In a move certain to receive widespread support from Canadian Liberals…
The legislation, aimed at providing judges with clear direction on the 1937 Constitution’s blasphemy prohibition, imposes a fine of up to 25,000 euros — about $39,000 — for anyone who “publishes or utters matter that is [intentionally meant to be] grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion.”
Police with a search warrant will be able to enter private premises and use “reasonable force” to obtain incriminating evidence.
Ireland has always been something of a theocracy. Through most of the 20’th century, the Catholic Church kept an iron grip on much of the country. Indeed, the Irish consitution allows for laws against blasphemy.
Think of Ireland as a western version of Iran, with the Catholic clergy serving as the Ayatollah. Okay, it’s not that extreme, but in the past it hasn’t been far off.
vit
law is a “man” construct, they can be broken, miss quoted, abused , miss constude, but not lied about:-)))
facts can be lied about:-))))
Who decides what a religion is? That question is blasphemy in itself.
Oooh. Very nice, Aaron. That one goes in the quotes file.
Can anyone imagine what it would be like in Ireland if there was no whiskey or ale.
Possibly it would be like Saudi Arabia without the oil except the women wouldn’t be the harpies they are in Ireland. They keep them is sacs in SA.
I can remember a time in Canada where if you said something that insulted someone, they gave you a good slap and that was the end of it.
Once you put the government in it, the problems never stop growing and requiring more meetings and more staff and more funding and more prosecutions and so on and son. And that is why we are doomed.
My lawyer’s firm is named So On & Son.
Aha! That’s it! That’s why I’m doomed!
Doomed, I say, doomed, there’s no hope (sob).
All that remains now is the cheese.
If you’re ever looking for a new law firm to represent you, Vitruvius, I highly recommend Dewey, Dickham & Howe.
Hey Vit,
Was I banging on your mobile home door? Piss off.
Soo, Grabbit and Runn?
Too late, EBD, I just switched to the old but relatively
reclusive firm of Live, Long, & Prosper. So far, they’ve
advised me to avoid Momar 😉
For those of you stupid enough to blame this on “liberals”, you should probably realize that the largest party in Ireland is currently the “Fianna Fáil” (translated roughly as “Warriors of Ireland”) which is the most conservative Irish political party, and the second largest party (Fine Gael) is considered center-right. If you think they’re instituting these laws in order to protect Muslims – rather than to protect their own religions – you’re out of your minds.
In case you’ve forgotten, the Irish spent quite a bit of energy killing each other over the question of whether Catholics or Protestants were better Christians. It seems likely that this law is a misguided attempt to keep the peace between those two groups. Even if that isn’t the case, blaming the law on “liberalism” is completely asinine. Blasphemy laws generally have support from both sides of the political spectrum – usually from the extreme fringes of both sides.
Is truth a valid defense? For example, if I referred to Mohammed as a pedophile would I be in violation of the law?
Alex- we’re all thinking about what would happen here with the same law, (esp. with regard to enforcement)and also thinking about the most likely group to want to enact it here. In our recent history it has been the socialists that have been attracted to this sort of legislation (irregardless of other regimes around the world). And they aren’t fringe groups- the Ontario Human Rights Commissars are unfortunately mainstream.
The HRC’s may be mainstream, but the cases which are pissing everyone off are a result of appointees from the far-left. Just like you’ll occasionally get a judge in a regular court who has extremist political views, except that the HRC’s aren’t nearly as well regulated as the real justice system and more of their employees seem to have been scraped together from the extreme fringe of the Liberal party.
Try asking any normal Liberal (or even *gag* NDP)voter whether he/she thinks it’s ok for someone to be prosecuted for blasphemy, and see what they say. I guarantee you’ll get mostly negative responses. The only reason HRC’s even exist is because they never got much exposure, and the few voters who heard about them probably only heard the phrase “human rights” and thought “hey, that’s always a good thing!”. When I took the time to explain the HRC’s to my Liberal friends, they were astonished. Even the ones who still think that they’re a good idea in theory at least agree that the current implementation is horrifying.
Vit at 7:11—“Look, folks, the point remains, we’re all against this sort of stuff. Me too. Now define it. Freedom of speech includes lying. When are you free to lie?” That opens up a nasty can of worms.I do believe that we have libel and slander laws against that. But where does one persecute and prosecute and judge what is a lie ,when you are dealing with beliefs. IMHO,religions are superstition elevated to unproven fact,unproven but not to be questioned. This law will put,and I do hope so,religious beliefs on trial… What the hell was going with Cain,Abel,Adam and Eve? Are Catholics all in-bred? Can I say that without fear of prosecution? Was Mohammed showing restraint by not boinking Aisha until she reached the ripe age of eleven? Or was he just a dirty old man? … This law will have our ‘peers’ judging what is acceptable opinion,full speed ahead,damn the facts.
Alex said “It seems likely that this law is a misguided attempt to keep the peace between those two groups.”
I don’t think so. There used to be a close mix of Protestant vs Catholic in Ireland but (as far as I can remember), for the last 50 years or so the Protestant population stands at about 5%. There are probably more Born Again Christians and Muslims than there are Protestants. And because of the troubles in the North the Protestants tend to keep things toned down a bit.
I can’t remember the last time there was sectarian trouble in Ireland. Unless you’re talking about Gypsies. Now they’re a handful.
anybody got the fax/email/snail mail/voice mail for the drunken irishers equivalent of the cdn hrc sose I can send them a steady stream of blasphemy?
crikey. I haven’t seen that term with such wide application since I read Matthew 12:31 the last time.
the entire globe is going nutso simultaneously. jeezuz jeezuz jeezuz. speaking of bible quotes I better read Revelation again to prep myself for what’s even worse coming.
“I couldn’t swear to it, but I think it may be technically illegal to sleep with your spouse in West Virginia.”.—— Sorry,you got it a litle wrong. The law says that it is “technically legal to have a sheep as your spouse” in West Virginia. It’s a Scottish thing (or sometimes a scotch thing),not Irish.
further very recent events in ireland the hub of traditional catholicism in europe:
http://vivirlatino.com/2009/05/21/abuse-in-irish-catholic-orphanages.php
imapopulist pegs it closest of anyone here:
“Will someone please tell me what alternative universe we have dropped into? Seriously what is going on in this world? It is like we are all participating in a real life “1984” like movie. I hope at the least we get paid for being “extras”.
Posted by: imapopulistnow at August 23, 2009 5:38 PM ”
we’re all bit players in a new ‘reality’ TV show called ‘1984’. wakey wakey !!!
I truly fear for a worldwide return to the dark ages that will see the end of humanity.
on second thought, that may not be a bad thing. can you envision a time when asking a question like the proverbial ‘why is the sky blue?’ can get you sent to prison hard labour for 10 years because the answer is *already* in ‘the book of truths’ or whatever the newspeak title is ??
that’s where we’re headed folks. dark ages + inquisition + cultural revolution + the stalinist horror + islamism + political correctness to the ultra hyper-extreme **100 to the 100th power.
all on those spankin’ new 10 foot wide screen HDTVs
For those of you who care deeply about all my opinions, I would like to state that, in addition to believing that there need to be speech restrictions on incitement to violence, very narrowly defined, (me @7:00), I also think there have got to be some laws against the defamation of an individual’s (not a group’s) character – but only if the libel or slander is unprovable; not like the ridiculous situation in the U.K.
But that’s IT!
None of these hurt feelings and blasphemy laws. Religious beliefs are just opinions, so you must be free to criticise them.
I’m off to send Kate money for bandwidth.
Vitruvius,
You are confusing breaking a legal and binding oath to tell the truth (perjury) with the ability to voice and disseminate an opinion no matter how misguided it is.
You are taking a social issue of free expression and equating it to the necessity of legal process to allow at the arrival of the true facts of a legal case. They are not the same.
In fact the law allows for opinion all the time in the form of expert witnesses, while it may not be the absolute truth it is given under oath and it does hold sway. That is why we have burden of proof legal systems.
Now there is an area of civil law where personal attacks on reputation and character are involved. These are clearly defined legally, that is not my point, slander and libel are legal cornerstones of civil law to afford protections for an Individual in a society.
That is not what we are talking about here, we are talking about opinions expressed about groups of people and not an individual. There is a huge difference, if I say group A are baby killers it is far different than saying individual B is a baby killer. One while hurtful is an opinion, the other is an accusation.
These laws as being implemented are imposed to make a societal change and force tolerance when all they do is enhance the divisions and send the opinions underground where they can become volatile. This is done by those who believe that thought censorship through fear of prosecution can create a more harmonious Utopian society so they create HRCs and laws like this one.
guess why the image is orange in colour:
http://www.your3dsource.com/pisschrist.jpeg
now guess why certain groups are NEVER going to be dinged with blasphemy charges over in the emerald isle.
I got a house to paint tomorrow. Im outta here.
It gets even worse…I wonder if Ezra has seen this
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/british-quangos-to-ban-everyday-racist.html
and
http://freethroughtruth.blogspot.com/2009/08/quago-new-term-for-our-hrcshrts.html
I think Alex is right here.
I think what is really happening here is another step towards the reunification of Ireland. This is a subtle unspoken thing. Every political party in Ireland have – in their party constitutions – a goal for reunification. The Irish constitution explicitly states that Ireland is one indivisible island – and the south has therefore always treated NI as part of the republic (that’s why the republic is coughing up the big dough for improving and integrating highway/transportation systems, energy, work, etc.). So the republic is really attempting to make Ireland more inclusive to Protestants in NI – I’m not sure if it is the right approach though.
Why do Scotsmen wear kilts?
Because sheep can hear a zipper a mile away.
Conn said “So the republic is really attempting to make Ireland more inclusive to Protestants in NI..”
Interesting. I hadn’t considered that angle. You could well be right. Putting aside any religious animosities between the 2 groups, how will they appease the British Subjects who live in The North? They tend to be excitable about this kind of talk. Plus they are well armed.
Time to dust off those “no dogs or Irish” signs. They’ll be gettin’ some use after this one! lol.
The only ones who will use this law are the Muslims. Nobody else would bother.
And this is very likely why this law exists, i.e. to appease radical Islam.
Cmp, btw, what certain Muslim nations are trying to accomplish at the UN.
I’m reading Murray Rothbard’s Man Economy and State.
In an offhand remark in the text, he says something akin to Kathy Shaidle’s view: there should be NO slander laws at all. We do not have property rights in the public’s good opinion of ourselves.
From this, I’m guessing he means:
– You can’t force someone to have a bad opinion of someone.
– In a free society you can correct the “slanderous” view and people are free to decide who they believe.
Just putting it out there. I’m not sure myself.
Gord,
The Republic is trying to show NI that there is a better alternative to being part of Britain. In Ireland, they would have more political clout and power, better job opportunities, would be equally treated, etc. At the same time Ireland wants to be best friends with Britain. People don’t realize that there is a subtle undercurrent in Irish politics and Irish reunification is a prime directive. To repeat Churchill’s famous quote,” We have always found the Irish a bit odd. They refuse to be English.”
“But all I said was ‘that piece of fish was good enough for Jehovah!'”…
Conn said “In Ireland, they would have more political clout and power, better job opportunities, would be equally treated, etc.”
I think you’re right there and I’ve always thought reunification was the best route for Ireland. It’s just that from my experiences in Belfast there are people there that would never go along with it even if it was best for them. And that would include people on both sides of the battle.
I’ve always thought that the tension between Ireland and England was overblown. Here’s another Churchill quote (hopefully I don’t mangle it too badly). “The great shame of the English is that more Irish per capita fought for England during the Second World War than English”.
Seems they don’t have that much to prove.
I thin Irland and Italy and Libby and all kind of
harrasing group must stop their activites
they come frindly to you and steal your gold
YES you right you only k now meaning of money in any way and all terrorist start from IRA first
then go to history proof that Italy and then Liby then other Muslim group are learn from master
if you work with Irleand try to have big lawyer to help you not steal your business too
need to learn more ethic there
and their women are soo much supermodle bikini
if you look at
Catholic religion and all corruption is going on in Irland an Italy you know what I mean
since when god order Christ:
in order to pray god you NUN must join convect and must be pray without having husband or priest no wife taht is all BS
and if you come to church and going out to the rest of women weark bikini
too much to bikin wearing and too less to NUN to never marry to anyobdy if you like the god could you finish corruption of seexx life among women and leave women to have real freedom in Italy and Iralande please no Madona please
Personally I have always thought blasphemy was not cursing God or even ridiculing belief.
To me its the people who believe that misrepresent God in their hearts.
The other sort to my mind is just childish theater.
If there is one thing Jewish & Christian theologians agree on, its the free will God gave man.
Its us as believers to live our faith. To let those see who for one reason or not, don’t think there is a God or Higher power.
So this is subjective to the individual.
If one wants to parody ,or in intellectual honesty engage in debate over any belief is the way to go. Banning people for opinions only makes for what you have faith in, to be seen as contemptible. Rightfully too.
The World does not exist for me to be offended in.
This is obviously more warfare threw the courts for the Islamists to force sharia law, because we all know you can beat up Christians for nothing, but Muslims will chop your head off.
The day gays declared war against Christianity was there eventual end of future freedom.
The worlds systems will eat them alive. They have no golden rule. Read the Koran, your death makes their God happy.
Oh well, we pick our own hells. God in the end decides. Certainly not me what He considers dire dishonor. Its not my business. I’m as big a bad guy as everyone else. My part is to try to live for Yeshua.
JMO
New & Revnant Dream…
When y’all start posting something ‘revnant’…maybe we’all can start to understand what y’all have been tryin’to say……………………………………………………………………..??