No not in my opinion, in the fact that the judge could not be bothered to interpret the law and it was dismissed with no rulling, and without outrage from the lack of a ruling. No one gave a shit, until 2008, years later. What changed?IG-Calibre wrote:
In your opinion it was an insignificant court case, the Judges rulling was IMPORTANT becasue it led to constitutional reform.
Wrong Lowing the Judge ruled. ". that it was impossible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists” that's far from "could not be bothered to interpret the law and it was dismissed with no rulling", hence the Constitutional reform.lowing wrote:
No not in my opinion, in the fact that the judge could not be bothered to interpret the law and it was dismissed with no rulling, and without outrage from the lack of a ruling. No one gave a shit, until 2008, years later. What changed?IG-Calibre wrote:
In your opinion it was an insignificant court case, the Judges rulling was IMPORTANT becasue it led to constitutional reform.
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-07 06:05:09)
Same thing, no one cared then, and now, like everywhere else in the world, anti outrage and incitement and offense laws are the new order of business, and it isn'rt because of some obscure Irish court case 15 years ago.IG-Calibre wrote:
Wrong Lowing the Judge ruled. ". that it was impossible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists” that's far from "could not be bothered to interpret the law and it was dismissed with no rulling", hence the Constitutional reform.lowing wrote:
No not in my opinion, in the fact that the judge could not be bothered to interpret the law and it was dismissed with no rulling, and without outrage from the lack of a ruling. No one gave a shit, until 2008, years later. What changed?IG-Calibre wrote:
In your opinion it was an insignificant court case, the Judges rulling was IMPORTANT becasue it led to constitutional reform.
aye, sez you..lowing wrote:
Same thing, no one cared then, and now, like everywhere else in the world, anti outrage and incitement and offense laws are the new order of business, and it isn'rt because of some obscure Irish court case 15 years ago.IG-Calibre wrote:
Wrong Lowing the Judge ruled. ". that it was impossible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists” that's far from "could not be bothered to interpret the law and it was dismissed with no rulling", hence the Constitutional reform.lowing wrote:
No not in my opinion, in the fact that the judge could not be bothered to interpret the law and it was dismissed with no rulling, and without outrage from the lack of a ruling. No one gave a shit, until 2008, years later. What changed?
Actually no. I have read nowhere, outside of this forum where all of these appeasement laws are a direct result of a 15 year old Irish blasphemy case that everyone ignored.IG-Calibre wrote:
aye, sez you..lowing wrote:
Same thing, no one cared then, and now, like everywhere else in the world, anti outrage and incitement and offense laws are the new order of business, and it isn'rt because of some obscure Irish court case 15 years ago.IG-Calibre wrote:
Wrong Lowing the Judge ruled. ". that it was impossible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists” that's far from "could not be bothered to interpret the law and it was dismissed with no rulling", hence the Constitutional reform.
well given Ireland's 37" constitution - including what was at a time held to be legally sound anti blasphemy protection and the proceeding legal challenge which ruled it wasn't on the grounds of it being "impossible to say of what the offence of blasphemy consists", along with the unfolding events post the Danish Cartoon, of course they would look towards Ireland.. Non? still the Mooooooooooooooslims have had no influence on the Irish situation, and you have posted no evidence to support your case, other than a load of wank from some hate website.. You know it's like me putting up a website called www.lowing's_a_dickhead.com and calling you a dickhead and then linking to the site and screaming it's true "cause this web site sez so" LOLlowing wrote:
Actually no. I have read nowhere, outside of this forum where all of these appeasement laws are a direct result of a 15 year old Irish blasphemy case that everyone ignored.IG-Calibre wrote:
aye, sez you..lowing wrote:
Same thing, no one cared then, and now, like everywhere else in the world, anti outrage and incitement and offense laws are the new order of business, and it isn't because of some obscure Irish court case 15 years ago.
"StatuteIG-Calibre wrote:
well given Ireland's 37" constitution - including what was at a time held to be legally sound anti blasphemy protection and the proceeding legal challenge which ruled it wasn't on the grounds of it being "impossible to say of what the offence of blasphemy consists", along with the unfolding events post the Danish Cartoon, of course they would look towards Ireland.. Non? still the Mooooooooooooooslims have had no influence on the Irish situation, and you have posted no evidence to support your case, other than a load of wank from some hate website.. You know it's like me putting up a website called www.lowing's_a_dickhead.com and calling you a dickhead and then linking to the site and screaming it's true "cause this web site sez so" LOLlowing wrote:
Actually no. I have read nowhere, outside of this forum where all of these appeasement laws are a direct result of a 15 year old Irish blasphemy case that everyone ignored.IG-Calibre wrote:
aye, sez you..
For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if he or she publishes or utters matter that is 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.
Pakistan's Submission to UN
State parties shall prohibit by law the uttering of matters that are grossly abusive or insulting to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion (p11.1)
Somebody is watching us.
Indeed. When one of the most illiberal police states in the world is plagirising your country's laws in order to further its global theocratic agenda, that may be a sign that you're doing it wrong. "
taken from http://mrobrians.blogspot.com/2010/01/i … model.html
yer wrong and these opinions are coming from Irishmen, so it would appear you opinion is not the be all and end all to Irish opinion
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-07 07:36:49)
I fully accept that my opinion Lowing isn't the be all and end all, but no where does any of the above show it was the Moooooooooooolims in the Ireland situation old boy - watch out their under your bed ready to Sharia'd ye!!!!!!
Funny, I coulda swore that I read several times, that part of your argument was that 3 Irishmen on this forum told me so, so I am wrong.IG-Calibre wrote:
I fully accept that my opinion Lowing isn't the be all and end all, but no where does any of the above show it was the Moooooooooooolims in the Ireland situation old boy - watch out their under your bed ready to Sharia'd ye!!!!!!
Never said it did, I said this legislation stems from recent Islamic appeasement efforts. Where outrage and incitement has NEVER been an issue before, so it has come to pass.
and it didn't come to pass because of your 15 year old court case that hardly anyone knew anything about. Hell I bet you even had to look it up.
craic
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
wrong Lowing.. the publishing of the cartoon was very controversial at the time.. while you can bang on about Islamic appeasement, there is not one single jot of evidence to back up that claim, none as far as the Irish situation is concerned, no matter what hate sites or blog's you post as being evidence to support your claim. it's just crackpot if you actually have any understanding at all of the history of Ireland.lowing wrote:
Funny, I coulda swore that I read several times, that part of your argument was that 3 Irishmen on this forum told me so, so I am wrong.IG-Calibre wrote:
I fully accept that my opinion Lowing isn't the be all and end all, but no where does any of the above show it was the Moooooooooooolims in the Ireland situation old boy - watch out their under your bed ready to Sharia'd ye!!!!!!
Never said it did, I said this legislation stems from recent Islamic appeasement efforts. Where outrage and incitement has NEVER been an issue before, so it has come to pass.
and it didn't come to pass because of your 15 year old court case that hardly anyone knew anything about. Hell I bet you even had to look it up.
I am not laying a "claim", I am posing an argument, one that is supported. I also posed a question form a source you support, that is still unanswered.IG-Calibre wrote:
wrong Lowing.. the publishing of the cartoon was very controversial at the time.. while you can bang on about Islamic appeasement, there is not one single jot of evidence to back up that claim, none as far as the Irish situation is concerned, no matter what hate sites or blog's you post as being evidence to support your claim. it's just crackpot if you actually have any understanding at all of the history of Ireland.lowing wrote:
Funny, I coulda swore that I read several times, that part of your argument was that 3 Irishmen on this forum told me so, so I am wrong.IG-Calibre wrote:
I fully accept that my opinion Lowing isn't the be all and end all, but no where does any of the above show it was the Moooooooooooolims in the Ireland situation old boy - watch out their under your bed ready to Sharia'd ye!!!!!!
Never said it did, I said this legislation stems from recent Islamic appeasement efforts. Where outrage and incitement has NEVER been an issue before, so it has come to pass.
and it didn't come to pass because of your 15 year old court case that hardly anyone knew anything about. Hell I bet you even had to look it up.
Why the concern of outrage and incitement, when, by your own admittion, outrage and incitement has never been an issue? It is funny that your time-line for concern about outrage and incitement coincides with the same concerns as other nations that are forming this law for no other reason than a fear of islamic outrage and incitement.
your argument is not supported - only in your crazy head, by hate sites and crack pot blogs. until you can show one single shred of evidence to back up your claim, other than highly dubious sources or "some bloke sez so on politics.ie", i'm metaphorically speaking no longer running round the mulberry bush with ya.. toodles..
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-07 15:44:10)
I'd just like to take this opportunity to say that the recent refinement of the Irish blasphemy law has little or nothing to do with the miniscule Muslim population here. At a stretch, conspiracy theorists might be able to attribute it to the traditional slide back towards right-wing Christian morals that is usually observed on these shores during times of economic stress (after all, the law in its original form was born out of Ireland's hardcore Catholic roots). In reality the recent amendment is simply a result of the legal grey area that existed, and perhaps some sort of desire to deflect attention from other political issues.
However, it does in fact give a great deal of ammunition to fundamentalists who might seek to muzzle free speech when it comes to religion. If that Mohamed cartoon were published here today the artist would be fined.
However, it does in fact give a great deal of ammunition to fundamentalists who might seek to muzzle free speech when it comes to religion. If that Mohamed cartoon were published here today the artist would be fined.
Well to be fair it is more support than your argument which was, "3 Irishmen said you were wrong"IG-Calibre wrote:
your argument is not supported - only in your crazy head, by hate sites and crack pot blogs. until you can show one single shred of evidence to back up your claim, other than highly dubious sources or "some bloke sez so on politics.ie", i'm metaphorically speaking no longer running round the mulberry bush with ya.. toodles..
I have established a trend, and pattern toward such legislation, in fact, the Irish legislation is being copied by KNOWN Islamic appeasement efforts.
I have asked why, given the fact that there was absolutely no event of outrage or incitement regarding religion that all of a sudden, 15 years later, it has become a hot topic. you refuse to answer it and only fall back to " because we said so".. Like I said, gotta do better than that.
Why does everything have to do with Muslims? We have had little or no trouble with our Muslim population in this country. I'm more likely to see Muslims wearing Irish soccer jerseys here than waving burning tricolours. This law has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with Christianity. Christianity is a hot topic in this country at the moment, the Church has been dragged through the muck of late and still holds a significant amount of influence in relation to important matters such as schooling. It's not too difficult to imagine why a Government might want to distance itself from the same corrupt Church that has roots that run deep into the very fabric of the State. Also, I would imagine having laws that give favour to one religion over others probably doesn't square well with European equality laws - it would be common sense to keep yourself in the clear legally.lowing wrote:
Well to be fair it is more support than your argument which was, "3 Irishmen said you were wrong"IG-Calibre wrote:
your argument is not supported - only in your crazy head, by hate sites and crack pot blogs. until you can show one single shred of evidence to back up your claim, other than highly dubious sources or "some bloke sez so on politics.ie", i'm metaphorically speaking no longer running round the mulberry bush with ya.. toodles..
I have established a trend, and pattern toward such legislation, in fact, the Irish legislation is being copied by KNOWN Islamic appeasement efforts.
I have asked why, given the fact that there was absolutely no event of outrage or incitement regarding religion that all of a sudden, 15 years later, it has become a hot topic. you refuse to answer it and only fall back to " because we said so".. Like I said, gotta do better than that.
you have an increasingly growing population of Muslims in Ireland. you have NEVER had outrage or incitement regarding blasphemy before, yet Cam posts a link where outrage and incitement was at the core of the issue.Braddock wrote:
Why does everything have to do with Muslims? We have had little or no trouble with our Muslim population in this country. I'm more likely to see Muslims wearing Irish soccer jerseys here than waving burning tricolours. This law has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with Christianity. Christianity is a hot topic in this country at the moment, the Church has been dragged through the muck of late and still holds a significant amount of influence in relation to important matters such as schooling. It's not too difficult to imagine why a Government might want to distance itself from the same corrupt Church that has roots that run deep into the very fabric of the State. Also, I would imagine having laws that give favour to one religion over others probably doesn't square well with European equality laws - it would be common sense to keep yourself in the clear legally.lowing wrote:
Well to be fair it is more support than your argument which was, "3 Irishmen said you were wrong"IG-Calibre wrote:
your argument is not supported - only in your crazy head, by hate sites and crack pot blogs. until you can show one single shred of evidence to back up your claim, other than highly dubious sources or "some bloke sez so on politics.ie", i'm metaphorically speaking no longer running round the mulberry bush with ya.. toodles..
I have established a trend, and pattern toward such legislation, in fact, the Irish legislation is being copied by KNOWN Islamic appeasement efforts.
I have asked why, given the fact that there was absolutely no event of outrage or incitement regarding religion that all of a sudden, 15 years later, it has become a hot topic. you refuse to answer it and only fall back to " because we said so".. Like I said, gotta do better than that.
The fact that this legislation falls right in line with several other attempts to pass similar laws, and that outrage and incitement has never been a concern, before coupled with your growing Islamic community, suggests a concern for outrage ans incitement from the only religious group guilty of it in our time.
@Lowing
To be honest, Islam has never really been that much of a hot topic in this country. Ask the average xenophobe here and they will probably bend your ear for half an hour about Nigerians instead. Muslims have integrated fairly nicely into this country, they are more likely to be seen running stores and driving taxis than hanging out in dole queues. Your assertion that an amendment to an age-old Christian-inspired law is motivated purely out of a desire to appease Muslim extremists is nothing more than a reflection of your own unbending ill-will towards Islam. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but for what it's worth I can tell you that you're way off the mark.
Why would you jump immediately to Islam as a motivating factor? We've had religious strife on this island for years and we're constantly moving tentatively towards some form of united Ireland (probably within a European framework of some sort). Do you think Orangemen in the north would be happy with the prospect of increased integration with a country that holds Catholicism above Protestantism? Why would this not be the underlying motive behind the amendment, it's certainly more logical in terms of context than Islam.
To be honest, Islam has never really been that much of a hot topic in this country. Ask the average xenophobe here and they will probably bend your ear for half an hour about Nigerians instead. Muslims have integrated fairly nicely into this country, they are more likely to be seen running stores and driving taxis than hanging out in dole queues. Your assertion that an amendment to an age-old Christian-inspired law is motivated purely out of a desire to appease Muslim extremists is nothing more than a reflection of your own unbending ill-will towards Islam. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but for what it's worth I can tell you that you're way off the mark.
Why would you jump immediately to Islam as a motivating factor? We've had religious strife on this island for years and we're constantly moving tentatively towards some form of united Ireland (probably within a European framework of some sort). Do you think Orangemen in the north would be happy with the prospect of increased integration with a country that holds Catholicism above Protestantism? Why would this not be the underlying motive behind the amendment, it's certainly more logical in terms of context than Islam.
Because although you have had religious strife in Ireland, it has never been over blasphemy or bad press of one relgion or another. your freedom of press or speech has never been an issue before. Only Islam has that distinction, and like I said, this legislation falls in line with very very similar legislation in other countries, using Ireland a model for such laws.Braddock wrote:
@Lowing
To be honest, Islam has never really been that much of a hot topic in this country. Ask the average xenophobe here and they will probably bend your ear for half an hour about Nigerians instead. Muslims have integrated fairly nicely into this country, they are more likely to be seen running stores and driving taxis than hanging out in dole queues. Your assertion that an amendment to an age-old Christian-inspired law is motivated purely out of a desire to appease Muslim extremists is nothing more than a reflection of your own unbending ill-will towards Islam. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but for what it's worth I can tell you that you're way off the mark.
Why would you jump immediately to Islam as a motivating factor? We've had religious strife on this island for years and we're constantly moving tentatively towards some form of united Ireland (probably within a European framework of some sort). Do you think Orangemen in the north would be happy with the prospect of increased integration with a country that holds Catholicism above Protestantism? Why would this not be the underlying motive behind the amendment, it's certainly more logical in terms of context than Islam.
The London bombings, and Islamic outrage and incitement hits close to home in Ireland and you do have a fast growing Islamic community.
Like it or not, it makes sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5SIACk4 … re=related
you sure you their ain't Muslims in Ireland that plan on making a difference?
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-07 18:04:05)
No offence lowing. But I'm going to go with the 4-5 people commenting who actually live in the country in question (Braddock/Cam seems to know what they're talking about tbh). It would seem to me that they probably have a better idea of the context and the results of these actions etc. I see the tangents you are drawing as loose and flimsy at best and extreme prejudice and fear mongering at worst.
Now I'm obviously not an expert, I really have very little idea about Irish law/religious activities etc, but to me this law would seem more aimed at violence or hate bred by the integration of Catholic and Protestant people in parts of Ireland. (Excuse me if this is completely wrong its just my best guess )
Now I'm obviously not an expert, I really have very little idea about Irish law/religious activities etc, but to me this law would seem more aimed at violence or hate bred by the integration of Catholic and Protestant people in parts of Ireland. (Excuse me if this is completely wrong its just my best guess )
lowing like i said, i see maybe 3 or 4 non-white people A WEEK. we seriously don't have some massive loud islam population. polish maybe. an to think that any religion that isnt christianity could reach hot debate in ireland at the moment (and for the past 400 years) is simply fucking ludicrous. by all means keep educating yourself from shariawatch.com, but you're sadly rather wrong.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Might be, and yet you have not shown a thing that proves there is a concern for Christian outrage or incitement. Funny how you are racing to stifle free speech and press for no reason whatsoever.FatherTed wrote:
lowing like i said, i see maybe 3 or 4 non-white people A WEEK. we seriously don't have some massive loud islam population. polish maybe. an to think that any religion that isnt christianity could reach hot debate in ireland at the moment (and for the past 400 years) is simply fucking ludicrous. by all means keep educating yourself from shariawatch.com, but you're sadly rather wrong.
none taken.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
No offence lowing. But I'm going to go with the 4-5 people commenting who actually live in the country in question (Braddock/Cam seems to know what they're talking about tbh). It would seem to me that they probably have a better idea of the context and the results of these actions etc. I see the tangents you are drawing as loose and flimsy at best and extreme prejudice and fear mongering at worst.
Now I'm obviously not an expert, I really have very little idea about Irish law/religious activities etc, but to me this law would seem more aimed at violence or hate bred by the integration of Catholic and Protestant people in parts of Ireland. (Excuse me if this is completely wrong its just my best guess )
However Europeans are widely known for their denial. If you deny something you will not have to deal with it. Kinda like the denial of the rise of Nazi Germany.
Not wishing to engage in another bloody war with Germany after losing millions only years before is slightly different to the possible increase of Muslim population and power in Europe...lowing wrote:
none taken.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
No offence lowing. But I'm going to go with the 4-5 people commenting who actually live in the country in question (Braddock/Cam seems to know what they're talking about tbh). It would seem to me that they probably have a better idea of the context and the results of these actions etc. I see the tangents you are drawing as loose and flimsy at best and extreme prejudice and fear mongering at worst.
Now I'm obviously not an expert, I really have very little idea about Irish law/religious activities etc, but to me this law would seem more aimed at violence or hate bred by the integration of Catholic and Protestant people in parts of Ireland. (Excuse me if this is completely wrong its just my best guess )
However Europeans are widely known for their denial. If you deny something you will not have to deal with it. Kinda like the denial of the rise of Nazi Germany.
lmaooo oh fuckin' ell if gets worse.lowing wrote:
However Europeans are widely known for their denial. If you deny something you will not have to deal with it. Kinda like the denial of the rise of Nazi Germany.
good for a luagh with me breakfast tho'.