Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

How will you vote on the proposed word change to Article 40.6.1 (re-voting allowed)
Yes - Remove it at once! 78%  78%  [ 28 ]
No - I like the idea, sure it's grand. 22%  22%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 36
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:09 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Jun 16, 2007
Posts: 2978
Location: Oighearland
Eschatologist wrote:
Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
But why remove blasphemy and not seditious or indecent matter?

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

Do you want them removed?


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 :x

_________________
advice to future unemployed TDs at the next general election: dont look at it as a failure, see it as an opportunity to 'upskill'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:28 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6263
Location: On the Road
Eschatologist wrote:
Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
But why remove blasphemy and not seditious or indecent matter?

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

Do you want them removed?


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 is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:31 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation
User avatar

Joined: Oct 20, 2010
Posts: 2224
Thing Fish wrote:
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.

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.

Thing Fish wrote:
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.

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.

_________________
banana republic, septic isle


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:02 pm 
Offline
IMF'd

Joined: Sep 13, 2007
Posts: 31848
Location: Tullamore
mr_anderson wrote:
We badly need a US-style 1st Amendment.
All forms of censorship only benefit the powerful.

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.

_________________
"It is impossible to design a system so perfect that no one needs to be good."

So long and thanks for all the fish.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:08 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Jun 16, 2007
Posts: 2978
Location: Oighearland
JohnnyTheFox wrote:
Thing Fish wrote:
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.

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.



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?

_________________
advice to future unemployed TDs at the next general election: dont look at it as a failure, see it as an opportunity to 'upskill'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 3:30 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 1, 1970
Posts: 23187
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: ?

_________________
Follow The Pin - https://twitter.com/dailypinster

"Politicians are always realistically maneuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers." - Buckminster Fuller

"I was comfortable with a couple of banks being married today, instead i wake up and find I'm married to the banks." - Catbear

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 4:02 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Oct 22, 2007
Posts: 1906
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.

_________________
No tool is omnicompetent. There is no such thing as a master-key that will unlock all doors.
--Arnold Toynbee

If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.
--Epictetus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 4:37 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 1, 1970
Posts: 23187
tulip wrote:
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?

_________________
Follow The Pin - https://twitter.com/dailypinster

"Politicians are always realistically maneuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers." - Buckminster Fuller

"I was comfortable with a couple of banks being married today, instead i wake up and find I'm married to the banks." - Catbear

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 4:55 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Sep 13, 2012
Posts: 5365
Open Window wrote:
What are you on about?

See, that's exactly how it feels. :D

_________________
"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favour"
Tyrion Lannister


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:10 pm 
Offline
Too Big to Fail
User avatar

Joined: May 6, 2008
Posts: 4813
Location: the nearest faraway place
tulip wrote:
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.

You're part of the media conspiracy blackout! :D

_________________
Every single frozen corpse in the Death Zone on Everest was once a highly motivated person.

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do study history are doomed to watch everyone else repeating it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 7:50 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6263
Location: On the Road
Quote:

The ECHR ruled against an Austrian woman who claimed calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile was protected by free speech. The applicant claimed she was contributing to public debate.
An Austrian woman's conviction for calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile did not violate her freedom of speech, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday.
HUMAN RIGHTS | 26.06.2018

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that Austrian courts carefully balanced the applicant's "right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria."

The woman in 2009 held two seminars entitled "Basic Information on Islam," during which she likened Muhammad's marriage to a six-year-old girl, Aisha, to pedophilia.

The marriage according to Islamic tradition was consummated when Aisha was nine and Muhammad was around 50. Aisha was the daughter of Muhammad's best friend and the first caliph, Abu Bakr.
The court cited the Austrian women stating during the seminar that Muhammad "liked to do it with children" and "... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?"
An Austrian court later convicted the woman of disparaging religion and fined her €480 ($546). Other domestic courts upheld the decision before the case was brought before the ECHR.




https://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.

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:39 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Sep 13, 2012
Posts: 5365
^^ a more detailed commentary on that here:

https://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...

Quote:
The speaker noted that this was problematic since “the highest commandment for a Muslim man is to emulate Muhammad”, adding more generally that “Muslims are in conflict with democracy and our values system"


...that seems like a massive overreach.

_________________
"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favour"
Tyrion Lannister


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:48 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Jan 25, 2007
Posts: 1807
Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
Quote:

The ECHR ruled against an Austrian woman who claimed calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile was protected by free speech. The applicant claimed she was contributing to public debate.
An Austrian woman's conviction for calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile did not violate her freedom of speech, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday.
HUMAN RIGHTS | 26.06.2018

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that Austrian courts carefully balanced the applicant's "right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria."

The woman in 2009 held two seminars entitled "Basic Information on Islam," during which she likened Muhammad's marriage to a six-year-old girl, Aisha, to pedophilia.

The marriage according to Islamic tradition was consummated when Aisha was nine and Muhammad was around 50. Aisha was the daughter of Muhammad's best friend and the first caliph, Abu Bakr.
The court cited the Austrian women stating during the seminar that Muhammad "liked to do it with children" and "... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?"
An Austrian court later convicted the woman of disparaging religion and fined her €480 ($546). Other domestic courts upheld the decision before the case was brought before the ECHR.




https://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.

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".

Questions:
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:53 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Jan 25, 2007
Posts: 1807
Eschatologist wrote:
^^ a more detailed commentary on that here:

https://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...

Quote:
The speaker noted that this was problematic since “the highest commandment for a Muslim man is to emulate Muhammad”, adding more generally that “Muslims are in conflict with democracy and our values system"


...that seems like a massive overreach.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What's in a Word - Blasphemy, Yay or Nay? - POLL
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:05 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6263
Location: On the Road
Eschatologist wrote:
^^ a more detailed commentary on that here:

https://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...

Quote:
The speaker noted that this was problematic since “the highest commandment for a Muslim man is to emulate Muhammad”, adding more generally that “Muslims are in conflict with democracy and our values system"


...that seems like a massive overreach.


From the article that you've cited above ...

Quote:
Grégor PUPPINCK.- The only true reason for this decision is the fear of Muslims. The Court expressly says so: the Austrian authorities were right to condemn these remarks in order to preserve “religious peace” and “mutual tolerance” in the Austrian society. According to the Court, states now have, and this is new, “the obligatiocn […] of ensuring the peaceful co‑existence of all religions and those not belonging to a religious group by ensuring mutual tolerance”.

The Court develops several arguments to support its conclusion.

First, it judges the speaker’s very intention, and condemns her by considering that she did not seek so much to inform the public as to “disparage” Muhammad and to demonstrate “he was not a worthy subject of worship” and consequently to incite violence. Thus, to denigrate Muhammad is not protected by the freedom of expression: it would be necessary to speak about him with respect and good intentions!


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

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Click for Latest Posts LATEST POSTS Click for Forum List FORUMS   

Follow, Retweet @dailypinster

  

Pyramid Built, Is Better Built!