Has Ireland gone even madder?

[Wij]

Love the place but wtf are they doing making shit laws like this ?

Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy laws | World news | guardian.co.uk

My only other worry is that Fuckeye Brown has been flirting with the churches recently. It wouldn't be beyond his fuckwittery to copy it :/

/edit: ALLAH, JESUS AND ZEUS ALL TOUCHED MY PEEPEE WHEN I WAS FIVE !!!!!1

 

[Cemeterygates]

That's fucking insane lol. I agree with the Atheist group tbh, going by what that story says, especially "In a civilised society, people have a right to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous."

Seems like a rather medieval law tbh, not a law that one would really expect in the western world in this day and age.

 

[Rulke]

I remember reading this was on the cards a while back and thinking "Nah, it'll never make it into law!"

Does this mean all the paedophile priests are off the hook? Prosecuting them would be blasphemy after all...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well, to be honest if it removes some of the more moronic stuff and leaves more thought out comedy, it's fine.

"publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting"

I don't see a problem with that.

 

[Tom]

I do. Religion is a choice. If one chooses to follow the teachings of an invisible mystical sky fairy, one shouldn't be surprised when other people call one an idiot.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I do. Religion is a choice. If one chooses to follow the teachings of an invisible mystical sky fairy, one shouldn't be surprised when other people call one an idiot.

*yawn*

 

[DaGaffer]

Well, to be honest if it removes some of the more moronic stuff and leaves more thought out comedy, it's fine.

"publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting"

I don't see a problem with that.

Except:

“Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.”

And yet strangely, because atheism isn't a religion, fuckwit priests can carry on saying stuff like this; its a terrible, discriminatory, medieval piece of shit law and the first time anyone marches in Dublin about this (and they will), I'll be there.

 

[old.Tohtori]

And yet strangely, because atheism isn't a religion, fuckwit priests can carry on saying stuff like this; its a terrible, discriminatory, medieval piece of shit law and the first time anyone marches in Dublin about this (and they will), I'll be there.

Ah, thanks for noting that.

Yes, it should cover all aspects. But since atheists say they aren't a religion, it's kind of hard to cover atheists in a religion right protection law without calling them religious.

Or atleast i would expect it is, not 100% clear on legislation thingies

But it SHOULD cover all aspects of humans, fat, black, redhead, meatball lover and so on, grossly abusive stuff we could do without.

 

[DaGaffer]

Ah, thanks for noting that.

Yes, it should cover all aspects. But since atheists say they aren't a religion, it's kind of hard to cover atheists in a religion right protection law without calling them religious.

Or atleast i would expect it is, not 100% clear on legislation thingies

But it SHOULD cover all aspects of humans, fat, black, redhead, meatball lover and so on, grossly abusive stuff we could do without.

No, you're looking at it the wrong way around. If some numpty priest wants to call me less than human, fine, I'm big enough to defend myself from his pig-ignorance, but I should also have the right to say "the catholic church is built on a lie and is stucturally bound to create kiddie-fiddlers", and not fear prosecution for saying so (especially when its entirely true). Religion should have NO protection from criticism; its an idea, not a person, and ideas should always be fair game for deconstruction and no idea deserves legal protection.

 

[rynnor]

Ah, thanks for noting that.

Yes, it should cover all aspects. But since atheists say they aren't a religion, it's kind of hard to cover atheists in a religion right protection law without calling them religious.

Its not difficult - the UK anti-religious discrimination act covers Atheists as well.

 

[dub]

religiousness is grossly abusive and insulting to the human race , does that mean i can ban it ?

 

[Tom]

*yawn*

It says a lot to me that these people are so uncertain of the future of their belief system that they feel it needs legal protection.

Fuck them. Let their religion stand or fall by the strength of their arguments.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No, you're looking at it the wrong way around. If some numpty priest wants to call me less than human, fine, I'm big enough to defend myself from his pig-ignorance, but I should also have the right to say "the catholic church is built on a lie and is stucturally bound to create kiddie-fiddlers", and not fear prosecution for saying so (especially when its entirely true). Religion should have NO protection from criticism; its an idea, not a person, and ideas should always be fair game for deconstruction and no idea deserves legal protection.

Not at all, i'm just putting it into an opinion based on the law that is (supposedly?) coming.

So if this law goes through, it should be about all aspects. I didn't notice they are excluding people from it. If it's not including all, then its silly and biased.

But my original point stands, we could do with some less moronic commentary. Jokes, fine. Witty remarks, fine. Thought out arguments, fine. 5th grade insults? Please. All i'm sayign is that it's not a bad thing to force out some stuff that isn't really that funny.

Tom, i yawned because if you really believe that choice = free to mock at any level, it would only exclude race, that's it, everything rest is down to choice.

Would you want to be called a child killing f*ck head, just because you like guns? It's not true ofcourse, but neither is all the anti-religion propaganda towards ALL religion/people.

 

[Raven]

You should have the right to mock someone who has stupid ideas which are plainly bullshit. Religion is poorly written fantasy for the most part and fits into the bullshit category. People have a good laugh at those people that genuinely think they are a Jedi, or a hobbit or whatever, I see no difference with priests. Its about time they lost their protection from examination.

At least the Jedi and hobbits are harmless.

 

[old.Tohtori]

At least the Jedi and hobbits are harmless.

And so is a majority of religious people.

It all comes down to this;

Do you believe that anyone, any time, in any way and degree should be open to extreme ridicule and mockery, unless it's about things they can't control(race being the main example)?

 

[DaGaffer]

Do you believe that anyone, any time, in any way and degree should be open to extreme ridicule and mockery, unless it's about things they can't control(race being the main example)?

Yes. You've pretty much got it exactly there. No belief, opinion or "cultural value" should be off limits. As you said, its only stuff that you can't control (race, sex, disability etc.) that should be subject to legal protection.

 

[nath]

Do you believe that anyone, any time, in any way and degree should be open to extreme ridicule and mockery, unless it's about things they can't control(race being the main example)?

No idea should be protected from mockery, absolutely no idea. Nothing is sacred.



edit: I actually wrote this before seeing Gaffs response - I'm not actually trying to lick his balls. Promise.

 

[Krazeh]

Yes. You've pretty much got it exactly there. No belief, opinion or "cultural value" should be off limits. As you said, its only stuff that you can't control (race, sex, disability etc.) that should be subject to legal protection.

Agree with this entirely. People are free to choose their own beliefs, ideas, values etc but should accept that other people are equally free to mock or ridicule those choices.

 

[Raven]

Do you believe that anyone, any time, in any way and degree should be open to extreme ridicule and mockery, unless it's about things they can't control(race being the main example)?

No, I don't. Race, disability and status should not be mocked. People believing in some batshit crazy sun worshipping cult should be educated I suppose rather than mocked. This isn't about that though, its about the church getting protection that it shouldn't, it feels like going back to the dark ages where you cannot say anything about them without fear or prosecution, though obviously the punishment dealt out by the kind, forgiving, religious nutjobs at the time was a bit more severe than it is now.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes. You've pretty much got it exactly there. No belief, opinion or "cultural value" should be off limits. As you said, its only stuff that you can't control (race, sex, disability etc.) that should be subject to legal protection.

That does include everything right? Fat people, people with certain color hair(dyed especially) etc?

Because i think we should have a bit of a limit on all mockery, these days this whole freedom of speech is getting a bit out of hand. EDIT: Although, that is irrelevant really as it's more of a social commentary.

This isn't about that though, its about the church getting protection that it shouldn't

And as such, i agree. The church shouldn't be the only one getting it, it should be all if any.

My initial comment on this thread was wrong as it wasn't 100% informed, i thought it meant all, atheism etc.

 

[Chilly]

That does include everything right? Fat people, people with certain color hair(dyed especially) etc?

Because i think we should have a bit of a limit on all mockery, these days this whole freedom of speech is getting a bit out of hand. EDIT: Although, that is irrelevant really as it's more of a social commentary.



And as such, i agree. The church shouldn't be the only one getting it, it should be all if any.

My initial comment on this thread was wrong as it wasn't 100% informed, i thought it meant all, atheism etc.

There is protection for personal harrasment in UK law. Also, most people have a sense of decency. It's why there's no law against pushing into lines because almost no one does it. Just because some do does not mean they need to get jailed.

 

[Rulke]

Why do people still argue with Tohtori? If the first couple of posts in this thread had been pro-ban he'd have come out against it.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

Rather mental law and one that will be extremely problematic to enforce. As said in the news article, its very anachronistic.

TV companies are going to have problems. I wonder how many comedians will remain on Irish soil and how many foreign comedians will keep Irish cities on their tour dates.

I suppose a quick law suit will be a nice bit of advertising for any comic or band that decides to get some easy publicity.

Oh and I love the Frank Zappa quote, but then, he's always been rather quotable.

 

[Kryten]

looking forward to some Mock the Week pisstaking

 

[old.Tohtori]

There is protection for personal harrasment in UK law. Also, most people have a sense of decency. It's why there's no law against pushing into lines because almost no one does it. Just because some do does not mean they need to get jailed.

True, but i think we can agree that if there are some means to remove the extremes, or over, and they don't interfere with freedoms, they wouldn't harm anything.

Rulke, you're entitled to keep that point of view.

 

[Tom]

True, but i think we can agree that if there are some means to remove the extremes, or over, and they don't interfere with freedoms, they wouldn't harm anything.

Rulke, you're entitled to keep that point of view.

Extremism is dealt with by reasoned debate, and not by laws which stifle that debate.

 

[Mabs]

Extremism is dealt with by reasoned debate, and not by laws which stifle that debate.

please put down the plastic explosive and step away from the aircraft, we understand your problems ?

 

[nath]

please put down the plastic explosive and step away from the aircraft, we understand your problems ?

It's already illegal to blow shit up. I believe Tom was referring to extreme ideas/points of view.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Extremism is dealt with by reasoned debate, and not by laws which stifle that debate.

While true, not the point i was making.

I'll try to explain it better;

If there was a law that prevented extremism(simly by existing it could deter the behaviour), or extreme ridicule(that is clearly over the line), and it didn't remove your basic freedom, wouldn't it be benificial?

 

[Mabs]

It's already illegal to blow shit up. I believe Tom was referring to extreme ideas/points of view.

you missed the point, which is that nutters of any persuasion, or fanatics if you prefer, are impossible to argue with cos they 'know' they are right

it doesnt matter if its people blowing up planes, or deciding that gays arent real people and god hates them.. its a waste of time talking to them