BF2S Forums Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy laws

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

THERE WAS NOT OUTRAGE OR INCITEMENT!!

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..

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.
EXCEPT by the pressing nations of Islam.

Fact - The Bill’s passage through the Oireachtas had started MONTHS BEFORE the whole Danish debacle on 17 September 2005 Lowing, So you're wrong there again i'm afriad. next?

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-14 08:32:39)

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

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..

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.
EXCEPT by the pressing nations of Islam.

Fact - The Bill’s passage through the Oireachtas had started MONTHS BEFORE the whole Danish debacle on 17 September 2005 Lowing, So you're wrong there again i'm afriad. next?

Dec. 12, 2006 Ireland's justice minister, Michael McDowell, introduces the Defamation Bill, to replace legislation that has been in place since 1961.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/2 … y-law.html

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

Fact - The Bill’s passage through the Oireachtas had started MONTHS BEFORE the whole Danish debacle on 17 September 2005 Lowing, So you're wrong there again i'm afriad. next?

Dec. 12, 2006 Ireland's justice minister, Michael McDowell, introduces the Defamation Bill, to replace legislation that has been in place since 1961.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/2 … y-law.html

and?

The original government decision to approve the drafting of the new Bill was made as far back as June 2005.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire … 73418.html

Did you even watch the programme you linked to? it in no way asserts that the Irish reform was a direct consequence of the Danish Cartoon as is your opinion even the article states that

The latest amendment has come in recent weeks where Mr Ahern announced that the Bill would include provisions in relation to blasphemy. Mr Ahern said the Attorney General had advised him there was a constitutional obligation on him to do so, so as not to leave a legal void.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire … 73418.html


Also the law reforms applies to all religion not just Islam.  Most importantly? it has not provoked a court case yet, or, is likely to secure a prosecution! as I have said repeatedly Lowing, this is by no means finished yet in Ireland Constitutionally - until the referendum on reunification I reckon and It is not being rolled out EU wide as you seem to think..

So in conclusion Lowing -

you have failed to

A - provide any independently verifiable evidence of a direct correlation between the Danish Cartoon and the Irish Reform.

B - displayed any sort of basic understanding of the context of the Irish reform.

C - Presented any evidence of internal pressure being brought to bear from Irish Islam in bringing about the reform.

All you present is unfounded Irrational Hate mongering opinions, until you can present some meaningful facts -

step away from the keyboard

Yes i watched it, and Islam and the ramifications of this law, and the Danish cartoons, had a significant presence in the discussion. It also asked the very questions I asked, WHY?? Because it makes no sense whatsoever. You could have had a referendum without doing the opposite of what you say you wanted done.  Where were you? DID you watch it?

Problem is, where ever you find disagreement with you, you replace by hate mongering irrational opinions, apparently even with the experts on your on news channels. Something I can not help.

the questions asked are valid, the opnions are valid.

What you have failed to do is:

Explain the rush to remove your freedoms along with Islamic countries.

Explain WHY you would do so when other western countries are moving in the opposite direction

Show that Islam is not an increasing presence in Ireland

Explain HOW this will not benefit Islam in Ireland more than any other group who do not give a shit about blasphemy

Explain HOW this WILL benefit NON-Islamic citizens within Ireland

you are focused on intent, and I am focusing on the realties of the rammifications of your good intentions, and there is no good to come from this but to islam.

Last edited by lowing (2010-01-14 11:54:38)

Cybargs wrote:

Lowing go find me a Catholic Irish who would bow down to Islam. I don't think the IRA likes muslims a lot.

I can now find you an Irish govt. willing to do so. Isnce Islam is the only religion poised to benefit from such non-sense, if for no other reason, no one else cares about blasphemy.

lowing wrote:

Yes i watched it, and Islam and the ramifications of this law, and the Danish cartoons, had a significant presence in the discussion. BUT AT NO POINT DID ANYONE SUGGEST THAT THE IRISH REFORM WAS IN RESPONSE TO THEM, LIKE YOU KEEP FUCKING SAYING WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM BECAUSE NONE EXISTS, NO ONE HAS DENIED THAT SINCE THE DANISH CARTOONS HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED PARALLELS CAN BE DRAWN


It also asked the very questions I asked, WHY?? Because it makes no sense whatsoever. ONLY IF YOU WANNA SEE A CONSPIRACY - LIKE YOU SO DESPERATELY DO, IT WAS PROVOKED BY THE RULING OF THE CORY V'S INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS WELL BEFORE THE DANISH DEBACLE


You could have had a referendum without doing the opposite of what you say you wanted done. I think it is highly unnecessary at this time given there will be a major referendum on it  possibly 2016, my opinion unsubstantiated I know, but we can say for sure it's not over till the fat lady sings

  Where were you? DID you watch it?

Problem is, where ever you find disagreement with you, you replace by hate mongering irrational opinions, apparently even with the experts on your on news channels. Something I can not help.

the questions asked are valid, the opinions are valid.

What you have failed to do is:

Explain the rush to remove your freedoms along with Islamic countries. That's just a bullshit question that doesn't even merit a response

Explain WHY you would do so when other western countries are moving in the opposite direction been around this mulberry bush several times now lowing

Show that Islam is not an increasing presence in Ireland Lowing Islam is the 3rd biggest religion on the planet and yet Islam Ireland doesn't even make up .2% of the Irish population the other 99.8% are Christian. Even when you take into consideration Islamic immigration they still don't even add up to a single one percent of the population - i'll not get my panties in a twist about that one just yet thanks

Explain HOW this will not benefit Islam in Ireland more than any other group who do not give a shit about blasphemy - sez you

Explain HOW this WILL benefit NON-Islamic citizens within Ireland - yeah i'm looking forward to seeing it tested in the courts too, should be a right laugh

you are focused on intent, and I am focusing on the realties of the rammifications of your good intentions, and there is no good to come from this but to islam.

aye sez you Lowing  gee whizz thanks for the concern pal

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-14 15:09:37)

I actually find this thread kinda funny... like watching a headbutting contest, watching two people smash their heads together until one gets knocked out.

Wouldn't be so bad if Europe did not historically have their heads buried in the sand.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Wouldn't be so bad if Europe did not historically have their heads buried in the sand.

Did you not get the memo lowing? ...we took our head out of the sand years ago and went across the water to establish your country.

Never woulda guessed after Europe's stellar performance during the 20th century. Some more of that good ole' fashioned European denial I suppose.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa … islam.html

"Should Ireland or any nation have a law against blasphemy?
Absolutely not! I write this from Ireland where the media and many of those interviewed are shocked at their government's attempt to curtail free speech. This is nothing more than a sop to Europe's growing number of radical Islamists. There were never suggestions of blasphemy laws when people take the name of God or Jesus Christ in vain. Only now is an anti-blasphemy law imposed. It will surely be another failed attempt to appease the growing threat of radical Islam."


also

2008 – All-Party Committee on the Constitution
In July 2008 the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution recommended deleting the reference to blasphemy from the Constitution, on the grounds that a modern Constitution should not expressly prohibit blasphemy, and that the Supreme Court decision of 1999 had already rendered the offence a dead letter anyway.

The Committee suggested that, If there is a need to protect against religious offence or incitement, it is more appropriate that this be dealt by way of legislative intervention, with due regard to the fundamental right of free speech.

The Committee was chaired by Sean Ardagh and the vice-chair was Jim O’Keeffe. The members were TDs Thomas Byrne, Michael D’Arcy, Tom Hayes, Brendan Howlin, Michael Kennedy, Denis Naughten, Ned O’Keeffe, Mary O’Rourke and Michael Woods; and Senators Dan Boyle, Denis O’Donovan, Eugene Regan and Alex White.

Hmmmmm in 2008 all of a sudden there is a need to protect against religious offence or incitement. I wonder as to what offence or incitement he speaks of. Especially since there has neve been a need for such protection in Ireland before. A point you refuse to acknowledge.

Last edited by lowing (2010-01-15 03:40:25)

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Did you not get the memo lowing? ...we took our head out of the sand years ago and went across the water to establish your country.

Never woulda guessed after Europe's stellar performance during the 20th century. Some more of that good ole' fashioned European denial I suppose.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa … islam.html

"Should Ireland or any nation have a law against blasphemy?
Absolutely not! I write this from Ireland where the media and many of those interviewed are shocked at their government's attempt to curtail free speech. This is nothing more than a sop to Europe's growing number of radical Islamists. There were never suggestions of blasphemy laws when people take the name of God or Jesus Christ in vain. Only now is an anti-blasphemy law imposed. It will surely be another failed attempt to appease the growing threat of radical Islam."


also

2008 – All-Party Committee on the Constitution
In July 2008 the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution recommended deleting the reference to blasphemy from the Constitution, on the grounds that a modern Constitution should not expressly prohibit blasphemy, and that the Supreme Court decision of 1999 had already rendered the offence a dead letter anyway.

The Committee suggested that, If there is a need to protect against religious offence or incitement, it is more appropriate that this be dealt by way of legislative intervention, with due regard to the fundamental right of free speech.

The Committee was chaired by Sean Ardagh and the vice-chair was Jim O’Keeffe. The members were TDs Thomas Byrne, Michael D’Arcy, Tom Hayes, Brendan Howlin, Michael Kennedy, Denis Naughten, Ned O’Keeffe, Mary O’Rourke and Michael Woods; and Senators Dan Boyle, Denis O’Donovan, Eugene Regan and Alex White.

Hmmmmm in 2008 all of a sudden there is a need to protect against religious offence or incitement. I wonder as to what offence or incitement he speaks of. Especially since there has neve been a need for such protection in Ireland before. A point you refuse to acknowledge.

All you're highlighting there Lowing is whether or not it should be voted on in a referendum (which can happen yet) - and given that the country was tied up in other major referendums at the time, and pretty much dealing with the global financial situation (thank's for that by the way America) it wasn't necessary to go to referendum but the amendment sufficed to  deal with the constitutional issue - which has yet to go to a court of Law & may still be repealed - none of which supports your ravings & only highlights you lack of knowledge of the Irish context and one that you keep slabbering nonsense about.. keep posting shite mate..

No, my highlighting points out the real concern of all of this non-sense in the first place, offence, outrage and incitement, none of which existed to an any real extent to warrant re-enforcing your desires to stifle freedom. Only 1 religious group has made such a concern something to question.

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

No, my highlighting points out the real concern of all of this non-sense in the first place, offence, outrage and incitement, none of which existed to an any real extent to warrant re-enforcing your desires to stifle freedom. Only 1 religious group has made such a concern something to question.

Lowing I really suggest that you attend an adult remedial English class, what you have highlighted is talking specifically about the '37 Constitution & changing it by way of referendum.

What I am talking about is in 2008 the committee raised a concern to do something about the possibility of incitement outrage and offence something that was never an issue before. Their words not mine.

@lowing...

Put your Islamic conspiracy theory to one side for a minute. Can you at least acknowledge the fact that getting rid of this particular aspect of the constitution would require a referendum (expensive and awkward at the best of times, never mind in the middle of a financial crisis)? With this in mind, can you then acknowledge that without the possibility of a referendum, having a constitution that gives one religion special treatment over others is legally dubious? It is for this reason that the article requires adjustment so as it can be applied evenly to all religious communities in accordance with EU equality laws.

It really is as dull and straightforward as that I'm afraid. I know the Islamic conspiracy theory is more exciting and would probably sell more tabloids but its just not the case.

Braddock wrote:

@lowing...

Put your Islamic conspiracy theory to one side for a minute. Can you at least acknowledge the fact that getting rid of this particular aspect of the constitution would require a referendum (expensive and awkward at the best of times, never mind in the middle of a financial crisis)? With this in mind, can you then acknowledge that without the possibility of a referendum, having a constitution that gives one religion special treatment over others is legally dubious? It is for this reason that the article requires adjustment so as it can be applied evenly to all religious communities in accordance with EU equality laws.

It really is as dull and straightforward as that I'm afraid. I know the Islamic conspiracy theory is more exciting and would probably sell more tabloids but its just not the case.

If not for the timing of this, coinciding with Islamic pushes for such laws all over the world, in fact copying Irelands laws, and Europe and Canada's track record for denial and appeasement.

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

They are talking about the '37 Constitution you fucking idiot..

they are saying, if because of blasphemy in the '37 constitution " there is a need to protect against religious offence or incitement," then because of the fundamental right of free speech a referendum would be required to fully remove the term "Blasphemy" from the Irish Constitution, as is required by Irish law.

Oh I see, they want to remove blasphemy form the books, so what better way to do so than by defining it, and en-forcing it. Got it.

They are, in 2008 acknowledging a need to define blasphemy because of the concerns of outrage incitement and offence. Concerns that were never a real bother before hand.

Isn't it funny that this is getting all of this attention at the same time Islam has made it an issue throughout Europe and the UN? Or is that 70 year laps of concern just a coincidence?

I direct you back to the Judges ruling in the Cory v's Independent newspaper Lowing, & has been proven the Irish reform started in Ireland before the Danish Cartoon was published & yet all you clearly demonstrate is your irrational Islamophobia and gross ignorance and unbelievable stupidity, you clearly don't even understand what you're reading, all you see are the right words to trigger your rabid response,  really you're not the brightest crayon in the box mate.  keep slabbering and posting shit replies..

No what the point is, is that Ireland has decided to make all of this fuss over a non-issue. For 70 years no one gave a shit about blasphemy until now, and what are you using as the catalyst a 15 year old court case that no one cared about then or now. but here it is 2008-2010 incitement outrage and offence is the major problem of the day. Right along with all the other countries that see it as a major problem. If this has nothing to do with PC then your timing is amazing.