Chibbi Brady
Member
How the hell did this pass??? This country is seriously going down the shitter.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Is blasphemy officially illegal in Ireland now?
- Thread starter Tamanon
- Start date
- Status
Ignis Fatuus
Banned
I didn't think it would be this bad but...yeah, proven wrong again.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours but I think the Irish have a good sense of humour, and when I get drunk I expect to find them laaaaaaaaaaaughiiiiiiiing.
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
what's this fella gonna do now
MrPing1000
Member
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0713/1224250543694.html?via=mr
Dawkins and the Creator of Father Ted mentioned. Atheist Ireland to release blasphemous statements to see if anyone will bother to take action against them :lol
Zeouterlimits
Member
I've been following this..I was initially very outraged, and on the face of it still am.. BUT .. basically the justice minister did it to satisfy an aspect of the constitution that would otherwise need amendment (and he can't be arsed doing that), AND he says it's been designed so that practically speaking it would be next to impossible to prosecute anyone for it. So hopefully that's really the case.
Ehh..please.
ksan said:
Ehh..please.
Souldriver
Member
I found it weird that such a law gets passed, since, well, this is western Europe, one of the most secularizated regions in the world. I know they've got that whole protestant/catholic thing going on that probably pushes people in one of those camps, but still, the numbers tell me that there are....929 atheists in Ireland. :lol
The chances of this law getting overturned/overruled/... seem zero now, and it doesn't surprise me that it got passed in the first place. I also suddenly understand how the Irish were so gullible to the crap the anti-Lisbon campaign spewed like "the EU will make you have only one child, just like China".
The chances of this law getting overturned/overruled/... seem zero now, and it doesn't surprise me that it got passed in the first place. I also suddenly understand how the Irish were so gullible to the crap the anti-Lisbon campaign spewed like "the EU will make you have only one child, just like China".
PnCIa said:
I see the irish bashing is hitting its stride now.
Why is it these threads always devolve into veiled, and less than veiled, irish-bashing?
This is a stupid law from a stupid minister that will be practically impossible to prosecute and that the vast majority in ireland (i think) are totally opposed to judging by public reaction to it.
Third world savages? Enough, thanks.
Zeouterlimits
Member
Souldriver said:
Gross exaggeration. Lisbon failed due to a piss-poor campaign by the government of informing people what the treaty was.
fortified_concept
Banned
LovingSteam said:
Because some other morons are voting for them.
fortified_concept
Banned
PnCIa said:
If you have such high standards for the EU there are a lot of countries that should leave before Ireland does; for example Greece, Italy and the new ones that entered. EU is mainly a corporate union... errr I mean economic union that doesn't give a flying fuck whether the the society of the country-member is painfully stupid or not, as long as the worker-bees can contribute to the economy of the union.
Btw if you want to see your high standards getting shattered look no further than how the europeans voted during the EU election.
fortified_concept said:
It does to some degree though. The EU has exerted pressure on Turkey wrt certain social reforms before allowing them in.
I don't think this law qualifies as being of concern to the EU though..if it does it won't be too long before it's thrown out.
Zeouterlimits
Member
We'll see if anyone gets prosecuted for anything to do with this and how "serious" it is.
fortified_concept
Banned
gofreak said:
EU is concerned about Turkey's generals who always had a lot of power in the country because they want a stable economy without any fear of a coup. Plus it's a good excuse not to include a muslim country in the union.
If EU cared so much they would have fined Greece a million fucking times for human rights violations in police stations and demonstrations, for the way our fucking cops are practically torturing immigrants etc etc. (check amnesty international they have a million fucking articles on us)
Instead they're fining us because we don't recognize colleges as equal to public universities (oh no, the college corporations are losing profits!) since the majority of the Greek society doesn't want them to and they keep rising against the government every time they try to pass that law.
Let's say there is a Hindue gathering in Ireland. I just happen to pass by with my cattle. I carry a megaphone, it's hot and the cattle are being bitchy. I'm trying to get past all these people, but the cattle are making it impossible. I finally snap and yell the most horrible cattle insults into the megaphone, so everyone in vicinity of the cattle can hear and see me.gofreak said:
If all of these people were outraged, then I could very well be fined a huge amount of money.
I think that is pretty realistic to happen.
Fjolle
Member
Just FYI, it has been illegal in denmark for a long time, although the posibility for death penalty was removed in 1866 :lol
But even with this law in place, no one have been succesfully sued for the muhammed cartoons or showing "submission"...
Edit: According to wiki the last time it was used was in 1938, where some Nazis got convicted for antisemitism.
But even with this law in place, no one have been succesfully sued for the muhammed cartoons or showing "submission"...
Edit: According to wiki the last time it was used was in 1938, where some Nazis got convicted for antisemitism.
John_B said:
I think it would be pretty much impossible for them to prove you intended to cause outrage on that scale which is another requirement. In that scenario you quite clearly didn't. Moreover it'd be impossible to pin down if the numbers in that group constitute a 'significant' number of the religion's adherents.
Personal prosecutions are virtually impossible here IMO. Prosecution of a newspaper or something like that might be more feasible, but still very difficult.
Bear in mind also that it's always been possible to bring a blasphemy case based on the consitution.. there've literally only been a handful, the last one was ages ago.. and they were all thrown out because of a lack of legislation prescribing punishment. This legislation provides that - something the courts in those cases were asking for, and thus something the government couldn't really ignore - but also tightens things up so as to make the likelihood of a successful prosecution very small by raising the burden of proof.
That's not to say the whole thing isn't stupid and that they shouldn't have amended the constitution rather than working around it with legislation, but the likely actual impact of this is virtually nil.
Zeouterlimits
Member
Zeouterlimits said:
It's always been in the constitution (a borrowed relic from the british), but there was no associated legislation prescribing how it would be punished. Thus in a couple of test cases, the courts could do nothing. These cases were brought quite some time ago, but for some reason the government has now decided to tidy things up by providing the legislation the courts were asking for back then. The only alternative would be a constitutional admendment..something I think should be done, and should have been done instead, but the government feels otherwise (probably just because amendments are a PITA, more work, require referenda..and the government isn't popular, so a referedum proposed by the government now would likely fail so they're not gonna risk it). The government says it couldn't really turn a blind eye to this 'hole' in the law.
But by providing the legislation the courts were seeking, they've also tightened it so that successful prosecution should be very unlikely.
The proper clean solution would have been to take out references to blasphemy from the constitution, but cest la. Hopefully down the line a government with credibility will push the amendment and the people will pass it.
Zeouterlimits
Member
ksan said:
But you're not very sorry so don't bother saying it.
What EU country are you from ksan? How about backing up some of your claims?
That we're leeches? Or these laws?
Did you completely ignore gofreak's point?
"It won't be used" isn't a very good defense for its existence. The constitution should be amended and their excuse for not doing so is pretty weak. Even if I stand up and shout at the top of my lungs with the specific purpose of inciting as much outrage as humanly possible the government shouldn't have a damn thing to say about it.
ksan said:
Ireland wouldn't get anywhere on these thing if it weren't for larger countries (e.g. france) who share the same interests. We don't have the clout on our own to drive that kind of agenda - or indeed to drive anything on our own - so..
And yeah, we've benefitted from the EU, absolutely.
But third world country? :lol 'Please..' just about fits..
ksan said:
Outdated blasphemy laws are not unique to Ireland. It's unfortunate the issue was ressurected now, but there was an anomaly in the law vs the constitution and the government felt it had to do something. They didn't do the right thing (i.e. amend the constitution), but for all intents and purposes the practical application of those laws is as dead as any other country's.
Souldriver
Member
The mere fact that such a law can pass in a modern country is asinine, no matter if it's actually implemented well.Zeouterlimits said:
Zeouterlimits
Member
KHarvey16 said:
The point is, currently the government is not .. loved in Ireland. The recession has hit us badly, and the public blames the current government alot. To change the constitution (remove the old fogey) there would be need to be a national vote/referendum.
Anti-government sentiment could easily cause this to backfire and not pass.
FYI - I don't like it either, but now I've a better understanding of the predicament.
I blame DeValera, god damn Americans
Zeouterlimits said:
You like putting words in other people's mouth, so why don't you answer those questions for me? :lol
gofreak said:
Third world country in the social sense, not in the economic sense obviously :lol
(and a slight exaggeration here too, maybe
I understand that it might be dead, but the fact that it was brought up and still not fixed is a catastrophe, and in this case some of these guys actually thought this law seemed like a good one.
Zeouterlimits
Member
ksan said:
Because I asked you. Explain it to me, please.
Night_Trekker
Member
nubbe said:
*looks up and waits*
He's a-cookin'-a something up.
Zeouterlimits
Member
zeouterlimits said:
I assume this is what you're referring to. To me even those you prefaced saying "sorry" what you actually said contradicted this, therefore misusing the word sorry, or incorrectly understanding its meaning (feeling regret, compunction, sympathy, pity according to dictionary.com).
That is why.
Now, can you answer mine?
- Status