the government of ireland set up a law that makes the publication or utterance of blasphemous matter a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine.
Especially atheist-groups, but also religious-groups are shocked by this new law since there wasn't even a priest, mullah or rabbi who claimed a law like that.
I think this is pretty big since Ireland is (should be) a modern, western state and their behaviour with religion should go the other way around.
I don't see how Ireland can keep this law since it seems like basically nobody likes it.
I, as an atheist but more likely acting as an agnostic, can accept any religion as long as they don't try to convince or even worse denunciate someone because of his faith. While I think atheist who try the same (convince/denunciate) ain't better, this law it totally against human rights. It's against the right of equality and against the freedom of expression.
Wow, that's pretty unbelievable. If they are actually going to enforce that, they should make it punishable if you promote religion. It'd be fair then, noone can push their views on anyone else, unless they really want the 25k fine. I don't personally mind Athiests not being able to mutter any blasphemous matter, because they piss me off almost as much as religious fanatics who try to convert you, but as it stands, you can say whatever you want in the name of your God. Not cool.
Nah, really stupid law... I was there recently and did not get much of the religious stuff, could as well have been an atheist country from my perspective (except all the old churches and stuff)...
Well, if the law has no base it probably won't be used much...
On July 16 2009 23:34 MutaDoom wrote: Wow, that's pretty unbelievable. If they are actually going to enforce that, they should make it punishable if you promote religion. It'd be fair then, noone can push their views on anyone else, unless they really want the 25k fine. I don't personally mind Athiests not being able to mutter any blasphemous matter, because they piss me off almost as much as religious fanatics who try to convert you, but as it stands, you can say whatever you want in the name of your God. Not cool.
There's all ready a law on the books for this. Called harassment. Why do people feel the need to have these redundant laws, case in point: Hate Crimes. What a bunch of malarky.
I sure like it how you like to restrict free speech. Might as well also make it punishable if you promote Communism (Envelops Atheism) and Socialism. It is the same thing. If you don't like someone expressing their views simply tell them [No, thanks.] and move along, if they continue then call the cops for harassment. Simple.
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.
In this case, "blasphemy" is any matter held grossly abusive or insulting to matters held sacred to any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents to any religion; and will become a crime when the offense is intentional.
Vagues laws are worse than merely bad laws; they pass the legislative torch to judiciary interpretation. The interpretation of the law becomes the law itself.
C'mon guys! How could you not see it was an April Fools joke?!? Oh! Wait! We're in mid-July... Ouch, this pretty retarded then. But as it has been said already, I doubt this can stand in front of the EU Human Rights Court.
PS : Moltke, please stop posting. Or at least stop being pompous. Your posts have the actual content of a two-liner, yet you manage to make 3 paragraphs out of it.
On July 17 2009 00:55 Oxygen wrote: barth, isn't there a huge amount of history of church involvement in Ireland, especially in resisting British invasion and occupation?
Also, any news it this will be applied to tourists? I'm planning to go to Ireland soon ...
I'd be incredibly surprised if it actually is used, apparently there was already a provision for blasphemy in the constitution, this article in the Irish Independent (a newspaper on equally reputable as the times) puts a slightly different spin on things,
Also the state broadcaster rte provides an article from when the legislation was in its draft stages, showing that it would require a referendum to remove the constitutional ban(drafted in 1937). There was pre-existing legislation that allowed for imprisonment for blasphemy,(that said we have a referendum coming up in October, it could have been held in conjunction with that). In reality, rather than being a new draconian measure it is instead a hopelessly insufficient attempt at progressive legislation.EDIT(It's so hopeless that its not even funny)
Oh and the church's position with respect to British occupation was not consistent, here's a very brief timeline in spoiler since its semi-off topic
EDIT *Looking at the what I've written I should point out that I think the ban should be removed fully via a referendum, it would certainly pass easily.
12th century, gave permission to Henry II to invade Ireland 16th century declares Q. Elizabeth a heretic and orders all Catholics to not treat her as Queen
17th Century, supports the catholic confederation that sought independence during the English civil war later 17th century, Supports the Jacobites in the war of two kings between James II (a catholic) and William of Orange( a Protestant), Jacobites lose,
18th century, with the succession of the House of Hanover as the English Royal family, the Vatican declares them the rightful monarch of England. The Catholic Church's priority was to remove the so called penal laws that persecuted catholics. They openly condemned the 1798 rebellion and actively supported the Act of Union 1801 that de jure united Ireland with Britain, they hoped this would secure catholic emancipation, which did happen over the next 80 years
20th Century, the Catholic church did not really support the Irish was of independence in 1919/1920, certainly individual priests probably helped, but it was not a systematic thing
On July 17 2009 01:55 Uraeus wrote: C'mon guys! How could you not see it was an April Fools joke?!? Oh! Wait! We're in mid-July... Ouch, this pretty retarded then. But as it has been said already, I doubt this can stand in front of the EU Human Rights Court.
PS : Moltke, please stop posting. Or at least stop being pompous. Your posts have the actual content of a two-liner, yet you manage to make 3 paragraphs out of it.
Nah!...wait okay! I agree! Now set a good example and show me how it's done....Please?!?
On July 16 2009 23:59 BlackJack wrote: Don't a lot of "western" countries have laws against hate speech? I find both to be pretty ridiculous.
Well you can say whatever you want but you can't insight violence.
There is this guy in Kansas who gained some nationwide notice in the news (in the U.S.) because he was picketting the funerals of slain soldiers from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars with signs like "God Hates Fags" because the U.S. allows homosexuality I guess...
His followers came to my school and picketed across the streets because we had a gay homecoming king and a gay class president. Our teachers were all paranoid about us getting involved with them because I guess those trash get their funding by suing people who get provoked by them. It was a good uniting cause for our school though because there were like 10 of them and like a 1000 of us across the street.
It's the same situation as in France with the recent retarded law that authorised some official organisation to spy on your activities on internet and cut your internet connection if you download. As already said, it just won't stand in the EU court.
On July 16 2009 23:59 BlackJack wrote: Don't a lot of "western" countries have laws against hate speech? I find both to be pretty ridiculous.
Well you can say whatever you want but you can't insight violence.
There is this guy in Kansas who gained some nationwide notice in the news (in the U.S.) because he was picketting the funerals of slain soldiers from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars with signs like "God Hates Fags" because the U.S. allows homosexuality I guess...
His followers came to my school and picketed across the streets because we had a gay homecoming king and a gay class president. Our teachers were all paranoid about us getting involved with them because I guess those trash get their funding by suing people who get provoked by them. It was a good uniting cause for our school though because there were like 10 of them and like a 1000 of us across the street.
I didn't mean U.S. I'm sure most people here are well aware of the westboro baptist church
On July 17 2009 00:55 Oxygen wrote: barth, isn't there a huge amount of history of church involvement in Ireland, especially in resisting British invasion and occupation?
Also, any news it this will be applied to tourists? I'm planning to go to Ireland soon ...
Well... Ireland (excluding some of the north) kept Catholicism as main religion even under long British occupation which of course promoted Protestantism, majority of schools are "Catholic" and majority of population also is "Catholic" but when you look closer, there is basically no religious education in all of these schools and 99% of population doesnt give a damn about religion (especially those "Catholics"). So thats why its surprising for me but not really something to worry about since there is no way it will be kept for long. And Ireland is a nice place so dont hesitate on visiting it .
On July 17 2009 01:55 Uraeus wrote: C'mon guys! How could you not see it was an April Fools joke?!? Oh! Wait! We're in mid-July... Ouch, this pretty retarded then. But as it has been said already, I doubt this can stand in front of the EU Human Rights Court.
PS : Moltke, please stop posting. Or at least stop being pompous. Your posts have the actual content of a two-liner, yet you manage to make 3 paragraphs out of it.
Sir, you're retarded and should read up on Moltkes post history, because chances are this guy is way more intelligent than you.
I love how more than half of people's response to Moltke's posts are "you're pompous", "you're pretentious", and "stop using big words".
Those aren't valid arguments at all. I mean, I disagree with the guy a lot, but if you have a problem with the guy then at least respond to his arguments, not his style of writing.
Wow, that's why I keep saying: Despite being shitty in oh so many areas, the single BEST thing about Brazil is no doubt freedom of religion. It's a matter discussed in absolute peaceful terms right here, and seeing how wars for religion are booming everywhere, I'm really glad things work this way in my country.
On July 17 2009 00:55 Oxygen wrote: barth, isn't there a huge amount of history of church involvement in Ireland, especially in resisting British invasion and occupation?
Also, any news it this will be applied to tourists? I'm planning to go to Ireland soon ...
Well... Ireland (excluding some of the north) kept Catholicism as main religion even under long British occupation which of course promoted Protestantism, majority of schools are "Catholic" and majority of population also is "Catholic" but when you look closer, there is basically no religious education in all of these schools and 99% of population doesnt give a damn about religion (especially those "Catholics"). So thats why its surprising for me but not really something to worry about since there is no way it will be kept for long. And Ireland is a nice place so dont hesitate on visiting it .
On July 17 2009 07:54 NukemDuke wrote: I guess this is what happens when you let the Irish have their own Government. They should just rejoin with the British to prevent these retarded laws from reoccurring.
Yep I would guess about 75% or more would vote against this if there was a referendum. The government are just a pile of wankers who only got elected because most people vote based on what side of the war of independence their grandfathers were on.
I'm just glad a law like this didn't pass somewhere where it would actually be taken seriously...say the southern US - I could see it now "evolut-" "BLASPHEMY!" /25k fine :S
On July 17 2009 10:40 MrMoose wrote: I'm just glad a law like this didn't pass somewhere where it would actually be taken seriously...say the southern US - I could see it now "evolut-" "BLASPHEMY!" /25k fine :S
Something like this just wouldn't hold up for a day in America. There would be riots...
The obvious purpose of the law is to lower protestant and catholic tensions in Ireland by providing deterrence and legitimizing actions against said 'blasphemer' as legal and final.
This law isn't 'crazy' or 'medieval'. It is likely to only be used against someone overtly trying to stir up the same bullshit that was tearing Ireland apart only a few years ago.
Hm, I'm torn on this law. On one side, L could have a very viable point. This law could very well lower the very high tensions between the religious groups. On the other hand, THIS IS BLASPHEMOUS!
On July 16 2009 23:59 BlackJack wrote: Don't a lot of "western" countries have laws against hate speech? I find both to be pretty ridiculous.
Well you can say whatever you want but you can't insight violence.
There is this guy in Kansas who gained some nationwide notice in the news (in the U.S.) because he was picketting the funerals of slain soldiers from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars with signs like "God Hates Fags" because the U.S. allows homosexuality I guess...
His followers came to my school and picketed across the streets because we had a gay homecoming king and a gay class president. Our teachers were all paranoid about us getting involved with them because I guess those trash get their funding by suing people who get provoked by them. It was a good uniting cause for our school though because there were like 10 of them and like a 1000 of us across the street.
I didn't mean U.S. I'm sure most people here are well aware of the westboro baptist church
Ah alright, I wasn't sure if people around the U.S. would know of him or whether I just did because he is based in Kansas. The same state whose board of education tried to make it mandatory to teach Creationism alongside evolution in science class!
I don't even see how something like this could possibly even be considered by a democratic nation. Wtf Ireland, what are you even doing? Does this law have any popular support whatsoever?
On July 17 2009 11:08 L wrote: The obvious purpose of the law is to lower protestant and catholic tensions in Ireland by providing deterrence and legitimizing actions against said 'blasphemer' as legal and final.
This law isn't 'crazy' or 'medieval'. It is likely to only be used against someone overtly trying to stir up the same bullshit that was tearing Ireland apart only a few years ago.
the law is extremely subjective and will be exploited. It is ridiculous to think that a system that would have to resort to such a law would have the discipline to use it only when it is optimal.
On July 17 2009 06:20 koreasilver wrote: I love how more than half of people's response to Moltke's posts are "you're pompous", "you're pretentious", and "stop using big words". Those aren't valid arguments at all. I mean, I disagree with the guy a lot, but if you have a problem with the guy then at least respond to his arguments, not his style of writing.
On July 17 2009 06:03 Foucault wrote: Sir, you're retarded and should read up on Moltkes post history, because chances are this guy is way more intelligent than you.
I don't have a "problem" with his ideas, just his style. Why do more than half of TL call him pompous ? Because he IS! As a matter of fact, I have read quite a lot of Moltke's posts. Because his posts have "big words", this makes him intelligent? No way... I am not saying he is stupid (I don't think he is actually). But if you read his posts carefully, most of the time, they could be drastically reduced and simplified without loosing their significance. Now, is it bad to write nice posts with rich vocabulary, etc...? No! Thing is, HIS posts are written more to show off than to convince (which is a way of convincing anyway. Read Schopenhauer about that. See? I can quote philosophers too? Am I not clever?), and this is immature and annoying. There was a post on TL about degrees and Academic achievements. Many on TL have incredible résumés. Do they brag about it on the forums or write pompously? NO! Does Tasteless, a guy who majored in philosophy, comes up with jokes about Plato and Descartes? NO, he cracks nerdy jokes! TL forums are here for fun, not as a place to write academic essays. Now if Moltke wrote a TLFE, I am pretty sure it would be great because this guy obviously has incredible writing skills. He should just put them to a better use.
Actually this law is just reflecting the resurging fundamentalism in just about every religion. Earlier this year, an atheist group bought adverts on buses in Britrain, and had the message "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." printed. Of course it was provocative, but nevertheless, quite a lot complaints were filed in order to have the ads removed. Last time India's Prime Minister came to France, he asked to have our law modified so the Sikhs could drive a motorcycle without a helmet but with their turban instead. This way, WE would respect THEIR religion. In France again, several problems have been reported of Muslim parents refusing their daughter to wear sport outfits for Physical Education classes, because it implied not wearing a veil. A couple of years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Sikh (again!) students were allowed to wear a ceremonial dagger (yes, a dagger, as in a huge sharp knife) AT SCHOOL for religious reasons. There is a general trend of random people and religious leaders asking the whole society to adapt to their own religion, and more and more countries are leaning towards this. This is a wrong way to address the problem of religion imo. I am a strong supporter of France's secularism (we are one of the few Western countries with NO official religion), as it forces every single citizen to have common references. As soon as you start differentiating people according to their religions, this creates tensions between communities and favors fundamentalism in the end.
On July 17 2009 11:08 L wrote: The obvious purpose of the law is to lower protestant and catholic tensions in Ireland by providing deterrence and legitimizing actions against said 'blasphemer' as legal and final.
This law isn't 'crazy' or 'medieval'. It is likely to only be used against someone overtly trying to stir up the same bullshit that was tearing Ireland apart only a few years ago.
the law is extremely subjective and will be exploited. It is ridiculous to think that a system that would have to resort to such a law would have the discipline to use it only when it is optimal.
The law being extremely subjective is the NORM for laws.
Judges fill in the details and provide the machinery to get more certainty from decisions, even in civil law countries. If this law is 'abused' it will be because judges abuse it and don't throw out stupid claims. Judges will have to develop tests to determine what constitutes blasphemy, what contexts are viable, etc.
Nearly your entire criminal code is built in similar language, but the history and usage of the laws have led to calcification of the meanings, tests, traditions, and institutions used to judge people, which has given the process legitimacy. The same will happen with this law if judges do their job.
Edit: I suggest you look up the charter and our constitution to see how vague they are. There are sections which are interpreted nearly 100% in the opposite manners that the original drafters envisaged, and the vaguest areas are the areas in which there is the most judicial scrutiny, because they're also the most useful.
On July 17 2009 11:08 L wrote: The obvious purpose of the law is to lower protestant and catholic tensions in Ireland by providing deterrence and legitimizing actions against said 'blasphemer' as legal and final.
This law isn't 'crazy' or 'medieval'. It is likely to only be used against someone overtly trying to stir up the same bullshit that was tearing Ireland apart only a few years ago.
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.
On July 16 2009 23:39 Diomedes wrote: It won't stand in the EU court.
Only problem is the time and money it takes to get your right.
How doesn't this stand in a EU court? It'll stand just fine. It's comming right out as being a criminal charge as per the Ozturk criteria and countries are free to create their own laws. There's no way this is going to be an infringement on freedom of speech as people are still free to express their criticism on faith or that they are nonbelievers and don't believe in god. Read the bill, you just can't go insulting god and the faith. It's all fine as long as its mannered.
On July 17 2009 11:08 L wrote: The obvious purpose of the law is to lower protestant and catholic tensions in Ireland by providing deterrence and legitimizing actions against said 'blasphemer' as legal and final.
This law isn't 'crazy' or 'medieval'. It is likely to only be used against someone overtly trying to stir up the same bullshit that was tearing Ireland apart only a few years ago.
the law is extremely subjective and will be exploited. It is ridiculous to think that a system that would have to resort to such a law would have the discipline to use it only when it is optimal.
lol, all law is ultra subjective and open to exploit. Continental law quite a bit less due to elaborate codification systems but Common law is just one big subjective interpretation on law setting precedents by a select few.
This law is ridiculous. People are definitely free to have their opinions about something like religion. I think there's alot of things wrong with religion and I freely express that there are details that are just utterly ridiculous. It's not a hate crime UNLESS it crosses the boundary and specifically targets a living breathing human being. You hear gasps in Canada when our prime minister pocketed a eucharistic cracker (yes, I said it, cracker: or wafer if you prefer). I think certain people have trouble differentiating what constitutes as a physical person and what doesn't. Sure you think the eucharist is the Jesus' body and it's your right to hold that view... just realize that there are others that don't see it that way and in reality, it really is just a bland piece of cardboard (after all, transubstantiation is just a long word that explains nothing really). There's nothing to be worked up about except that if we start putting religion on the pedastel and giving it a high and mighty status, the Church will NOT be accountable for their ignorant ways.
On July 17 2009 00:55 Oxygen wrote: barth, isn't there a huge amount of history of church involvement in Ireland, especially in resisting British invasion and occupation?
Also, any news it this will be applied to tourists? I'm planning to go to Ireland soon ...
Well... Ireland (excluding some of the north) kept Catholicism as main religion even under long British occupation which of course promoted Protestantism, majority of schools are "Catholic" and majority of population also is "Catholic" but when you look closer, there is basically no religious education in all of these schools and 99% of population doesnt give a damn about religion (especially those "Catholics"). So thats why its surprising for me but not really something to worry about since there is no way it will be kept for long. And Ireland is a nice place so dont hesitate on visiting it .
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.
On July 21 2009 00:00 Nyovne wrote: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
whaaat ??? and i thought that Poland is a country taken by a religious fanatics ... man thats a pretty retarded law imo ... lets see what UE has to say about this .
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!
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.
There's an anti-blashpemy law in the Netherlands, as well. They thought about abolishing it, but considered it 'too soon'. Let's just say it takes a while for the penny to drop.
Total storm in a teacup. It's defamation legislation with an unfortunate name that's garnered it too much international recognition, mainly thanks to that Dawkins soundbyte. It's dealing with blasphemous libel, not blasphemy. The notion that there are teams of police roaming the streets waiting to catch someone yell "jesus f*cking christ" when they stub their toe is ridiculous.
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.
“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.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.ugo.com/music/top-50-music-scandals/images/entries/scandal_11.jpg)
.
