CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Religion A-Z › Ireland passes blasphemy law
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ireland passes blasphemy law

post #1 of 27
7/10/09 at 12:05pm
Thread Starter 
Their constitution makes it a crime, but an attempt to prosecute someone for a cartoon mocking the church in 1999 was thrown out because the judge said there was no definition of blasphemy. Now the definition is: substantial numbers of adherents of a religion find the offense insulting, the offender intends to cause outrage, and no artistic or political value can be claimed in defense. The court may then issue a warrant to retrieve the materials in question from anyone who possesses them, and fine the blasphemer 25,000 euros.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...blasphemy-laws
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/200...backward-step/
http://www.palibandaily.com/2009/07/...phemy-illegal/
Reply
post #2 of 27
7/10/09 at 12:17pm
Sounds like our pornography laws.
Reply
post #3 of 27
7/10/09 at 12:37pm
But a lot worse.
Reply
post #4 of 27
7/10/09 at 12:40pm
But seemingly just as hard to enforce. What constitutes a "substantial number of adherents"? How do they prove the offender intended to cause outrage? How do they determine artistic or political value?
Reply
post #5 of 27
7/10/09 at 12:41pm
If the Lisbon-treaty ever enters into force, the European Court of Justice will have a field day with this.
Unless Ireland will negotiate a special protocoll prior to their second vote on that treaty barring the Court to judge about this.

But in general terms I would consider this law a catastrophic step backwards.
Reply
post #6 of 27
7/10/09 at 1:04pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
But seemingly just as hard to enforce. What constitutes a "substantial number of adherents"? How do they prove the offender intended to cause outrage? How do they determine artistic or political value?
It's less vague than it was before, and inches the government closer to actually prosecuting someone for blasphemy. You're absolutely right, it will probably not stand up, but it's bizarre. It shouldn't be on the books. In the right climate it could be used to harass people.
Reply
post #7 of 27
7/10/09 at 1:37pm
Blasphemy law?
Fuck that!
Fuck it up it's stupid ass!
Reply
post #8 of 27
7/10/09 at 1:41pm
Goddammit!

Preventing an irishman from cussing? Shit, why not have him stop drinking while you're at it?
Reply
post #9 of 27
7/10/09 at 1:49pm
And potatoes! Yeah! Cursing, drinking and potatoes! Haha!

I mean, it would be like asking giant, fat, loud, Hawaiian-shirt wearing Americans to stop wearing Baseball Caps, bermuda shorts and white socks pulled up as far as they could go! And THEN asking them to...to....point out Austria on a map! Uh? Uh? Amirite?

Sorry Ed . Couldn't resist. I thought we had gone some way to divesting the world of the notion that we were a bunch of cursing, drinking, fighting, Catholic redheads. We are - don't get me wrong, but we are so much more. We are a country of....Oh. We just passed a Blasphemy law. I'll get my coat.
Reply
post #10 of 27
7/10/09 at 2:18pm
Hey Phil, you've still got Garth Ennis pushing that sterotype around. So so long as Cassidy the vampire is around. The sterotype stays.
Reply
post #11 of 27
7/10/09 at 2:28pm
You know Ed, I'm ashamed to admit I didn't know who Garth Ennis was until I googled him just there. Ta for the heads-up
Reply
post #12 of 27
7/10/09 at 3:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
Hey Phil, you've still got Garth Ennis pushing that sterotype around. So so long as Cassidy the vampire is around. The sterotype stays.
The boy from County Down really had fun with that one.
Reply
post #13 of 27
7/10/09 at 3:34pm
25,000 Euros? I'll take the stoning thanks.
Reply
post #14 of 27
7/10/09 at 4:03pm
GOD DAMN, I can't find John Belushi's "Luck of the Irish" skit on youtube anymore.
Reply
post #15 of 27
7/10/09 at 9:09pm
Uh oh. I curse like a sailor when I get drunk. I may not be coming back from Ireland (which I leave for in 2 days - squee!).
Reply
post #16 of 27
7/10/09 at 10:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva View Post
Uh oh. I curse like a sailor when I get drunk. I may not be coming back from Ireland (which I leave for in 2 days - squee!).
Black Irish?
Reply
post #17 of 27
8/6/09 at 5:18pm
Doesn't the "the offender intends to cause outrage" clause justify it a bit? Kinda like how yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater isn't protected under free speech.

I'd normally be against shit like this, since I HATE religion, but my knee-jerk reaction is that, basically, this could be worse. It's borderline passable.

I might change my opinion if convinced otherwise, though.
Reply
post #18 of 27
8/6/09 at 5:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTSMGL View Post
Doesn't the "the offender intends to cause outrage" clause justify it a bit? Kinda like how yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater isn't protected under free speech.

I'd normally be against shit like this, since I HATE religion, but my knee-jerk reaction is that, basically, this could be worse. It's borderline passable.

I might change my opinion if convinced otherwise, though.
Well as a religious person I'm really against this type of law, it's idiotic and not comparable to yelling fire in a crowded theater. In that case, you will cause public harm, it's a malicious prank destined that could surely lead to physical harm.

This type of law makes it sound like you can't criticize any religion, specially if you mean to offend or cause a scandal. Doesn't make any sense at all.
Reply
post #19 of 27
8/6/09 at 8:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
This type of law makes it sound like you can't criticize any religion, specially if you mean to offend or cause a scandal. Doesn't make any sense at all.
Yeah, but, "[meaning] to cause a scandal" is tantamount to malicious anarchy. Like, drawing Muhammad just to see people go bugnuts and not because of some sincere sentiment of protest or whatnot. From what I understand, if it's proved that you did it just for shits n' giggles, THEN you're in deep shit.

I'm not ONE HUNDRED PERCENT in love with that, but I'm just saying that when you look at it that way it doesn't deserve as much bile as you guys are acting like it needs. Compared to other laws like it, it's downright tame.
Reply
post #20 of 27
8/6/09 at 10:12pm
Under this law, Monty Python's Life of Brian could be considered a crime.
Reply
post #21 of 27
8/6/09 at 10:24pm
BTSMGL, you're giving a lot of benefit of the doubt that this will be interpreted and enforced in the most level-headed, reasonable fashion possible. While we all hope that will be the case, there remains a tremendous amount of leeway for misuse when it comes to the definitions applied, and I think its always better not to give people the option.
Reply
post #22 of 27
8/6/09 at 10:32pm
I don't think he's doing that, he's trying to present a reasonable argument for it. I disagree though, because you can't legislate not offending people. This is why the way some hate speech laws are worded border on this and are not necessary.

The funny thing is that this law is anti-religious, as a Catholic I would consider Chick tracks blasphemous, and I could make the argument that they are created with the intent to offend me and those in my religion on purpose.

Wikipedia has an interesting short blurb on this legal concept BTW;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemous_libel

You can see that this law was eliminated by the British but then replaced with what really amounts to a slightly more secular version of it;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_...atred_Act_2006

These laws honestly don't make much sense and just lead to slippery slopes.
Reply
post #23 of 27
8/6/09 at 11:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
The funny thing is that this law is anti-religious, as a Catholic I would consider Chick tracks blasphemous, and I could make the argument that they are created with the intent to offend me and those in my religion on purpose.
I don't doubt you could. This post being one of many that demonstrate your prodigious facility for arguing without actually disagreeing.

Because we are pretty much in agreement; laws restricting speech are extremely difficult to calibrate and usually not worth the trouble.
Reply
post #24 of 27
8/6/09 at 11:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
I don't doubt you could. This post being one of many that demonstrate your prodigious facility for arguing without actually disagreeing.
Don't really get that statement there, perhaps my post was not clear enough. But it seems we agree, so that's good :-) (I think mostly everybody here is in agreement anyways)
Reply
post #25 of 27
8/6/09 at 11:54pm
I think you're prone to argue for the sake of arguing. Not the biggest deal in the world, but I don't think there's any defending of this law in theory. BT makes the best argument for it, which is that practically speaking, hey, it probably won't be applied irresponsibly. But if you ask me, that's no defense at all.
Reply
post #26 of 27
8/7/09 at 12:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Under this law, Monty Python's Life of Brian could be considered a crime.
I'm sure a good judge could've defended that as "commentary".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
BTSMGL, you're giving a lot of benefit of the doubt that this will be interpreted and enforced in the most level-headed, reasonable fashion possible. While we all hope that will be the case, there remains a tremendous amount of leeway for misuse when it comes to the definitions applied, and I think its always better not to give people the option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
I think you're prone to argue for the sake of arguing. Not the biggest deal in the world, but I don't think there's any defending of this law in theory. BT makes the best argument for it, which is that practically speaking, hey, it probably won't be applied irresponsibly. But if you ask me, that's no defense at all.
True, true. I guess I was in an optimistic mood today. I guess I was just taken aback by how fiercely you guys attacked it, while I was like "pfft, it's not good, but it's not THAT bad."

For the record, I'm atheist.
Reply
post #27 of 27
8/7/09 at 12:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
I think you're prone to argue for the sake of arguing. Not the biggest deal in the world, but I don't think there's any defending of this law in theory. BT makes the best argument for it, which is that practically speaking, hey, it probably won't be applied irresponsibly. But if you ask me, that's no defense at all.
I didn't really think I was arguing, just that the wikipedia entry made me think more of how this acceptable to people who support a lot of the hate speech laws we often talk about here. No big deal.

On a semi related note, there was a law that the Attorney General in Venezuela was proposing that was so bad they had to back off from it. It was a set of laws that included such nebulous concepts as prohibiting media from criticizing the government, it had nebulous words like reporting news that affects the "mental health" of the viewers. It was so bad their congress had to deny they were even considering it, which was funny because they applauded when the AG read it to them.

Just amazes me how people would even tolerate laws that would restrict their own freedom of speech.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religion A-Z
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Religion A-Z › Ireland passes blasphemy law