What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL


#1

How will you vote on the proposed word change to Article 40.6.1 (re-voting allowed)

  • Yes - Remove it at once!
  • No - I like the idea, sure it’s grand.

0 voters

So the ask is to remove only this word.


#2

The entire line should be removed IMHO and “without arms” (shit was that a seditious thought?) but I like my arms - so for that reason it’s a Vote No. BD


#3

Thanks for posting that OW. To my shame I hadn’t read the article or the relevant subsection. Is it just me or is that subsection 6 a mess. I’m not completely sure what my rights are. My reading is that it gives you rights and then says, yeah but if the State says enough is enough , you have to just take our word for it and not be saying anything about your rights.

I’m voting yes. If you’re on Team Tinfoil you should too as this is the article that’ll bring in Sharia law . Lets stop the Muslim take over and vote yes!


#4

We badly need a US-style 1st Amendment.
All forms of censorship only benefit the powerful.


#5

What is the current impetus or official justification to make this modest change?


#6

Breaking: ECHR throws spanner this way.


#7

Yes sub section 6 is a mess, its appears entirely contradictory because of/or badly worded on first inspection. I would need to look up the before and after amendment to see root cause.

As you may note in my previous post, the ECHR ruling may throw a spanner in your voting strategy. This may be a deck chair move on your part and your very last, once again the deck chairs are only allowed be moved by our elected representatives. A power grab or consolidation tucked into the Presidential vote. Sneaky.

Now I understand a bit more what may be going on in reality. I will try to explain.

I read not so long ago that some thought Hate Speech laws would soon come in on the back of a removal of this singular word via referendum, without understanding the origin of this view and little or no debate around the topic that I am aware of, it wasn’t till this evening did I find something of more clarity, which should make anyone suspcious, it does seem it is actually the case but to what measure I can not tell at this moment.

I don’t have the direct link so transcribing this from a image which I am assuming is accurate:

Did you feel a chill descend over your whole being reading those words? :nin

That alone leaves my default position in place, i.e. when in doubt/don’t know, vote NO.

If anyone has the extra time to dig out a linkable source to that tweet please do.

What to expect?

New and deeper leiglsaton reaching to the darkest corner of your beloved daily inter web lurking spots and probably everywhere else besides. Yes more than ever Ireland and the world needs a 1st Amendment. Not only that and I haven’t had time but it’s suggested that Hate Speech laws in the UK give Islam and others in some instances far greater protection tham what 6 might endow.

Right now the current wording could be equally applied to all religions. Think about that, even Satanists, witches et al might come under it’s protection or at least would have a strong arguable case in a court. Once removed we’re in a situation where politicians can tailor and appoint their version of acceptable speech and thus thought in legislation, based on the fashion of the day. How this interacts with the freedom of speech provision in the constitution I have not had time to compute.

This goes back to Jordan Peterson’s instructive observation by way of question, and I paraphrase the problem is not the laws but WHO gets to decided HOW and WHAT is hate speech?.


#8

I don’t see how removing blasphemy opens the door for hate speech. You could have hate speech and blasphemy side by side.


#9

Yea that’s a valid question and we are running out of time to asses the merits of this seemingly innocuous edit.

Perhaps having blasphemy in the constitution stifles political legislative aspirations. Retaining sedition and indecent gives then the kind of root cart Blanche they are seek too often and grow acustom too because we allow it rather foolishly.

For some It will elevates the state past God or the concept of something higher and out of the reach if robots criticism absent fear of legal duress.

While thinking about this the idea that you can’t have antisemitism If you can’t have blasphemy seems to apply. It’s an interesting discussion on its own merits.

Replace antisemitism with sedition. See the equivalence. Removing it is political cherry picking. The public are programmed to react to the keyword. So I doubt hardly a critical thought on the matter at hand will cross peoples minds. I was against it at the time but not he word. The whole same amendment. It’s not like this is some rectification vis a vis a hard won compromise.

Since it’s had virtually had no discussion I’m entirely suspicious. Maybe it’s that they are afraid to raise the Spectre of it being hijacked by Islam as means to an end and simply want to quietly remove that eventuality.

To look at it another way. What will stop the word blasphemy (or more) appearing in legislation?

Nothing as far as I can see.

In that respect. You mayfind your self with less ability to critically express dissatisfaction with more than the metaphysical factions of life without falling into the Orwellian pit of HATE SPEECH.


#10

Comedians, Satirists etc have been ridiculing and parodying Christianity for years. The MSM are always quick to have a go. And so be it.
As I see it, there’s no reason to not vote Yes today. Islam will be peed off but they’re here to integrate, aren’t they?


#11

It’s a very simple issue: do you want to remove one word from the constitution.

refcom.ie/current-referendu … al-effect/

So that

becomes

If you are going for “no”, then presumably you would be supportive of adding that word in the same place were it not there already.

There are lots of distracting side issues that come from shining a light on the constitution, not least "whoa, does that mean porn is illegal?, but this referendum is as simple as you can get.

One. Word. Removal.


#12

But why remove blasphemy and not seditious or indecent matter?


#13

While we’re at it I would prefer to see this crap removed as well:


#14

If you’re bothered about those things you could start a campaign to have them removed.

Do you want them removed?


#15

the actual bill reads

to replace the text “blasphemous, seditious” with “seditious” .
just think about that. it is not a removal at all but a re-wording.

Hate speech laws are unconstitutional. muppets like Neale Richmond, Bacik and the rest who are introducing hate speech laws have no right to do so.


#16

would have voted yes for a free speech amendment. this is a piss poor amendment that wont mean anything except telling the state that ‘we’ want to heavily punish those who make seditious utterances.

if there is a yes vote, lets see how truely great and brilliant the muzzled have been since 2009 :angry:


#17

Im not sure. I havent paid it much attention.

Im just at a bit of a loss as to why blasphemy would be treated differently to a highly subjective term such as ‘indecent matter’.

For example I would assume that the term ‘indecent matter’ was initially conceived of within a culturally religious context. Seems odd that it can be considered worth retaining when blasphemy is being removed.


#18

It’s phrased like that so that there is complete clarity and you’re not left with an orphaned comma which might make the reading ambiguous. I don’t see how you can read anything more into it than that.

On what basis do you think hate speech laws are unconstitutional? If we don’t have absolute freedom of speech guaranteed by our constitution then how can laws restricting freedom of speech be unconstitutional.


#19

Eh, no.
They also benefit the disenfranchised - supposing someone started a whispering campaign about Mr. A on t’internet. In Ireland, there’re laws to stop that sort of thing; in the US freedom of speech is rarely constrained. They act as a check on the balance of power to speak, including of the media against individuals.

Limitations to the freedom of speech do not necessarily amount to censorship. Given the ability to disseminate speech compared to when the US 1st Amendment was drawn up, limitations amount to a common good.

You can argue that the laws in Ireland are over-strict, but that’s a legislative, not a constitutional issue.


#20

If Judge read it like that , would you phone a friend?

Remember how the children’s referendum was judged to have conferred a right to life to “ALL” children? Remember how that judgement had to be shot down by the Supremes?