well and good brendy, but there was a referendum earlier this year and this could easily have been tacked on. If he was going to do something, why not just be rid of the stupid thing instead of putting this garbage on the statute book?
What Mr A said. Enacting a new stupid law to deal with an existing stupid law is just a retarded way to go about things.
Because secularising the State isn't a FF policy. They aren't bothered with removing references to religion from the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
The articles on blasphemy in the Constitution aren't going away any time soon.
If we're going to have a stupid law (and we are), at least it should be a stupid law that applies equally to all religions, not just Christianity.
If I deny the Holocaust, or call all Muslims bomb-wielding nutcases, what crime have I committed? I assume there's something like incitement to hatred?
But why? Why do we have to settle for stupidity and spinelessness from our leaders? Just because it's been like that for as long as we can remember, it doesn't mean that we have to accept it as something that will never change. Of course, the problem is whether there is any politician or party who will do any more than talk about what's right, and actually show moral conviction - because we have many great spoofers in the Dail.Quote:
Originally Posted by brendy_éire
People are free to believe in their religion, but I'm sure their right to do so is protected under other laws. Having a law specifically for religion supports the control of religious institutions on society.
Holocaust denial isn't illegal in Ireland. Don't know about the second, it's not blasphemous as I understand the term but it might technically be libelous I suppose!Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
The AI website says blasphemy has been defined as -Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
So, barring whatever "some defence" means, it seems fairly clear that it's blasphemous, I think.Quote:
publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.
I'd be interested to see if - AI's actions aside - anyone actually gets charged with blasphemy. I suppose I just want to see what the point of the law is. I can understand in a way wanting to cut down on stupid sweeping statements like the ones I made (although it's interesting that the issue of fact doesn't come into the definition; maybe that's the "some defence" permitted?), especially if they're very publicly made (some idiot on a reality TV show, maybe). But if libel/slander as you suggest covers it, I'm kind of stumped as to the whole point.
Are the mental health or bombing tendencies of its followers held sacred by Islam?Quote:
in relation to matters held sacred by any religion
It's about insulting tenets of a religion rather than followers of a religion I would have thought.
Because we're a more multi-cultural, multi-faith society now, compared with 1937. If Christians are protected by some mad law, so should other religions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
Because we elect them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevo Da Gull
We had an unenforceable, and therefore irrelevant, law which Ahern is replacing with one that could be enforced. There was no need to do so, except to shore up support. Given his speech at the time of the decriminalising homosexuality, it was probably some moral pay off for the limited civil partnerships.Quote:
Originally Posted by brendy_éire
I am absolutely bulling about this.
If I say "homosexuals should be allowed to live", that's blasphemous
If I say "disobedient teenagers should not be murdered with stones", that's blasphemous
If I say "the earth is millions of years old", that's blasphemous
And all it takes is for one nutcase to bring a case to court, and the judge's hands will be tied by this ridiculous, stupid, archaic, oppressive, anti-intellectual pile of ****e of a law.
So, because we've elected them, we should shut up and let them introduce any law they like?Quote:
Originally Posted by brendy_éire
Unfortunately, there's not much else we can do.
Only the President and/or the Senate has the power to stop laws being introduced.
The only way to stop these laws is to elect the opposition and hopefully they'll change it.
You're right, we can't block laws, so essentially giving out is our only way of expressing how opposed we are to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
It's up to yourself. Complain if you want, but you probably won't be listened to. We've elected them, and, in theory, they are doing what we want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevo Da Gull
Best thing might to be bring it up with candidates at the next election.