I'm not sure which is worse, that a modern Western nation has a law against blasphemy, or that a external body like the EU could dictate to a sovereign state which laws it could have. As ridiculous as a blasphemy law is, it should be a decision made by the government and people of the country in question.

Did a bit more reading on this. The blasphemy law was part of the 1937 constitution that established the Republic from the Free State. Religion, especially Roman Catholicism had a far greater influence on the state than it does today.

Since it is part of the constitution, a national referendum would be required to remove the law. It was decided, rightly so, that it was not worth the time or expense involved to remove a law that was unlikely to be enforced.

But, since it is a law, once a complaint was filed, the Garda are legally obligated to investigate. An actual prosecution was described as highly unlikely.

Actually, the law being used in this instance was actually enacted in 2009. As part of the Defamation Act, the wording goes some thing along the lines of "any person found to have blasphemed shall be guilty of a crime". I have no idea what Fry is supposed to have said, and little care. He is irritating at best. That a nation on such a shaky financial footing as Ireland is, has the resources to investigate this nonsense is surprising.

The blasphemy clause had to be included in the 2009 law since the prohibition of blasphemy was included in the 1937 constitution. Again, the only was to get rid of it was by referendum. The language was watered down and expanded to cover all religions, the original solely covered Christianity.

I'm not sure any expense was really involved, when the press asks the Garda if a complaint was filed, they reply yes, and we're investigating. No one expects this to go any further.

If an old lady in Dublin, after her fourth sherry, calls the Garda to report Winston Churchill and Michael Collins are having a knock down, drag out in the middle of O'Connell Street, They are probably going to reply, yes we received that report and we are investigating.

Here in the land of the free, TV host Steven Colbert is facing obscenity and indecency charges after stating the only Donald Trumps mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's "fuck holster"


(this thread has gone so far off the rails!!)

So you're ok with a blasphemy law in a supposedly liberal democracy because "it probably won't get used"? What about the next government, or the one after that? If you're so sure, why did the legislature in Ireland feel the need to update the law at all, rather than just leave it in obscurity?

I am heavily involved in free speech campaigning on social networking sites, which means I have to support people that I would much rather suspend by their genitals. The idea of blasphemy laws is some thing I couldn't let pass without comment, or with such a flippant attitude toward. The law exists, so it could be used. To say it shouldn't be repealed because of cost is just fucking lazy! Ireland is perfectly capable of holding referendums, even if it does dismiss the result if it gets the wrong result!

"That a nation on such a shaky financial footing as Ireland is, has the resources to investigate this nonsense is surprising."

You're inconsistent, you say Ireland doesn't have the resources to investigate the claim, but you shrug off the cost of a nation wide referendum?

That's not inconsistency, that is prioritising. Still, wouldn't be the first person to shrug off a nation wide referendum in Ireland. If Ireland truly can't afford this one, they could include it in a general election. Or is there a suggestion that Ireland should suspend democracy altogether rather than rid itself of this law?

Bit of a leap, suggesting Ireland would suspend democracy rather than repeal an archaic, rarely used law, it may well be included in a referendum in the future or a general election, when actual issues that have an impact on people's lives are being decided.

Curious why your indignation is not directed at those parts of the UK with blasphemy laws still on the books? Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Apparently the 2009 update to the law was designed to make it almost impossible to prosecute cases of blasphemy:

".....The bill was mainly about slander, defamation, and court case awards.
I sat down with the Attorney General we went through the whole thing and at the very end of it, he said ‘By the way, you have to put in something about blasphemy’.
He was told that in the Constitution there’s a mandatory obligation to have a law on blasphemy.
“So he gave me a choice: either we hold a referendum to delete a law on blasphemy, or we renew the crime of blasphemy, and that’s the choice we took.”
He said that he couldn’t justify or recommend bringing a single referendum forward when the country was as cash-strapped as it was.
Ahern said that the definition of blasphemy, which was introduced in his amendment, was done in such a way that it would be difficult to enforce.

Dr Neville Cox [professor at Trinity College] subsequently said that the legislation ‘fulfilled the institutional obligation to have a crime of blasphemy’, but ‘skillfully rendered the law completely unenforceable’.

Ahern admitted that ‘to a certain extent’ it was constructed like that on purpose.
The Attorney General wouldn’t forgive me for saying it but, we put in so many hurdles in order to ground a prosecution that we believed we’d never see a prosecution."

Good stuff Grants. I'm sure at some point there will be arefererdum. Until then it's just not something that needs worried about.

That's an interesting way to do law and governence. Never the less, people may not understand how this particular law works, and having it written in to the constitution that there should be a law against blasphemy? That alone could effectively gag people. We are seeing more and more of this, institutionalised censorship of any thing that may offend some special snowflake or other. Universities seem to be the biggest culprits.

I guess back in the day when the Irish constitution was written, the Catholic Church had a big say in things.
I seen a report on the web today, saying the Irish police are not going to prosecute Fry, apparently partly due to a lack of outrage or interest by the public. Case closed it seems.

Prosecution is not the point, since it was always unlikely since Fry doesn't live in Ireland, and could probably happily avoid the place if needs be. A European arrest warrant is possible I suppose, but for this?

The point is that the law exists at all. I'll take on board Toms point that parts of the UK also have blasphemy laws, and raise the issue also that in our House of Lords are UNELECTED religious figures influencing the shape of our law making. Including controlling what people are allowed to say, or write.

I never claimed that the UK was some how better, or perfect, on this issue. What is surprising though is that people on a website like this could be so blasé, in fact completely fucking complacent about state censorship. Because make no mistake about it, a law against blasphemy is an attack on freedom of speech. If you are comfortable with that, with the concept that the Irish, or for that matter UK, government will get around to getting rid of it eventually, you are a fucking fool. You probably deserve to live in an Islamic State, or some thing similar. So long as that law is on the books, some government, somewhere down the line will use it against its citizens if it suits their purpose.

The point is it takes a referendum to make changes to their constitution. The clever way would be to add that as a second referendum issue to something more important, like the right to housing or to keep their water resources in public ownership and out of the hands of greedy multi-nationals.

One good thing about the whole Irish blasphemy ruckus is that New Zealand just decided to get rid of a similar law on blasphemy over there. I don't think theirs is constutional, so a simple vote in their Parliament would be enogh to decide.

Back to the upcoming elections for a bit. Quite a bit of in fighting among both the nationalist and unionist camps. The big two, DUP and Sinn Fein are accusing their little brothers, SDLP and UUP of helping the opposition by refusing to get out of the way.

Sinn Fein and the SDLP have never had much common ground, the SDLP having been the "nice" nationalists who renounced violence while Sinn Fein was joined at the hip with the IRA. The SDLP claims Sinn Fein wastes their seats by refusing to go to Westminster, Sinn Fein still considers the SDLP London's lap dog.

The UUP has even less relevance, although they are getting a bit press lately by photos of one their leaders, Mike Nesbitt, face down on the floor of a Belfast hotel. Nesbitt has yet to offer an explanation, seems he may have over indulged a bit. At least it was in one of Belfast's better hotels.

More interesting still is an upcoming visit to Londonderry by HRH Charles, Prince of Wales. Also known as Colonel in Chief of the Parachute Regiment, the last time Charles visited Londonderry, the Taigs rioted.

Of course, even Londonderry is a very different place today. Local IRA commander McGuinness from the time of the Bloody Sunday massacre had met with both Charles and the Queen before his death. Definitely unthinkable twenty or even less years ago. I've not seen any stories of how his visit was received, so either it hasn't happened yet, or passed without incident.

Regarding the blasphemy debate, it is worth considering that during the Thatcher years, there was a silly law preventing members of Sinn Fein and other terror linked organisations, from giving interviews on television. Broadcasters got around this by presenting a sillouhetted head on screen, and having an actor speak the words of the likes of Gerry Adams, talking about a campaign to build a by-pass road in Belfast!

No incidents on the northern portion of the trip. Prince Chuckie and wife are in the Republic now. Curiously no fishing trips on the agenda. Apparently some people just don't appreciate good seafood.

That's a bit unfair to Charles, after all, he is a hero of the Cod War.

Very true, to this day, little children all over Britain, and perhaps beyond, mention him in their nightly prayers. He saved western Europe, perhaps more, from being plunged into a new dark age at the hands of a wave of Icelandic Viking berserkers. One day they fish for your cod, before you know it they are sacking London

Unfortunately our hero was powerless against Ted Heath when he gifted our fish to the Spanish Armada.

Just reading up about Bloody Sunday on a news site:

"Forty-five years ago, the Regiment shot 14 people dead here. It began with a civil rights march and ended with a day forever labelled "Bloody Sunday".

In 2010, a 10-year public inquiry found that none of the victims had posed any threat and that paratroopers had fired the first shot and concocted lies afterwards.

David Cameron, then prime minister, apologised on behalf of the British government, describing the shootings on 30 January 1972 as both "unjustified and unjustifiable"."

Latest reports regarding Bloody Sunday is that up to 18 former members of the Parachute Regiment could face prosecution. Now this is where the need for parity I mentioned earlier in the thread comes in to play.

Under the Good Friday agreement, former IRA members can be sentenced to up to two years in prison if found guilty of any IRA related crime. By contrast, former members of the armed forces receive no such leniency.

In those circumstances, and given that many are already perceived to have lied in previous inquiries and investigations, is it likely that any of these former soldiers are going to be particularly friendly or cooperative witnesses in their own prosecution?

No secret my sympathy lies primarily with the Republicans, but I would support a general amnesty, across the board, including the army. It was a dirty, viscous little war, there were no white knights, on any side.

It's worth remembering that many of those soldiers in Londonderry that day were little more than frightened kids. Highly trained killing machines, yes, but it is a dangerous combination.

It just makes sense for the general amnesty to apply to all sides. I'd support no prison sentences at all, if it helped reconcile people. Criminal prosecution and conviction, definitely, but I think the need for imprisonment is far outweighed by the general peace we have seen in the last decade or more. Also, if those soldiers are to be treated different, then that is not prosecution, but persecution.

I was thinking today about the IRA hunger strikes during the 1980s. A group of convicted IRA soldiers were protesting, contending that they ought to be treated as prisoners of war, rather than criminals. Fair enough. However, if that were to be so, what about all the incidences that may be seen as war crimes or crimes against humanity commited by the IRA? The abductions, summary trials and executions, effective torture of both prisoners and civilians? Albeit on a smaller scale, IRA "held" areas of Ulster were little different from Nazi occupied Europe. I suspect it was little different for people living in Unionist areas.

Personally, my sympathy lies neither with the IRA, or with the British government, but with the communities persecuted by both.

There were war crimes, on all sides. Some obvious, some not so much. The security forces routinely passed information on senior IRA or Sinn Fein personnel to Loyalist para militaries that they wanted eliminated but didn't have the evidence to move against legally.

The abductions by the IRA were of suspected informers. One of the more prominent being that of Jean McConnville, a Belfast mother who was taken from her home and later executed as a British spy. The consensus today is that McConnville was not an informer, the IRA killed an innocent civilian. Clearly a war crime. But the water muddies if she was in fact guilty. Quite a few of the other "disappeared " were, in fact informers. If one accepts the premise that it was a war, then is the execution of enemy spies a war crime? One of the other "disappeared" is Robert Nairac, a British intelligence officer who was working in plain clothes when he was uncovered by the IRA in a pub in South Armagh. Nairac was executed. Is this a war crime?

Then there were the activities of the various loyalist paramiltary groups. Rarely, if ever, did they engage the security forces. Apart from a few times they were able to inflict casualties on the IRA their actions were almost solely directed at the nationalist civilian population.

anyone looking for a quick catch up on the unionist armed gangs, google Miami show band and Shankill Butchers.,

There have been trials and inquiries in recent years in to British forces collusion with loyalist paramilitaries. You couldn't claim there isn't movement in the right direction as far as that goes.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pc3jqf4cdfc/h...DiOIe9t2BiW40g

trailer from new movie on Martin and Dr. Paisley.

As more time goes by, I'm thinking not enough credit given to theses two, a joint peace prize is not out of consideration.

By this do you mean a Nobel Peace Prize? If so, is it awarded posthumously?

Given the track record, I sincerely hope not. There have been some worthy recipients, but with the likes of Nelson Mandela (who unlike McGuinness never renounced violence), Barack Obama (who bought hope and change to Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Libya), and The European Union as bedfellows, this would sully the achievements of both men.

Much was made of the relationship between Paisley and McGuinness after Paisleys death. Not so much after the death of McGuinness. In some ways it must have been a sad end for him. He gave, and gave up, so much to bring peace to Northern Ireland, only to quit under a storm of scandal that now and again darkens British politics, and to die not long after, not knowing if the peace he had strived for was going to hold.

But why? I mean they still chase after 90 year old former German soldiers for commiting atrocities seventy odd years ago. I think accountability should be higher for armies and soldiers than it should be for civilians taking up arms against the occupier because they have no other choice.

On 8th November 1987, the Provisional IRA exploded a bomb planted in a social club that sent the gable end of the building raining down on people gathered to remember the war dead of two world wars. A number of people died, and many were injured, including children. The Enniskillen bombing has been widely condemned. Are you suggesting that the bombers are some how less culpable than members of the British military? Or that some how the murder of Jean McConnville is some how less deserving of prosecution, than say a British squaddie shooting the driver of a stolen car speeding toward a road block?

The Enniskillen bombing was a mistake, the target was a British military parade that was part of the memorial service. This seems like splitting hairs, and the fact their loved ones were not the actual targets is cold comfort to the families of the dead. But it is a fact that this was not a deliberate attack on civilians. Support for both the IRA and Sinn Fein dipped significantly after the bombing.

With respect to amnesty for the Army, its not a valid comparison to use the continued hunt for Nazi war criminals as an example. Nothing the British did rises to the level of the crimes of the Nazis.

That is stupid. German troops in WWII were largely an occupying force, where as British troops were operating within our own borders. Or are you suggesting that a government shouldn't be able to suppress armed rebellion within its own borders?

However strong the voice for Irish nationalism may have been, whatever the fault, on both sides of the argument, there has never been a democratic mandate for an independent Northern Ireland, on either side of the border. As Tom has pointed out, it was a dirty war on both sides, but what else would you have Britain do?

It would be interesting to see how the US government behaved in such circumstances. Lets say for example if a Spanish speaking minority suddenly decided California should become part of Mexico? Or even a French speaking rebellion in Canada for that matter.

The mention of California breaking away is interesting because that is exactly what happened at the time of partition. Ireland as it's historical entity, the whole 32 counties, was heavily in favor of independence. If there were to be a partition, the next geographic division that made any sense would be by province. The problem for the unionists and the British government was that the historic nine county province of Ulster still had a nationalist majority. Not as overwhelming as in the south, but a majority nonetheless. So, if partition by province won't work, next division would be by county. But here they have another problem, only Antrim and Down have Unionist majorities. But a two county statelet is impractical.

So the solution was to not only partition Ireland, but to further subdivide Ulster itself. By removing Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan the heavy unionist majorities in Antrim and Down would provide an overall majority in the artificially created entity of Northern Ireland. This was one the slickest bits of gerrymandering the world has ever seen.

A lot less messy than partition in India though.

I read some on that, but it was hard to understand from an American's perspective. My impression is that the whole island of Ireland belongs to the Irish and that Ulster is still under occupation by a foreign power which has no righth to be there.

Actually, before coming under British rule, there was no single political entity that controlled the whole island. That is not to say that British rule was right, but there was no united Ireland before, and it is safe to say that the Provis have put pay to any idea of there being a united Ireland in the foreseeable future.

I don't disagree Grants, but its a bit more complicated than that. Actually way more complicated. The problem is the ulster Unionists. Since the partition of 1921 the unionists and successive British governments have piously proclaimed that Northern Ireland is a victory for democracy, it's still part of the UK based solely on the cherished principle of majority rule. And while, strictly speaking, that's true, in the artificially created entity known as Northern Ireland.

What I pointed out in my earlier post was that this majority was achieved with smoke and mirrors, it was a basically a land grab designed to secure as much Irish territory as they could and still have a unionist numerical superiority.

The fledging Irish government at the time was bitterly divided over partition,both Sinn Fein and the IRA, which had become the national army of Ireland. The IRA had fought a highly successful guerilla war, but they were stretched very thin, low on arms and equipment. In the end partition was accepted, with the hope that it was one step on the road to a 32 county republic.

The decision split Sinn Fein and the IRA down the middle and lead directly to the Irish Civil War.

The origins of the Ulster unionist, or Orange men, lay in the early 17th century. Ireland had been in a more or less constant state of rebellion since the first English invasions. In an effort to stabilize the area the crown began importing primarily Scottish and some English loyalists and rewarding them with land taken from native Irish nobility. It came to be known as the "Ulster Plantation"

This process continued thru the 17th century with the north east of the island becoming more and more dominated by the newcomers.

Over the years the Orangeman has developed a fanatical, almost canine loyalty and devotion to the British crown. They demonstrate their loyalty out of fear that some day their masters in London may tire of them and leave them to the tender mercies of the Taigs(derogatory term for an Irish Catholic, similar to the N word for an African American)

One of their more curious annual rituals is the celebration of the victory of a Dutch prince over a duly consecrated English king.

But, at any rate, the unionist are still there, and at least temporally, still in the majority, dubiously achieved that it was. So, given that they have lived in Ireland for over 300 years, what to do with them? Since the end of the troubles, some progress has been
made. Even Sinn Fein privately recognizes that reunification is not going to happen any time soon. that's why their push for Irish language rights is a major issue right now, preservation of a language is the key to survival of a culture, and by fostering this keeps the hope alive for a 32 county republic in the future. The Irish have been trying to regain their independence for 800 years, a few more decades is no big deal.

Yes, the waters are a lot muddier than they appear to an outsider with romantic notions of Irish freedom.

Any way. Obviously I can't post a link, but there is a bit of a side story going on surrounding the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher out side the Libyan embassy in the 1980s. It seems the only surviving suspect, against whom there is very credible evidence was given a "letter of comfort" giving immunity against prosecution similar to those given to IRA suspects as part of a deal between Tony Blair and Sinn Fein to underpin the Good Friday agreement, in around 2002.

The suspect, arrested in 2015, has since had charges dropped. The Metropolitan Police have claimed to have a cast iron case but have been told the case can't come to trial because of national security concerns.

You can read more on The Daily Telegraph website.

I'll keep an open mind as to whether or not there is a link between this and alleged Libyan funding and supply of the IRA in the 1980s. Or just how deep Tony Blair has his sticky fingers in this shitty little pie. ;)