EPTOn July 21 2009 00:00 Nyovne wrote:
How doesn't this stand in a EU court? It'll stand just fine.
How doesn't this stand in a EU court? It'll stand just fine.
It violates the human right of freedom of religion.
Turkey isn't part of the EU.
Ireland back to the middle ages. - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
It violates the human right of freedom of religion. Turkey isn't part of the EU. | ||
|
Dyllyn
Singapore670 Posts
srsly this is kinda retarded | ||
|
barth
Ireland1272 Posts
On July 17 2009 07:52 Sadist wrote: where are you from? I have tons of family in Cork. Limerick, 100km north from Cork. Also, the OP is a bit misleading. It is not as harsh as it would seem. “Blasphemous matter” is defined as matter “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.” Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may issue a warrant authorising the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary using reasonable force, a premises where the member of the force has reasonable grounds for believing there are copies of the blasphemous statements in order to seize them. Labour spokesman on justice Pat Rabbitte is proposing an amendment to this section which would reduce the maximum fine to €1,000 and exclude from the definition of blasphemy any matter that had any literary, artistic, social or academic merit. It also enables newspapers to offer an apology without risking an admission of liability, and to defend libel actions by arguing that a story was in the public interest. . . . . He claimed that TDs had debated the legislation "endlessly" since 2006 and it was now time to pass it. Quotes from Irish Times and Irish Independent. That being said Im actually fine with this law being passed. | ||
Nyovne
Netherlands19135 Posts
On July 21 2009 00:36 Diomedes wrote: It violates the human right of freedom of religion. Turkey isn't part of the EU. How does this bill limit freedom of religion in any way possible? It just says you have to be sensible on how to express yourself and leaves you free to choose your religion and practice it. | ||
|
poilord
Germany3252 Posts
On July 17 2009 02:57 Jonoman92 wrote: In the Ukraine I heard they outlawed pornography and the punishment is a stiff fine or jail time for being in possession. Bravo! ;D on topic: wow; so far for living in an enlightened world... and I thought freedom of speech was one of the inalienable rights and that you free to state your beliefs :O Yes, there might be laws against hate speech, but I think you have to differentiate between stating your opinion and attacking somebody because of his beliefs or person. I mean, if I say that I don't believe in the existence of a god or some other higher spiritual entity this is not meant as an attack against any believer; it is just a statement of my opinion. The other person can believe in god, paradise or whatever he can think of; fine by me, he has the right to do so. Imagine the opposite case; people being fined for publicly speaking about the existence of a god. That would be just as nonsensical. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
The law was passed in the Republic of Ireland. I doubt that it was intended to, could or would be used as a deterrent or weapon against people stirring up trouble in Northern Ireland. Quite the opposite. There's quite a substantial amount of interplay between the two. Its rather understandable too, since Northern Ireland's religious divide was over whether or not it should unite with the predominantly catholic republic, or stay with the predominantly protestant UK. By analogy; if there were groups in France trying to stir up tensions between the English and French in Quebec, for instance, by repeatedly exhorting one group towards violence you'd have an enormous amount of pressure from the Canadian government to provide a system of liability against such individuals. As with nearly every common law, there will be a standard of reasonableness attached to the interpretation and a framework of determining context within the assessment of reasonableness. If one ascribed to the view that protective legislation targetting hate against racial minorities is acceptable, its a very tiny hop to move that protection to religious groups as well. It's not a hate crime UNLESS it crosses the boundary and specifically targets a living breathing human being. Under most hate crime laws, this is untrue. Inciting people to violence against a racial group in a general sense imposes liability in most systems. Freedom of speech has never been an inalienable right. There are limitations on it in every single country which adheres to it. In Canada, for instance, you can violate the right of free speech if it is reasonable within a democratic society to do so (or call it an emergency, say, during a civil war or something but that's a completely different avenue), which means the government would have to establish (likely with social science evidence) that there is a substantial/pressing concern that merits the right being limited. If that's successful, you then see if the limitation was the most limited possible limitation given the objective of the legislation, if not its either read down or struck down. Together these steps are normally called the Oakes test. This was never something written into our constitution, but its the judge crafted method of analyzing a facet of this issue. Put simply, most 'inalienable rights' have these backdoors written in because they aren't inalienable. They're highly prized, yes, but they're never so sacred that they can't be touched when there are other concerns at play. The real application of the law in common law countries comes down to the method of application via the judiciary, which works very well in cases like this. Lol this was long T_T. | ||
|
eMbrace
United States1300 Posts
On July 17 2009 01:05 MoltkeWarding wrote: My initial thought is the very branding of this act as "medieval" represents a medievalist kind of thinking, whereby individual features of a law or act is not seen by its individual or circumstantial qualities, but reduced to a symbolic quality to be mapped against the prescriptions of moral norms and general ideals. The very reduction of the Middle Ages to a singular pejorative phrase, and then to treat this phrase with a kind of assumed substantiality must go beyond even Medieval generalizations about history. Secondly, this law was motivated not by medievalism, whatever that is, but by modern bureaucratic overreach. Its ambitions are not very different from other kinds of hate speech, subject to the Irish context where religion has been the "race" or "ethnicity" issue for a long time. Thirdly, this is a bad law, since its ambiguous definition of blasphemy gives a lot of leeway for interpretation, and subjective preferences. Furthermore it mutilates the historical memories of Ireland, and painful as they are, should not simply be decked over by an order to silence. Saying it's medieval is a hyperbole used to draw people into the conversation -- we all know Ireland doesn't go around killing each other in the name of their own lords. Seriously.... And yes, we agree it is a bad law as well. | ||
|
tyreek
United States141 Posts
| ||
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On July 21 2009 10:06 L wrote: Quite the opposite. There's quite a substantial amount of interplay between the two. Its rather understandable too, since Northern Ireland's religious divide was over whether or not it should unite with the predominantly catholic republic, or stay with the predominantly protestant UK. Yes, you indicated all this before. However, despite a wide reading on the topic I can find no indication that the new law has anything to do with Northern Ireland or the Republic's relationship or interplay with the north. If you can provide any authoritative sources which indicate the opposite I would be grateful if you could direct me to them. As far as I can see, this is something of an anomaly of internal politics in the Republic and has little if anything to do with the Troubles and their aftermath. | ||
|
Sinedd
Poland7052 Posts
man thats a pretty retarded law imo ... lets see what UE has to say about this . | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
On July 16 2009 23:28 jello_biafra wrote: Wow that's incredibly retarded, I'm glad I don't live in Ireland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom It's not as if they're alone. Although if I read the article correctly, it seems England at least abolished the law in 2008. And not a second too soon! | ||
|
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On July 21 2009 20:41 ParasitJonte wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom It's not as if they're alone. Although if I read the article correctly, it seems England at least abolished the law in 2008. And not a second too soon! As with so many things in the British legal and constitutional system, it floated around for a long time, unenforced, before the government finally got round to nixing it. | ||
|
Samurai-
Slovenia2035 Posts
| ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
Let's just say it takes a while for the penny to drop. | ||
|
MakkurtE
United States46 Posts
It's got nothing to do with issues re the north. It isn't a sign of growing religious fundementalism in Ireland or anywhere else. Taken from here: “Until the Constitution is amended, it is necessary that a sanction be provided in regard to blasphemous libel,” Mr Ahern told the Seanad. “We have three options on this. We can have a referendum and change this. We can pass a section dealing with blasphemous libel in order to comply with the Constitution, or we could just drop this Bill altogether,” he added. The Minister added that he had amended the Bill to remove the threat of imprisonment and reduce the fine for blasphemous libel from €100,000 to €25,000. Mr Regan claimed the offence of blasphemy should be dealt with through other laws such as the incitement to hatred legislation. Senator Dan Boyle of the Green Party said that while he accepted the reason blasphemy was included in the Bill, the effect would be to codify an offence that most people did not believe in and that made a nonsense of the legal process. “To move forward from here, we need to address the wider issue. This measure is nothing but a legalistic repair job in regard to a short-term political expedient,” he said. I'd be amazed if it's ever applied in a courtroom.Dont get me wrong, it's a ridiculous law based on undeserved respect for ridiculous ideals (all religious belief), but it's not that big a deal really. Idle meaningless legislation with no impact on real life. In short - meh | ||
| ||
.
