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


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

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

So that


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.


But why remove blasphemy and not seditious or indecent matter?


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


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

Do you want them removed?


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.


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:


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.


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.


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.


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?


The style seems to be not to debate fundamental constitutional issues anymore when proposing constitutional referendums and sub-contract out the dirty work to international NGO’s aided and abetted by the media to run the programming.

The last referendum was text book case.

If I am not mistaken there were no serious debates involving top leadership primary the Taoiseach. I have no recollection of watching hard fought debates by Me Varadkar or Ministers Harris or Zappone.

There are more questions than there are answers to this one and it seems through perhaps media blackout on the issue they hope people merely act in the reflex on hearing the term and give the Government what they want.

Can we answer even one of the following questions with and certainty with relation to removing “blasphemy” from form Article 40.6.1

Why do the Government want it removed?

A: ?

I’ve offered my view based a little digging turning up one tweet from one FG senator that the Government wants it removed as they feel it would be better dealt with in future Hate Speech legislation. If that is the government position then:

**Can we see proposed legislation ion that is the proposed case? **

A: ?

Why do the Government want more power over language?

A: ?

Why do the Government seem so silent on this change?

A: ?

**What was the impetuous (ground swell) for this proposed change? **

A: ?

What is the Taoiseach’s position on this proposed change?

A: ?

What is the Cabinets position on this proposed change?

A: ?

**What is each and every TD’s position on this change? **

A: ?

What does it mean in the face of the ECHR ruling yesterday, that you can defame the prophet Muhammed if you refer to him as a Pedopile for marrying a 9 year old girl?

A: ?

What is the view of the Leader, The Cabinet, The Dail in the face of the ECHR ruling yesterday, that you can defame the prophet Muhammed if you refer to him as a Pedophile for marrying a 9 year old girl even if we remove the word from article 40.6.1?

A: ?


Seriously lads, it’s about removing “blasphemy,” from the constitution. It’s not some theological debate about how many illumanti conspiracy theories can you fit on the head of a pin.


What are you on about?


See, that’s exactly how it feels. :smiley:


You’re part of the media conspiracy blackout! :smiley:


m.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muh … a-46050749

Pretty bizarre that the same day that Ireland votes to remove the prohibition on blasphemy, the European Cour of Human Rights upholds the conviction of an Austrian woman for the utterance of what could only be described as blasphemous statements.

Twill be interesting if this judgment is ever sought to be relied upon in an Irish court.


^^ a more detailed commentary on that here:

eclj.org/free-speech/echr/obser … tervention

For context:

“A criminal case was initiated by the Prosecutor of Vienna, following a complaint from journalists, whose action apparently was not primarily intended to protect Muhammed’s reputation but to politically fight the FPÖ.”

There’s echoes of the James Damore thing here. Once the rage starts flying, outcomes depend not only on what you said, but your affiliations and previous record.

On the other hand, I’m guessing that the statements about Muhammad wouldn’t have triggered a prosecution had it not been for…

…that seems like a massive overreach.


Seems like a disturbing decision:
There is a right to “have religious greetings protected” now?
The way the woman made her assertions did not encourage debate - and this was bad.
Apparently although Muhammad had sexual relations with a child, was not evidence of paedophilia as he had sexual relations with older women also (well at least it offers a novel form of defence for lawyers dealing with those accused of suchlike crimes).
Of note, the decision presupposes that Muhammad existed ( which is currently in debate) and that certain texts are biographical.

Muhammad is referred to as his honorific Islamic title as “Prophet”.

Would it have been ok to refer to Muhammad as “kiddy-fiddler” - since it does not necessarily imply a sexual predilection so much as a factual occurrence?
Would it be problematic to describe a fictional character (which Muhammad may be) in a certain way? Darth Vader had sexual relations with Ewoks?
Would it have been ok if the appellant had asked “any questions or feedback?” at the end of her speech?


I am happy enough for the ECHR to make a decision to allow leeway to a national system - including for things such as effectively “social harmony”.

What is problematic for me are the various justifications, assertions from the ECHR decision and the future consequences (or indication of direction) of that.


From the article that you’ve cited above …

This is a terrible judgement that appears to set Muslims apart from everyone else simply on the basis of them being likely to kick off at a moments notice. The corollary would be if someone in Ireland was to be similarly prosecuted for making comments about Jesus Christ or even the Pope simply on the basis of Catholics being likely to riot or commit acts of violence as a result.

Plus the statements about Mohammed’s lifestyle are essentially statements of fact ie he was a paedophile and so if he was around today they wouldn’t meet the most basic threshold for a defamation action