|
Post by MagdaFR on May 7, 2017 13:58:26 GMT
The Guardian articleI don't understand how anything of this is included on the Defamation Act. It is not like god is going to testify. Which god, also. Totally agree with SF here. I think people should be free to believe or not believe whatever they like and should be free from state interference unless any of their beliefs significantly impact on the safety, health and welfare of individuals and/or the community in general. It is what religions do. Ask all those who were burnt for not believing, those who were sexually abused by catholic priests, all the women who are considered second class citizens by different religions, all the children that receive no vaccines because their parents are fundamentalists who think prayers heal, etc. If religion wasn't trasmitted to children I could accept that everybody should be free to choose but children are indoctrinated, they have no free choice.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 7, 2017 14:45:23 GMT
The law passed in 2009 was an attempt to recognise the now more multicultural population of Ireland. It widened the original law which was exclusive to Christianity to cover all religions. It is not a popular piece of legislation and one which the current government is seeking to amend so that it addresses such things as "hate speech" against people on the grounds of their religion rather than blasphemy in the "old fashioned" interpretation. This is similar to what we have in Finland. We had a blasphemy law until early 21st century, but they changed it to a pretty obnoxiously titled "Breaching the sanctity of religion" section in the Criminal code, which attempts to encompass all religions. It's more like a hate speech section though, I only remember it being enforced one and that was to fine an MP who called Islam the "pedophile religion" and there was a pretty exciting case of a "free-thinkers' organization" complaining to the state prosecutor about the entire Lutheran church because they published the Bible on their website and it's "insulting to Atheists". (As an Atheist that case infuriates me greatly, I mean c'mon tons of old stuff is offensive to all kinds of people but prohibiting the publication of all of them is pretty heavily restricting the freedom of speech. This is the kind of stuff that gives Atheists/liberals a bad rap as "snowflakes" and people who get offended by everything.) Suffice to say no charges were brought up in the matter. But it's an interesting section in that its removal is being pushed by both the far-right and the liberals who rarely agree on anything, with everyone in-between just not giving a crap. I definitely don't think anyone should ever be convicted of blasphemy, but where the lines are between it and hate-speech can be hazy. I think all those new "hate speech" laws in "progressive countries" are very dangerous and of course extreme right people from ALL religions will abuse of them. It's a huge mistake in name of tolerance and multiculturalism. They also show how people are very illiterate in history. I have seen a lot of comments by young liberals claiming that Hitler would had never come to power if Germany would had have "hate speech" laws without knowing that Germany actually DID had hate speech laws at the time and the nazis were prosecuted by them in multiple occasions. It only helps them to publicize their ideas.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 7, 2017 14:49:01 GMT
You make valid points Magda. Which is why I believe religion and state should be seperate. That way the laws of the land should not allow for any of the things you mention to be permitted.
Religion should be a matter of adult personal choice. Children should not be compelled to adhere their parents beliefs. Again, that's where the separation of church and state comes in.
In Ireland we suffered badly through living in a country where church and state law were intertwined. We've spent the past few decades untangling all of that and dealing with the awful legacy it left in terms of everything from clerical abuse to undue influence by the church in everything from medical services to education. There is still work to do but we've come a very long way. And the momentum to finish the job is huge.
That said I dont believe people should be punished because they choose to follow a particular religion. You've only got to look to the treatment of the Jews in WWII and the atrocities being perpetrated by ISIS and other fundamentalist groups to see that's not the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on May 7, 2017 15:53:11 GMT
I think I understand why blasphemy laws exist, but I don't think what SF said broke any laws. I think even the most religious people have moments when they question why God allows such horrible things to happen. I remember being shocked years ago, after the death of a close relative, when my father announced that it was proof that there was no God - God would never take such a good person while evil people live. But then years later, my father survived cancer and the surgeries and painful treatments that went with it. So then he changed his tune a bit - maybe there was a God listening to his prayers. People need to be allowed to express their feelings without fear of breaking a law.
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on May 7, 2017 22:17:27 GMT
I think all those new "hate speech" laws in "progressive countries" are very dangerous and of course extreme right people from ALL religions will abuse of them. It's a huge mistake in name of tolerance and multiculturalism. They also show how people are very illiterate in history. I have seen a lot of comments by young liberals claiming that Hitler would had never come to power if Germany would had have "hate speech" laws without knowing that Germany actually DID had hate speech laws at the time and the nazis were prosecuted by them in multiple occasions. It only helps them to publicize their ideas. First, I apologize for my inept attempts to use the quote function. I agree with this statement completely. Limiting any speech, other than libel against individuals, sets a very dangerous precedent. There are, or should be, others ways within the legal system to address harassment, intimidation, and discrimination. It's easy to support someone's right to say things you agree with. The test comes when you must support the right to say things that you find abhorrent. Giving a government the power to deny people the right to express their thoughts or the right of other people to hear those thoughts is ultimately oppressive.
|
|
|
Post by igs on May 8, 2017 6:42:15 GMT
I think all those new "hate speech" laws in "progressive countries" are very dangerous and of course extreme right people from ALL religions will abuse of them. It's a huge mistake in name of tolerance and multiculturalism. Are hate speech laws a "progressive country" thing? I'd think many definitely not progressive countries have them. I'm not an expert in comparative law, the only ones I know anything of are the Finnish law and Islamic law (cause I wrote a thesis on an aspect of it.) It's not like these regulations are popping out of nowhere now as response to "multi-culturalism", for example, I mentioned Finnish laws in my earlier post but we don't have a general "hate speech law" and I don't know if many countries have. "Hate speech" as a term is used very lightly in the media, and has nothing or next to nothing to do with what's actually illegal and what's not. We have some laws that could be interpreted as such. One is the aforementioned "blasphemy" law which should be abolished and the other is something called "Aggravation against a group of people" which means actively trying to incite others to attack or discriminate against a group of people, which in my opinion should stay. I don't agree that no regulation is best regulation in the first place, and I don't agree that freedom of speech should always be placed above such rights as right to life and personal liberty (safety.) With all basic rights and freedoms you need to weigh them, which means something's got to give because liberties tend to contradict each other. Defamation laws already limit the freedom of speech, and much more so in countries like the US where you can have a civil defamation case which can intimidate people into not saying things for fear of being sued.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 8, 2017 23:32:11 GMT
I recommend you this book by Kenan Malik, www.amazon.com/Fatwa-Jihad-Rushdie-Affair-Aftermath/dp/193555400X/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494285240&sr=1-6It shows how the free speech ideal has changed in a very few years. One stunning example is how a prominent Muslim figure in the U.K. publicity said he would kill Rushdie if he meet him in the street. He was investigated but at the end of the day the authorities decided he didn't committed any crime because he had the right to say whatever he wanted to say and it was impossible for him to kill the writer. Ironically, he also campaigned for a law that later was used against him when he said something similar against the Danish cartoonists years later even when was even more difficult for him to attack them! I think it was much more easier to control extremists when people didn't make too much fuss about their opinions. Nowadays laws, social media and press reactions kind of make "martyrs" and "heroes" of abhorrent characters. I sincerely think it's good intentioned people the ones who are helping to promote despicable ideas with their reactions.
|
|
|
Post by igs on May 9, 2017 5:54:33 GMT
That book looks interesting, thanks! I find Rushdie a fascinating person, and I hope no one is interpreting my posts as though I am siding with people who'd want to kill him for Satanic Verses or that I want to ban criticism against religion or whatever, cause that couldn't be further from the truth. I've ranted and raved about the term "Islamophobia" a ton because it shouldn't exist as a term, no one should be labeled a bigot - let alone arrested - for criticizing a religion. The liberals who accuse everyone of Islamophobia are doing more harm than good. If it was called Muslimophobia or something that actually referred to people instead of the religion then that would be fine. Same goes for any religion, just using Islam as an example. Some people stretch religious freedom to ridiculous heights. But on the other hand, death threats are what is at least here in Finland labeled "unlawful threat". You can get fined for it. It's from pre-internet times, when the term "death threat" was rather more serious, and I feel like this is again one of those issues where people use a term like "hate speech" without understanding it in the context of actual legislation rather than as a media buzzword. It's one of those situations: does A have the right to exercise his freedom of speech in expressing his opinion that he would like to kill B more than B has the right to be secure in his right to life, not be restricted in his freedom of movement for fear of that right being infringed upon if he goes somewhere etc? It gets more complicated in the age of internet and especially when it comes to celebrities. I think people get too stuck on one right or the other, while forgetting the conflicting rights. I think it was much more easier to control extremists when people didn't make too much fuss about their opinions. Nowadays laws, social media and press reactions kind of make "martyrs" and "heroes" of abhorrent characters. I sincerely think it's good intentioned people the ones who are helping to promote despicable ideas with their reactions. I agree with most of this.
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on May 9, 2017 7:07:25 GMT
Here is an article from the ACLU about hate speech. I think I agree with most of this: www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campusAs far as I can tell from reading other articles, speech threatening or inciting imminent violence is against the law. Threatening or insulting language or actions aimed at individuals rather groups can be addressed through laws like those against harassment, stalking, etc.
|
|
|
Post by igs on May 9, 2017 7:55:11 GMT
I agree with that ACLU article too.
But the issue just isn't as black and white as "any regulation = gateway to fascism" and "no regulation = ultimate freedom." What is as important or even more so in any country is that people feel like they can freely express their opinion on things. That's why the US is 40-something on the freedom of press index and many European countries that have some form of "hate speech laws" (which are not a new thing, many were passed after WWII) are way above that. 4 out of the 5 Nordic countries for example make up the TOP 4 in World Press Freedom as per Reporters Without Borders, and we do have a form of "hate speech" laws. What we don't have is a president who's saying he wants to "open up libel laws" to sue people who criticize him and the government, or the risk that running our mouths can lead to financial ruin if someone sues for defamation. We don't have civil defamation cases, only 10% of charges brought up lead to criminal investigation let alone a court case, and since we have a system of not profiting from victim-hood, even if you win a defamation case you can't really make money from it. So what we also have to assess is which legal/political climate guarantees more freedom of speech in practice, rather than just look at the situation on paper.
|
|