New crime of blasphemous libel proposed for Defamation Bill - goodbye free speech ?

[Fish]

[quote=Alterego;1609135]

I believe it is what is considered sacred that deserves protection.

Define what is sacred!

Go on do it so that we can see you tie yourself up in knots and yet again show yourself up for the complete imbecile you are

In so far as people's religious beliefs do not contain sacred elements, they have little claim to special protection.

Really? And do tell what is the "test of sacred elements" that should be used to define what religions should and should not be protected.

It is essential though that legal intervention of the kind being considered should attend closely to the distinction between, on the one hand, what people disagree with or disapprove of and, on the other, what causes them offence.

Fine so then can it be assumed that you will have no objection when people find people like you and your fellow islamists along with it's teachings offensive and blasphemous to their belief systems.

There is a balance to be drawn. This law should not prevent legitimate inquiry. I see this as redressing an imbalance where certain segments of society deliberately sought to offend rather than reasonably debate. Such behaviour can only undermine societal cohesion.

Firstly spare us the platitudes because they don't become you. The only balance you and others like you want is an imbalance against freedom of speech and criticism of your particular mind control cult. Reasonable debate? Oh the irony of the adherents of a medieval mindset that espouse murder of those that don't or won't agree with them asking for reasonable debate is laughable. Societal cohesion? I submit that said societal cohesion in Ireland would be far better served by people like you and that reprehensible idiot egan p1ssing off to any number of the monocultural dead ends that islam has created.

This law will protect society and cause people to be more considerate in their appraisal of religious belief.

Watch this space because this law will never be enacted. BTW sherlock the law already protects society-(from people like you that seek to undermine democracy and replace it with theocracy).

It will encourage a civility that has been lost. It's not there to protect religion, it's there to protect its adherents from offence

Yada-Yada-Yada. Pure and utter whataboutery. Civility? Like this:

Free Dr. Yunis Shaikh

[COLOR=black]Recently in Nowshera District in Pakistan, a man named Ashiq Nabi [external: [/COLOR][COLOR=black]BBC News[/COLOR][COLOR=black]], was brutally murdered for the unproven allegation of blasphemy by an angry mob following a rumor that he had damaged a copy of the Qur’an deliberately. As the rumor spread rapidly, a 400-plus village mob chased Mr. Nabi through the fields, who finally sought refuge up on a tree where he was shot dead by someone in the mob. This is one of many frequent cases of murder for those accused of blasphemy in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]Many people, mostly from minority religions, are often jailed in Pakistan on charges of blasphemy. Sentencing to death for blasphemy is not uncommon in Pakistan; the most well-known case being that of [/COLOR][COLOR=black]Dr. Younis Sheikh,[/COLOR][COLOR=black] who was ultimately acquitted because of intense international pressure. Dr Sheikh, still in fear for his life, has now taken refuge in a Western country. However, people accused of blasphemy, are often murdered by religious mob, who believe it to be their religious duty as Muslims to kill those who desert or disrespect Islam. Indeed, death for blasphemy is common to all over the Muslims world. The case of Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin (Bangladesh), who are under “Islamic rogue justice” called “fatwa” and currently hiding in Western countries, are just a few well-known cases. Also recently Prof. Humayun Azad of Bangladesh ("Dharmanubhutir Upakatha", "A tale of religious sensitivity" by***** Dr. Humayun Azad) was fatally assaulted by Islamic zealots for allegedly defaming Islam in his book, who finally died in Germany on 11 August, 2004. [/COLOR]

[Kilroy]

Here is a question for the minister; If the proposed legislation is passed will he be charging the Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley for his 'insulting' and 'offensive' description of the Pope and all past Popes as the 'Anti-Christ'?...quite clearly and the remark was 'intended'...and a 'substantial' number of Roman Catholics were and are 'outraged' by the insult. What's the story Dermot?..are you going to go after the Doc?

[tmesis2008]

It's not there to protect religion, it's there to protect its adherents from offence.

And, the price of living in a free society is that, from time to time, you will be offended. You don't deserve to be protected from offence any more than I do.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

If this law is passed I suggest all those uninfected with the psychological godvirus register as a member of a new religion- ProAtheism. The Italian Colonels and their acolytes in Ireland are always accusing atheists and agnostics as believers in a 'faith'.

A central tenet of the new faith of ProAtheism will be the sacred miracle of free speech.

Any attempt to silence us would then fall foul of the new blasphemy law. Hoist these muppets with their own legal petard.

Can I be St Cap'n Con?

[Clanrickard]

Email setting out my strenuous objections to this nonsense sent to Ahern. I urge others to do the same. I just wonder what this is about. I still think Coughlan in the Gulf is no coincidence. I also wonder with the 57 votes of the OIC in the UN is someone angling for a position.

[FutureTaoiseach]

If this nonsense goes through, expect cinemas to be prosecuted for showing the 'Da Vinci code/Angels and Demons'. The Greens forced FF's hand on the by-elections. They must do the same on this. Flood your TD's mailboxes with protest.

[imokyrok]

If this nonsense goes through, expect cinemas to be prosecuted for showing the 'Da Vinci code/Angels and Demons'. The Greens forced FF's hand on the by-elections. They must do the same on this. Flood your TD's mailboxes with protest.

As if they haven't taken enough from us - now they want our freedom of speech as well. Well it ain't going to happen. We might not have much choice about swallowing the financial pain but we are not adding injustice to injury. This will be fought all the way.

[Alterego]

How do you know what's in my favour? What do you mean by this? And who decides what's civil? If I call you a dribbling loon will I have to pay €100,000? Or is it ok to just say I believe you're deluded? Is that civil?

I guess you have to consider which reference could lead to an extensive hospital bill. That should help you determine which is civil or not.

[iartaoiseach]

I guess you have to consider which reference could lead to an extensive hospital bill. That should help you determine which is civil or not.

and the true colours come out again.

[corelli]

Alterego, do you think it's fair that, in an argument where, say, Person A called Person B's dead mother a whore, and in retort, Person B called Person A's god a whore, then only Person B is liable to be prosecuted? Do you think that Person B's feelings about their mother are not sincerely held, or they are not as offended as Person A?

P.

I agree with you substantively Ocean, but posters might take on board the fact that the legislation, from my understanding, is intended to protect against blasphemous LIBEL, not slander. Ie the written word not the spoken one. You could go no Pat Kenny and call the Pope the mother of all whores who sponsors state terror and who is the biggest queer in Christendom and that would be ok, but you could not write and publish and article containing the same sentiments!

Lets stick to the facts as much as possible. Saying that, people might note that the Pope's right hand man in the Seanad, Ronan Mullen, was quick in supporting the proposal yesterday!! Quel suprise!