PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 2, 2017 20:34:25 GMT
Ireland has had blasphemy laws since the consititution of 1937. Though it didnt specify any punishments it just said blasphemous libel is prohibited. The government in the south of Ireland decided in 2009 that they would finally add to the law and specify a punishment, which was a fine, something like 2500 euros, I cant remember. The laws arent new. Anyway they will be gone soon. The government has promised a referendum on the issue. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Proposed_referendumThe update of those laws, including the introduction of the punishment was a result of fear of offending Muslims. The fear of offending Muslims appears to have been the impetus for the 2009 reform of the blasphemy law. There is no evidence that is the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 20:34:31 GMT
Last year is new/recent. I can't find any figures on arrests for blasphemy, but the mere fact that it is illegal to blaspheme and the laws were recently introduced (i.e. not archaic laws that are never used but just haven't been taken off the books) has a chilling effect on freedom of speech. The problem is that you posted efforts to remove it without posting the new Sen we of urgency for a law that's been around since at least the 19th century. I'm failing to see how blasphemous are being stopped from being blasphemous in the 21st century. It doesn't look like there's a day n her for the wicked. The fact that there is a 25000 Euro fine in Ireland for offending someone's religion is something that could deter someone from criticising or mocking religion. The Irish blasphemy law was rather toothless up until the 2009 amendment, which was ostensibly introduced owing to the fear of offending Muslims. New Zealand have had a blasphemy law since 1961, but in 2015 introduced a new law making it illegal to post blasphemous content on the Internet. I would say that there is reasonable grounds to be concerned if one is posting on religious forums from New Zealand and being reported to the authorities by the likes of Ada, or the Muslim version of Ada.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 2, 2017 20:42:32 GMT
The problem is that you posted efforts to remove it without posting the new Sen we of urgency for a law that's been around since at least the 19th century. I'm failing to see how blasphemous are being stopped from being blasphemous in the 21st century. It doesn't look like there's a day n her for the wicked. The fact that there is a 2500 Euro fine in Ireland for offending someone's religion is something that could deter someone from criticising or mocking religion. The Irish blasphemy law was rather toothless up until the 2009 amendment, which was ostensibly introduced owing to the fear of offending Muslims. New Zealand have had a blasphemy law since 1961, but in 2015 introduced a new law making it illegal to post blasphemous content on the Internet. I would say that there is reasonable grounds to be concerned if one is posting on religious forums from New Zealand and being reported to the authorities by the likes of Ada, or the Muslim version of Ada. I just lookedit up. The punishment is a maximum fine of 25,000
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 20:44:23 GMT
The fact that there is a 2500 Euro fine in Ireland for offending someone's religion is something that could deter someone from criticising or mocking religion. The Irish blasphemy law was rather toothless up until the 2009 amendment, which was ostensibly introduced owing to the fear of offending Muslims. New Zealand have had a blasphemy law since 1961, but in 2015 introduced a new law making it illegal to post blasphemous content on the Internet. I would say that there is reasonable grounds to be concerned if one is posting on religious forums from New Zealand and being reported to the authorities by the likes of Ada, or the Muslim version of Ada. I just lookedit up. The punishment is a maximum fine of 25,000 Thanks, I edited my post. That is truly insane. The Muslims in Ireland will be exploiting that law, and no doubt. I read that one Muslim was trying to use the law to ensure that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons cannot be printed in Ireland.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 20:46:16 GMT
Option one here.
Blasphemy laws are of course a nonsense. Blasphemy harms nobody.
Hate speech laws puzzle me. It's not illegal to hate anybody - it's not illegal to hate minorities, for instance. So why should it be illegal to incite hatred that isn't itself illegal? It makes no sense.
I do think it should be illegal to incite violence or criminal activity, though.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 2, 2017 20:49:28 GMT
I just lookedit up. The punishment is a maximum fine of 25,000 Thanks, I edited my post. That is truly insane. The Muslims in Ireland will be exploiting that law, and no doubt. I read that one Muslim was trying to use the law to ensure that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons cannot be printed in Ireland. What is even more insane is what the then Taoiseach (Prime Minister) had to say. "I am ... puzzled as to the hysterical and incorrect reaction whipped up by some media reporters and commentators on this point" Nobody is really taking them seriously at least. Most people are against the law.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 2, 2017 20:54:56 GMT
There's no such thing as "blasphemy" and what constitutes "hate speech" is too subjective to really set an objective criteria for and just results in Orwellian nanny state laws.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 20:59:14 GMT
There's no such thing as "blasphemy" and what constitutes "hate speech" is too subjective to really set an objective criteria for and just results in Orwellian nanny state laws. That is what is happening in Western Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand right now. I'm quite sure that Britain is less than a decade away from enacting new blasphemy laws at the behest of our very vociferous Muslim population.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 2, 2017 21:00:39 GMT
So if outlawing Bible burning were to cause divisions, incite hatred, or cause serious offense, should it be disallowed? Jesus you ask a lot of questions. Correct. Well, so you've got a Catch-22. You've got divisions, hatred-incitement and serious offense whether you are in favor of banning Bible-burning or not.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 2, 2017 21:18:44 GMT
Jesus you ask a lot of questions. Correct. Well, so you've got a Catch-22. You've got divisions, hatred-incitement and serious offense whether you are in favor of banning Bible-burning or not. Care to elaborate? What do you mean by "I have it either way"?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 2, 2017 21:26:31 GMT
Well, so you've got a Catch-22. You've got divisions, hatred-incitement and serious offense whether you are in favor of banning Bible-burning or not. Care to elaborate? What do you mean by "I have it either way"? I had mentioned this much earlier in the conversation: "What about the ideological division between people who think it's a big problem to outlaw burning books that people own and the people who are in favor of outlawing specific books?" And the question I had just asked you was this: "So if outlawing Bible burning were to cause divisions, incite hatred, or cause serious offense, should it be disallowed?" People are socially divided by whether it's a problem or not to outlaw book-burning, hatred arises in people against those who believe it's justifiable to ban book-burning, and people take serious offense against a society that is in favor of banning book-burning.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 2, 2017 21:31:27 GMT
Care to elaborate? What do you mean by "I have it either way"? I had mentioned this much earlier in the conversation: "What about the ideological division between people who think it's a big problem to outlaw burning books that people own and the people who are in favor of outlawing specific books?" And the question I had just asked you was this: "So if outlawing Bible burning were to cause divisions, incite hatred, or cause serious offense, should it be disallowed?" People are socially divided by whether it's a problem or not to outlaw book-burning, hatred arises in people against those who believe it's justifiable to ban book-burning, and people take serious offense against a society that is in favor of banning book-burning. I never thought about that. I guess whichever would lead to less offence etc should be the road legislators should go down and prima facie it seems to me that outlawing holy book burning should be that road.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 2, 2017 21:33:55 GMT
I had mentioned this much earlier in the conversation: "What about the ideological division between people who think it's a big problem to outlaw burning books that people own and the people who are in favor of outlawing specific books?" And the question I had just asked you was this: "So if outlawing Bible burning were to cause divisions, incite hatred, or cause serious offense, should it be disallowed?" People are socially divided by whether it's a problem or not to outlaw book-burning, hatred arises in people against those who believe it's justifiable to ban book-burning, and people take serious offense against a society that is in favor of banning book-burning. I never thought about that. I guess whichever would lead to less offence etc should be the road legislators should go down and prima facie it seems to me that outlawing holy book burning should be that road. Well, we'd have to both support that quantification should be the approach and support some plausible quantification method beyond mere speculation. We'd need some sort of empirical evidence regarding what possibility would result in more division, hatred and offense.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 2, 2017 21:41:28 GMT
I never thought about that. I guess whichever would lead to less offence etc should be the road legislators should go down and prima facie it seems to me that outlawing holy book burning should be that road. Well, we'd have to both support that quantification should be the approach and support some plausible quantification method beyond mere speculation. We'd need some sort of empirical evidence regarding what possibility would result in more division, hatred and offense. I agree, I am willing to acknowledge that my evidence is anecdotal and unscientific but it still counts as something.
|
|
vomisacaasi
Sophomore
@vomisacaasi
Posts: 186
Likes: 44
|
Post by vomisacaasi on Mar 2, 2017 21:42:31 GMT
No for both for me. As someone said it is not illegal to hate someone it should not be illegal to let people know you hate them.
I have no obligation to follow the rules of any religion therefore I can not blaspheme. If a religious person takes something I say as blasphemous that is for them to resolve.
Though at the same time I do believe in self censorship. Just because can do a thing does not mean I must do that thing.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 2, 2017 21:53:38 GMT
Yeah, I certainly do not agree with saoradh that we should attempt laws to do away with division, hatred, offense, etc. After all, we can't get rid of those things no matter what we do. We're certainly not going to legislate them away.
No matter what we do, some people are not going to like what we do or do not allow, there are going to be divisions about how things should be, there are going to be people that hate other people, there are going to be people who are offended by something, etc.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 2, 2017 22:10:42 GMT
Yeah, I certainly do not agree with saoradh that we should attempt laws to do away with division, hatred, offense, etc. After all, we can't get rid of those things no matter what we do. We're certainly not going to legislate them away. No matter what we do, some people are not going to like what we do or do not allow, there are going to be divisions about how things should be, there are going to be people that hate other people, there are going to be people who are offended by something, etc. You dont thnk a situation would arise where the offense etc caused by prohibiting something is less then if it wasnt prohibited is possible?
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 2, 2017 22:41:39 GMT
Inciting violence/hatred against people based on race/sexuality/disability or other factors that they have no control over should be an offence.
But nobody has the right to be protected from ever having to take any offence. You cannot legislate for what is "offensive" as that will mean different things to different people anyway and the alternative would be to let anyone claim they had been offended by pretty much anything and ask for the offender to be prosecuted.
Religion is certainly not an exception to this. If religion really is divinely inspired then anyone committing blasphemy will presumably be punished by the religion's "higher power" later so let's not worry about what they've done in this life too much - most religions seem to be quite good at handing out very extreme post-life punishments from any minor infractions of the rules. If the religion isn't really divinely inspired then "no harm, no foul", right?
If it's just a question of trying to protect your religion from people asking awkward question about your religion, then ask yourself why is my religion so flaky that it can't withstand some people asking questions about it?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 2, 2017 23:06:09 GMT
Yeah, I certainly do not agree with saoradh that we should attempt laws to do away with division, hatred, offense, etc. After all, we can't get rid of those things no matter what we do. We're certainly not going to legislate them away. No matter what we do, some people are not going to like what we do or do not allow, there are going to be divisions about how things should be, there are going to be people that hate other people, there are going to be people who are offended by something, etc. You dont thnk a situation would arise where the offense etc caused by prohibiting something is less then if it wasnt prohibited is possible? Ignoring problems with quantifying one person's offense versus another's (the problems we have to ignore are the assumption that there would be ways to say that they're the same quality-wise, but just different quantity-wise), sure that's possible, but I don't agree either with (1) "less offense is better than more", or (2) "offense should be avoided."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 23:07:29 GMT
Define "hate speech" and "blasphemy laws".
|
|