One Way Laws
Further signs of a slippery slope in Ireland, where a proposed new law could do all sorts of fun things (in a bad way) to the Irish courts system. The lawyers are going to have a field day.
We read that:
“The Irish government plans to bring into force a new law in October that critics say is a return to medieval justice. The legislation, aimed at providing judges with clear direction on the 1937 Constitution’s blasphemy prohibition, imposes a fine of up to 25,000 euros – about $39,000 – for anyone who “publishes or utters matter that is (intentionally meant to be) grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion.”
Police with a search warrant will be able to enter private premises and use “reasonable force” to obtain incriminating evidence.
The initiative has stunned some Irish and international commentators who say it contradicts Ireland’s recent emergence as a more multicultural, tech-savvy country that has in recent years showed its independence from the Roman Catholic church by liberalizing its divorce law
It’s clear from the way the law is worded that it’s Muslims, not Catholics who are being placated. And of course the law is skewed towards “intent” rather than actual offence. Does the picture illustrating this post “offend”. Doesn’t matter under this law. Does it “intend to offend”? If the police think so then they will be allowed to kick the door in. And if under EU law a crime in one country an be enforced in another (c.f. David Irving in Austria) then anyone in the EU is on interesting legal ground So bite me.
Dhimmi Ireland = even the Leprechauns have had to go on sensitivity training courses!
I think its kind of funny that you immediately come to the conclusion ( that the new law ) is worded to placate Muslims.
I agree that these ‘Big Brother’ laws are absolutely intolerable to a sophisticated culture, but, strangely , my first reaction was to think that this law was drafted to placate Jews.
I mean, do we realise that ‘the Holocaust’ ( the catch-phrasey term thats been adopted to give immediate recognition – you know, like a sales slogan? ) is the first event in modern, Western history that will wind you up in jail for questioning any aspect of its authenticity? Again, not to say that it didn’t happen, ( as in a denier), but merely to challenge or question any aspect of the mainstream, accepted definition, which on its own has some clearly, suspect irrationalities.
This law in Ireland, to me, reeks of the new kinds of legislation that are going on worldwide, attempting to make questioning, or any negative criticism of, Israel or Jewish world agenda, into a crime.
If it offends “a substantial number of the adherents of that religion” then it must be made unlawful. In other words, “we will do whatever we want, right or wrong, and if anybody has anything negative to say, we will call you a Nazi and have you thrown in jail.”
Whatever became of the democratic ideal ” I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it” ? Ask that to David Irving, Ernst Zundel or any one of the many political prisoners currently having their rights and freedoms violated because they dared to question Jewish agenda…
Guest, I agree with the thrust of your argument for free expression of opinions. You say ‘Western history’ but even if you expand it globally I still can’t think of any other examples of a civilised government outlawing a historical debate in the way that the Holocaust has. Okay, it’s not politically correct (for the sake of argument) to express a view that the Red Indians were savages and needed locking up, slavery benefited Africans etc etc and you’ll get a few strange looks if you try, but you don’t end up in jail. With the Holocaust you can’t even question the numbers involved without gaol time.
The principle at stake here, however, I think, is different. This law tries to tackle the insulting of a religion and its followers, not a country, a people or any non-religious agenda (however connected those concepts might seem to be). And it does it by saying “accept our point of view or bust, sunshine’.
That’s why I’m saying that it is aimed at Islam. If this law were brought in as a response to Hitler-style pogroms or in a ’30s type atmosphere then I’d say it had been designed with Jews in mind, and in a few years time I’ll probably be blogging about similar laws aimed at intimidating climate change deniers. I’m arguing that it is aimed at Islam now considering the timing and the global situation. Who is the victim-du-jour?
Evelyn Hall’s phrase that you quote is gone; only us bloggers still live that ideal. Certainly judges and lawmakers have long disregarded it.
David, I went on a company outsourced one once and failed it. My boss ticked a box to say I had passed to complete his paperwork and bought me a beer for keeping everyone at the course entertained for the day.