Well by all means, if there is another group in western freedom loving society that will benefit from having their freedom of speech and freedom of press stripped away, has called for it, and is anxiously awaiting the day. List them.IG-Calibre wrote:
sez you..
This is trus except that I am not the one who has appeared irrational or slabbering in my posts, nor I am I afraid of Islam, I am however bigoted in the sense that I do have prejudices but my prejudices are validated, with reason, especially when you strip away all denial, mis-direction and dismissal.IG-Calibre wrote:
ps.. rather than going round the mulberry bush again for the umpteenth time.. this thread should be locked. Everything relevant that needs to be said has been, and we can all agree that Lowing is just a slabbering irrational Islamophobe bigot..
Thank you for using the correct terminology instead of calling me a racist by the way..
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-13 03:29:40)
living surrounded by bigots I know what they sound like Lowing. You're such a fucking cretin you relish being called one, says it all really..
No denying I have prejudices, I suppose you claim you do not?IG-Calibre wrote:
living surrounded by bigots I know what they sound like Lowing. You're such a fucking cretin you relish being called one, says it all really..
How is that list of groups ( other than Islam) that is begging to have their freedoms stripped away coming?
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-13 03:41:58)
I try not to harbour Irrational ones and challenge those that I may, I certainly don't relish them, only a cock like yourself would imo..
everything that needs to be said has been said in the last 11 pages, don't bother wriggling on the hook, i'm no longer arsed with the thread, so i'm just going to shout abuse at you from the sidelines if you don't mind..
everything that needs to be said has been said in the last 11 pages, don't bother wriggling on the hook, i'm no longer arsed with the thread, so i'm just going to shout abuse at you from the sidelines if you don't mind..
Sorry, with your tantrums and fits of rage, and insults I just don't see myself as the one "wriggling on the hook".IG-Calibre wrote:
I try not to harbour Irrational ones and challenge those that I may, I certainly don't relish them, only a cock like yourself would imo..
everything that needs to be said has been said in the last 11 pages, don't bother wriggling on the hook, i'm no longer arsed with the thread, so i'm just going to shout abuse at you from the sidelines if you don't mind..
Are you compiling that list of people who will benefit from stripping away their free speech and press or not? I mean other than Islam. I shall wait.
Recognizing prejudices is a far cry from relishing them. Not even sure where I did so. But hey, facts never stood in your way before.
Unless of course you wanna revisit this and show me EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY where this fucked up law benefits anything other than Islam, where it has been called for by the masses, throughtout the EU other than Islam and is celebrated by any other group other than Islam yer right, all that needed to be said has been said.
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-13 04:31:18)
try reading this article -lowing wrote:
Sorry, with your tantrums and fits of rage, and insults I just don't see myself as the one "wriggling on the hook". exactly that's why you're a fucking dick tbf
Are you compiling that list of people who will benefit from stripping away their free speech and press or not? I mean other than Islam. I shall wait. if you are referring to Ireland's reform? - every Religion is afforded the same "courtesy" as has been enjoyed by the Catholic Church since the '37 Constitution - Islam, Jews, Hindus, other Christians, Rastafarian's.. etc etc etc.. plus the law has not been tested yet in the Supreme Court Lowing, and, given the courts ruling the last time it tried blasphemy this reform hasn't really addressed the courts ruling..
Recognizing prejudices is a far cry from relishing them. Not even sure where I did so. But hey, facts never stood in your way before.
Unless of course you wanna revisit this and show me EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY where this fucked up law benefits anything other than Islam, where it has been called for by the masses, throughout the EU other than Islam and is celebrated by any other group other than Islam yer right, all that needed to be said has been said
this is a separate issue to the Irish referendum, sparked by the Danish cartoon, it has nothing to do with last week. This is the point you repeatedly fail to grasp Lowing - according to you, & where you couldn't be more fucking wrong if you tried, you maintain the Irish reform is a direct consequence of Muslim outrage, which cannot be proven because of some "PC CONSPIRACY" , or, you claim is was to appease an Irish Muslim population - that while the 3rd largest religion on the island doesn't even make up a single percentage against the mainly ( that's 99.2% Lowing) Christian population, that have been at war more or less for four Century's.
Now the reality is, Muslims has nothing to do with the Irish situation for the last fucking time - though parallels can be drawn with developments post the Danish cartoon & further more, the Irish reform is of no consequence to the rest of Europe, which you seem to think it directly is. again your fucking ignorance .
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/200 … n-ireland/When we hear about blasphemy these days, we usually think cases brought in Muslim countries or efforts by Muslim states to have defamation of religion banned in resolutions at international meetings such as the recent “Durban II” session in Geneva. The issue, which sparked violent protests in the Muslim world in 2006 after a Danish newspaper printed cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, has been presented as a kind of cultural dividing line between “the West” and “the Muslim world.” It’s not that simple…
Just look at what’s happened in Ireland this week. The government proposed a new law against “blasphemous libel,” provoking criticism that the move would be old-fashioned at best and an outrageous curtailment of free speech at worst. Were the traditionally Catholic Irish taking a page from the diplomatic strategy of Muslim countries? Were the bishops trying to flex their dwindling muscles? The Irish Times story reporting the plan gave no motive for it but wrote: “At the moment there is no crime of blasphemy on the statute books, though it is prohibited by the Constitution.”
Not surprisingly, Roy Brown, chief representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union in Geneva, reacted by saying it was “totally mind-boggling that a European government should even consider such a dangerous idea given that EU countries — now supported by the United States — have for years been fighting tooth and nail at the United Nations in Geneva and New York against almost identical proposals from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to get a global ban on ‘defamation of religion’.”
But there was more to the story. As Justice Minister Dermot Ahern wrote in an Irish Times article today, there is an existing piece of legislation dating back to 1961 that calls for punishments up to seven years imprisonment. Ireland’s constitution requires some form of punishment of blasphemy and the new law would decrease the penalty involved to a fine of up to 100,000 euros. Abolishing the crime of blasphemy altogether would require a constitutional amendment and a referendum, which Ahern says would be too costly and distracting for a country busy fixing Europe’s worst public finances.
Under Ahern’s proposals, blasphemous material would only be prosecutable if it is “grossly abusive or insulting in matters held sacred by a religion,” causes actual outrage among adherents of that religion and there is intent to cause outrage. “Such intent was not previously required;” he noted in his article.
The Irish Examiner is having none of what it calls this fatherly “trust me” attitude from the justice minister. It noted that Ireland voted with all other EU countries against a resolution on “combating defamation of religion” at the UN last December. Explaining that vote, Irish Foreign Minister Micheál Martin said: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.”
“One man’s blasphemy is another man’s comedy classic,” the Irish Examiner remarked.
So just to clarify your homework
A: Demonstrate using verifiable facts a link between Ireland's reform and the Danish Cartoons, without hiding behind an excuse of "PC Conspiracy" there must be some reputable evidence somewhere on the internets..
or
B: Demonstrate how Muslim internal pressure was brought to bear on the Irish Reform using quantifiable independent sources, ( ie anything that isn't a hate-mongering website / nutter blog )
No empty rhetoric is acceptable, only quantifiable fact based evidence, you know? like has been used to prove you wrong is acceptable.
Teachers note : must try harder Lowing or it's off to the stool in the corner and the special hat with the big "D" for you..
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-13 06:50:03)
That article by IG-Calibre, and the comments contained within by Justice minister Dermot Ahern, confirm exactly what I had suspected and outlined before in previous posts i.e. that a referendum to remove the law would be too expensive and so a quick-fix redefining of the law is what the Govt. have opted for. It has absolutely zero to do with an argument about a cartoon in a country that doesn't even share a border with Ireland, and even less to do with a miniscule religious community that has so far integrated quite happily into the fabric of Irish society.
You can keep harping on with your opinions lowing but until you post decent verifiable links between Islamic pressure groups and this new redefining of the law then your opinions will remain to be seen as nothing more than paranoid conjecture.
You can keep harping on with your opinions lowing but until you post decent verifiable links between Islamic pressure groups and this new redefining of the law then your opinions will remain to be seen as nothing more than paranoid conjecture.
I think everyone except lowing can agree that in this case lowing has no clue what he's talking about.
Next!
Next!
or it will be quite nicely dealt with in the referendum on reunification in 2016 - making a one state solution palatable to northern Protestants!Braddock wrote:
That article by IG-Calibre, and the comments contained within by Justice minister Dermot Ahern, confirm exactly what I had suspected and outlined before in previous posts i.e. that a referendum to remove the law would be too expensive and so a quick-fix redefining of the law is what the Govt. have opted for..
I do not give a shit about stated intent. My point is and has always beem that this blasphemy laws which has been shown to be insignificant throught its history does nothing for anyone except Islam. They are the only ones that pay attention to such laws and are the only ones EXCPET Ireland that are trying to puch such non-sense into law.Braddock wrote:
That article by IG-Calibre, and the comments contained within by Justice minister Dermot Ahern, confirm exactly what I had suspected and outlined before in previous posts i.e. that a referendum to remove the law would be too expensive and so a quick-fix redefining of the law is what the Govt. have opted for. It has absolutely zero to do with an argument about a cartoon in a country that doesn't even share a border with Ireland, and even less to do with a miniscule religious community that has so far integrated quite happily into the fabric of Irish society.
You can keep harping on with your opinions lowing but until you post decent verifiable links between Islamic pressure groups and this new redefining of the law then your opinions will remain to be seen as nothing more than paranoid conjecture.
Ireland is looking for a quick fix, all of a sudden, for a problem that has never existed. Funny how that fix is the EXACT fix that Islamic nations are seeking through out the world.
This law which by YOUR OWN SOURCES, referes to concerns regarding OUTRAGE and INCITEMENT as the reason for such drastic steps in curtailing free speech and press. Concerns that have never existed before. You are trying to use 400 years of strife between Catholics and Protestants as your proof ( and 2 old guys holding signs) :rolleyes). Well the fact is all of that hatred between the two religions has nothing to do with blasphemy. NOTHING.
You have yet to explain why the masses are rushing ot throw away their basic freedoms, just like Islam wants them to do FOR NO REASON. Ireland has just become oh so inviting to Islamic population growth which is already well underway.
I will continue to wait for the list of people who will benefit from this law, other than Islam that is.
"Not surprisingly, Roy Brown, chief representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union in Geneva, reacted by saying it was “totally mind-boggling that a European government should even consider such a dangerous idea given that EU countries — now supported by the United States — have for years been fighting tooth and nail at the United Nations in Geneva and New York against almost identical proposals from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to get a global ban on ‘defamation of religion’.” "
your source. another opinion, or is this not considered verifiable?
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-13 07:38:25)
OMG you're such a tard you can't even discern when the piss is being taken out of you hahahaha.lowing wrote:
( and 2 old guys holding signs)
over all FAIL - Lowing, big D hat for youlowing wrote:
I do not give a shit about stated intent. My point is and has always beem that this blasphemy laws which has been shown to be insignificant throught its history does nothing for anyone except Islam. This has been proven wrong. So stop fucking saying it you wanker, "Fact" it applies to all Religions equally so stop fucking whinging about Islam
This law which by YOUR OWN SOURCES, refers to concerns regarding OUTRAGE and INCITEMENT as the reason for such drastic steps in curtailing free speech and press. Concerns that have never existed before. This has been proven wrong, so again stop repeating that which has been proven to be factually incorrect Cory V's Independent Newspapers was well under way before 2006, that is the "FACT" no matter how you try to dismiss it, that's just your worthless fucking opinion, but it does satisfy the grounds of OUTRAGE & INCITEMENT Long before 2006 Hence the 5 year legal wrangling in both Courts.
You are trying to use 400 years of strife between Catholics and Protestants as your proof ( and 2 old guys holding signs) :rolleyes). Well the fact is all of that hatred between the two religions has nothing to do with blasphemy. NOTHING. wrong - I direct you to the '37 Constitution, your failure to grasp the ramifications of this does not make you right, only a fucking ass..
You have yet to explain why the masses are rushing ot throw away their basic freedoms, just like Islam wants them to do FOR NO REASON. Ireland has just become oh so inviting to Islamic population growth which is already well underway. again you're wrong as has been proven by the fact Muslims don't even make up 1% of the population
I will continue to wait for the list of people who will benefit from this law, other than Islam that is. - you are a fucking retard as far as the Irish reform goes as it benefits all religions as stated before so make your own list
"Not surprisingly, Roy Brown, chief representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union in Geneva, reacted by saying it was “totally mind-boggling that a European government should even consider such a dangerous idea given that EU countries — now supported by the United States — have for years been fighting tooth and nail at the United Nations in Geneva and New York against almost identical proposals from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to get a global ban on ‘defamation of religion’.” Still has to be tested in the Court of Law in Ireland
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-13 08:29:33)
confirming the pic earlier is a serious pic, and not something that would pop up if you googl'd my name. lol.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
1. Yer right it applies to all religions and only one ever gave a shit about blasphemy enough to instill outrage and incitement. Islam.IG-Calibre wrote:
over all FAIL - Lowing, big D hat for youlowing wrote:
I do not give a shit about stated intent. My point is and has always beem that this blasphemy laws which has been shown to be insignificant throught its history does nothing for anyone except Islam. This has been proven wrong. So stop fucking saying it you wanker, "Fact" it applies to all Religions equally so stop fucking whinging about Islam
This law which by YOUR OWN SOURCES, refers to concerns regarding OUTRAGE and INCITEMENT as the reason for such drastic steps in curtailing free speech and press. Concerns that have never existed before. This has been proven wrong, so again stop repeating that which has been proven to be factually incorrect Cory V's Independent Newspapers was well under way before 2006, that is the "FACT" no matter how you try to dismiss it, that's just your worthless fucking opinion, but it does satisfy the grounds of OUTRAGE & INCITEMENT Long before 2006 Hence the 5 year legal wrangling in both Courts.
You are trying to use 400 years of strife between Catholics and Protestants as your proof ( and 2 old guys holding signs) :rolleyes). Well the fact is all of that hatred between the two religions has nothing to do with blasphemy. NOTHING. wrong - I direct you to the '37 Constitution, your failure to grasp the ramifications of this does not make you right, only a fucking ass..
You have yet to explain why the masses are rushing to throw away their basic freedoms, just like Islam wants them to do FOR NO REASON. Ireland has just become oh so inviting to Islamic population growth which is already well underway. again you're wrong as has been proven by the fact Muslims don't even make up 1% of the population
I will continue to wait for the list of people who will benefit from this law, other than Islam that is. - you are a fucking retard as far as the Irish reform goes as it benefits all religions as stated before so make your own list
"Not surprisingly, Roy Brown, chief representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union in Geneva, reacted by saying it was “totally mind-boggling that a European government should even consider such a dangerous idea given that EU countries — now supported by the United States — have for years been fighting tooth and nail at the United Nations in Geneva and New York against almost identical proposals from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to get a global ban on ‘defamation of religion’.” Still has to be tested in the Court of Law in Ireland
2. Again harping on an obscure court case as if you knew all about it before you googled it for this thread. It isn't like it is Roe vs Wade or something. NO ONE GAVE A SHIT THEN OR NOW. This law is not settling something that has been in heated debate for 70 years. It is stepping backwards and Islam loves Ireland for it. Also, tough shit, Outrage and Incitement is not 2 old fucks holding a sign. get back with me when they set cars, and buildings on fire or riot in the streets over blasphemy. Islam can show you how to do it.
3. Again you are wrong, blasphemy has gone largely unnoticed SINCE 1937, no one gave a shit then and no one gives a shit now, ( except those trying to make a name for themselves). The ONLY group who is noticing this as a positive is Islam, everyone else is appalled.
4. No you are wrong, Islam is a rapidly growing population all over Europe INCLUDING Ireland.
5. yeah yeah yeah, all religions benefit from the abolishment of free speech and free press. Some more than others huh? Get back with me when you really believe that.
So tell me how many Catholics and Protestants in Ireland will be celebrating over the removal of their freedoms? and once you figure that out you can come back and tell me again how all of this benefits the masses.
1 - your opinion
2 - your opinion and actually it's exactly like Roe V's Wade in that it's about establishing a legal precedent, but hey you're to fucking thick to grasp that..
3 - your opinion
4 - your opinion
5 - Supreme court
As usual all just your blustering Lowing, fucking typical bigoted asshole who likes to share his own Irrational hate ravings, without providing a single shred of evidence. Still a fucking joke mate. rave on, and i'll just keep pointing that out every time you post, so knock yourself out and type another shit reply, I wait eagerly with baited breath for another of your worthless irrational unsubstantiated opinions..
2 - your opinion and actually it's exactly like Roe V's Wade in that it's about establishing a legal precedent, but hey you're to fucking thick to grasp that..
3 - your opinion
4 - your opinion
5 - Supreme court
As usual all just your blustering Lowing, fucking typical bigoted asshole who likes to share his own Irrational hate ravings, without providing a single shred of evidence. Still a fucking joke mate. rave on, and i'll just keep pointing that out every time you post, so knock yourself out and type another shit reply, I wait eagerly with baited breath for another of your worthless irrational unsubstantiated opinions..
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-14 05:00:45)
Of course it is my opinion, Stated that pages ago. Problem is, your "ASSERTIONS" are nothing more than the same. I have explained over and over why I have my opinions, only to have you tell me my opinions all of a sudden require "verifiable sources". Not hardly slick. Regardless I have even shown where my opinions are shared with other Irishmen, ya know to counter your convincing argument that "3 other Irishmen said so?"IG-Calibre wrote:
1 - your opinion
2 - your opinion and actually it's exactly like Roe V's Wade in that it's about a legal precedent, but hey you're to fucking thick to grasp that..
3 - your opinion
4 - your opinion
5 - Supreme court
As usual all just your blustering Lowing, fucking typical bigotted asshole who likes to share his own Irrational hate ravings, without providing a single shred of evidence. Still a fucking joke mate. rave on, and i'll just keep pointing that out every time you post, so knock yourself out and type another shit reply..
Everyone has heard of Roe V Wade before, even those that do not live in the US, no googling required, it has been cited many times over. NO ONE has heard of Joe Blow v The Newspaper before, because blasphemy does not matter to anyone EXCEPT ISLAM.
Be honest, you never heard of your court case before you started googling did you? I promise you no one else has. Also never saw your major protest of 2 guys holding a sign on CNN either. Did it even appear on your local station.
Get back with me when you have the list of all people benefiting from having their freedoms stripped away. Until then I will just listen to you throw your fits.
OK good i'm glad we have established it's just your worthless fucking opinion, my "assertions" are fact based, thats the difference. Again as Pointed out the FR. Ted Image is way over your head, so I really wouldn't keep banging on about it as it just makes you look an even bigger fucking cretin (if that is possible) as it was clearly a pisstake to those that got the reference, unlike you.. toodles..
No Lowing it was Major news here, in Ireland, where I live, the divorce referendum was a major deal at the time (Catholic Ireland Lowing), as was the outrage about the cartoon, though we have established that you probably didn't even know Ireland existed 15 years ago. So again your wrong opinion strikes again..Be honest, you never heard of your court case before you started googling did you? I promise you no one else has. Also never saw your major protest of 2 guys holding a sign on CNN either. Did it even appear on your local station.
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-14 05:10:01)
Actually no. You have never shown this law was because of Catholics. NOwhere in all of your "proof" does it come right out and say this. Remember? You claim I must have a varifiable source claiming appeasement, well so must you, and you have not had a single source blaming Catholics directly for this.IG-Calibre wrote:
OK good i'm glad we have established it's just your worthless fucking opinion, my "assertions" are fact based, thats the difference. Again as Pointed out the FR. Ted Image is way over your head, so I really wouldn't keep banging on about it as it just makes you look an even bigger fucking cretin (if that is possible) as it was clearly a pisstake to those that got the reference, unlike you.. toodles..
Yes, if you are showing me a picture of 2 old guys holding sign and referencing outrage and incitement, you are correct, it was over my head.
Lowing your Just a fucking cretin that can't be shown anything, ever thing you keep repeating has been shown many times to you in this thread, so go back and re fucking read it..lowing wrote:
Actually no. You have never shown this law was because of Catholics. NOwhere in all of your "proof" does it come right out and say this. Remember? You claim I must have a varifiable source claiming appeasement, well so must you, and you have not had a single source blaming Catholics directly for this.IG-Calibre wrote:
OK good i'm glad we have established it's just your worthless fucking opinion, my "assertions" are fact based, thats the difference. Again as Pointed out the FR. Ted Image is way over your head, so I really wouldn't keep banging on about it as it just makes you look an even bigger fucking cretin (if that is possible) as it was clearly a pisstake to those that got the reference, unlike you.. toodles..
Yes, if you are showing me a picture of 2 old guys holding sign and referencing outrage and incitement, you are correct, it was over my head.
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-14 05:24:35)
Actually that wasn't my opinion that was a question. and what does the divorce referendum have to do with blasphemy and the stripping of your freedom of speech and press in 2010? to the joy of islam and the dismay of western freedom loving countries, the topic of "my" discussion?IG-Calibre wrote:
OK good i'm glad we have established it's just your worthless fucking opinion, my "assertions" are fact based, thats the difference. Again as Pointed out the FR. Ted Image is way over your head, so I really wouldn't keep banging on about it as it just makes you look an even bigger fucking cretin (if that is possible) as it was clearly a pisstake to those that got the reference, unlike you.. toodles..No Lowing it was Major news here, in Ireland, where I live, the divorce referendum was a major deal at the time (Catholic Ireland Lowing), as was the outrage about the cartoon, though we have established that you probably didn't even know Ireland existed 15 years ago. So again your wrong opinion strikes again..Be honest, you never heard of your court case before you started googling did you? I promise you no one else has. Also never saw your major protest of 2 guys holding a sign on CNN either. Did it even appear on your local station.
here deconstruct this Cartoon for me Lowing (the three men waving would be the same as your senators they're government ministers, the guy on the right is a Catholic Priest), What do you think it was saying in anticipation of the results of the divorce referendum? Divorce was illegal in the Irish State prior to the referendum, why? Why would the cartoon be offensive to Catholics, lead to outrage and a lengthy 5 year Court case? Supreme court ruling? Law reform that was in acted this year and its relevance to the '37 constitution? & finally discuss the relevance to Muslims.
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-14 05:46:12)
THERE WAS NOT OUTRAGE OR INCITEMENT!!IG-Calibre wrote:
here deconstruct this Cartoon for me Lowing (the three men waving would be the same as your senators they're government ministers, the guy on the right is a Catholic Priest), What do you think it was saying in anticipation of the results of the divorce referendum? Divorce was illegal in the Irish State prior to the referendum, why? Why would the cartoon be offensive to Catholics, lead to outrage and a lengthy 5 year Court case? Supreme court ruling? Law reform that was in acted this year and its relevance to the '37 constitution? & finally discuss the relevance to Muslims.
http://www.cearta.ie/wp-content/uploads … ogress.jpg
Outrage and incitement leads to riots in the streets, cars burning building burning people murdered, not a "lengthy 5 year court case" . No one was afraid of the Catholics or what they might do? It went to fucking court NOT to the masses for violent upheaval. It is time you come to grips with the difference. there was no outrage or incitement involved, not in the context that Cams source held as a major concern.
Sez you, that is your opinion of "outrage", but, the fact is, if there had been no outrage in Ireland, there would of been no court case. So again, proove the connection between the Danish cartoon and the Irish reform? assert some fucking facts, what are they? SHOW US THEM! BUT STOP JUST SPOUTING YOUR WORTHLESS FUCKIN OPINION 'CAUSE IT MAKES SENSE IN YOUR WARPED FUCKING HEAD..lowing wrote:
THERE WAS NOT OUTRAGE OR INCITEMENT!!IG-Calibre wrote:
here deconstruct this Cartoon for me Lowing (the three men waving would be the same as your senators they're government ministers, the guy on the right is a Catholic Priest), What do you think it was saying in anticipation of the results of the divorce referendum? Divorce was illegal in the Irish State prior to the referendum, why? Why would the cartoon be offensive to Catholics, lead to outrage and a lengthy 5 year Court case? Supreme court ruling? Law reform that was in acted this year and its relevance to the '37 constitution? & finally discuss the relevance to Muslims.
http://www.cearta.ie/wp-content/uploads … ogress.jpg
Outrage and incitement leads to riots in the streets, cars burning building burning people murdered, not a "lengthy 5 year court case" . No one was afraid of the Catholics or what they might do? It went to fucking court NOT to the masses for violent upheaval. It is time you come to grips with the difference. there was no outrage or incitement involved, not in the context that Cams source held as a major concern.
The Danish cartoons happened in 2005, not a year later, OUT OF THE BLUE the blasphemy laws in Ireland reared its ugly head in 2006, along with several other nations. It was never a big deal or pressing issue BEFORE those cartoons. NEVER. Never any outrage never any incitement. No one was concerned about religious backlash UNTIL the Danish cartoons.IG-Calibre wrote:
Sez you, that is your opinion of "outrage", but, the fact is, if there had been no outrage in Ireland, there would of been no court case. So again, proove the connection between the Danish cartoon and the Irish reform? assert some fucking facts, what are they? SHOW US THEM! BUT STOP JUST SPOUTING YOUR WORTHLESS FUCKIN OPINION 'CAUSE IT MAKES SENSE IN YOUR WARPED FUCKING HEAD..lowing wrote:
THERE WAS NOT OUTRAGE OR INCITEMENT!!IG-Calibre wrote:
here deconstruct this Cartoon for me Lowing (the three men waving would be the same as your senators they're government ministers, the guy on the right is a Catholic Priest), What do you think it was saying in anticipation of the results of the divorce referendum? Divorce was illegal in the Irish State prior to the referendum, why? Why would the cartoon be offensive to Catholics, lead to outrage and a lengthy 5 year Court case? Supreme court ruling? Law reform that was in acted this year and its relevance to the '37 constitution? & finally discuss the relevance to Muslims.
http://www.cearta.ie/wp-content/uploads … ogress.jpg
Outrage and incitement leads to riots in the streets, cars burning building burning people murdered, not a "lengthy 5 year court case" . No one was afraid of the Catholics or what they might do? It went to fucking court NOT to the masses for violent upheaval. It is time you come to grips with the difference. there was no outrage or incitement involved, not in the context that Cams source held as a major concern.
EXCEPT by the pressing nations of Islam.