Dr Quasim seems OK to me. He just defends his religion. He's not an out and out obnoxious bigot like the other two.Originally Posted by Aindriu
The Church of Dermotology is feeling Blasphemed against each and every day his divineness has his likeness printed in a Newspaper.
A majority of us are outraged regularly and fully intend to use this law to its fullest.
Our Beliefs are like other churches
See HereOur sacred beliefs are quite similar to those of other religions.
We believe ice cream wafers are literally the body of Dermot Ahern.
We believe Dermot Ahern created the universe on Wed 20 may 2009.
We’re sometimes not sure whether Dermot Ahern really exists.
We believe it is blasphemous to publish an image of Dermot Ahern.
We refuse to gather sticks on the Sabbath, which is Wednesday.
We wear magic underpants that protect us from fire and bullets.
Join us...
Really now?Dr Quasism seems OK to me. He just defends his religion. He's not an out and out onboxious bigot like the other two
a poster said
http://www.politics.ie/1846739-post14.htmlAny woman in a Niqab or Burqa deserves to be ridiculed
In response DR DEATH said oh i mean Dr Qasim Afridi said
http://www.politics.ie/1848456-post41.htmlThe coward speaks of cowardice... You know what Clan... If you ever made fun of a Muslim woman wearing the Hijab you may end up in the hospital with a few fractured bones
Sounds like a radical to me
Gnasher/Gnash1970 The Troll That Likes to Hijack Threads And Take Them Off Topic
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Sounds like a man being chivalrous to me. A bit old fashioned perhaps but my husband would have the same reaction to any bullying tactics directed at me. Mind you I'd probably beat him to it.
I wonder if I quote a bit of blasphemy like that above, will I also be liable?
It would be like that scene in The Life of Brian where the rabbi/priest fella eventually gets stoned to bits for inadvertantly saying that someone else said Jehovah.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm thinking of renting a billboard truck and selling blasphemy bricks on the billboard posters (just to cover the cost) - where you'll get the blasphemy of your choice printed on the poster, the truck will then just drive around town (particularly Leinster House).
It's either that, or a megaphone outside Leinster House where we all get shouty. But there are too many of those people already.
Follow Politics.ie on twitter:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Here is my attempt
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_BWMG8a3io]YouTube - I`M A FALSE PROPHET AND GOD IS A SUPERSTITION[/ame]
What makes you so sure that a court won't take existing jurisprudence on the question of intent as an ingredient in a criminal offence, and assume that the accused intended the natural and probable outcome of his actions?Wonderful legal analysis.....
The law, the courts, judges etc deal with fluff like 'intention' and on what is 'substantial' all the time. And just because outrage ensued does not mean you intended it; that is not how it works.
But I do agree on one point; the bill is (pretty much) unworkable. To convict someone under it requires you to prove such a thing as an intention to cause outrage in a substantial number of adherents to a religon. Unless someone admits it, I find it hard to believe that a jury can find that, beyond a reasonable doubt, someone had such an intention. A defendant can freely admit that they meant to offend, to abuse, to blaspheme, to reallly upset them and they are not guilty. The outrage bar just seems a very difficult one to cross. Im sure in some unusual cases it might be possible but practically i do not see the DPP taking any cases and do not see a jury convicting.
So we can all keep blaspheming to our hearts content, i think we are safe.
To think of it practically, it is possible that once this legislation passes, some religiously-minded persons will take it upon themselves to take out newspaper adverts outlining in abstract terms the sort of comment that would cause offence to them. Others may write to well-known comedians to tell them of the sort of thing they should refrain from saying. If a comedian then says that sort of thing anyway, he can hardly argue he didn't intend to cause offence. By virtue of the earlier communication, he'll be on notice that his words could cause offence.
It is through this kind of mechanism that the bar will be lowered. Religious nutjobs will have an active incentive to proclaim a low threshold of offence, and to communicate this to everyone to make it difficult to claim one didn't intend to cause offence.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Libero, its not good enough to merely intend offence. You have to intend to cause outrage in a number of adherents of a religon. Of course the bill (very helpfullly!) doesnt define outrage but it is a considerably higher standard.
And the natural and probable consequences of intending offence or abuse is not to cause outrage (at least not usually) so I dont see it happening and I definitely do not see a jury convicting.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
