Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE IRISH BISHOPS have made a very strong statement condemning the Heads of Bill presented by the Government under the title Protection of Life during Pregnancy. I asked a friend of mine today, a solid, intelligent older man who is a regular church goer what he thought. “It is just what I expected them to say”, he replied in a weary voice. He was clearly not impressed.
In the unlikely event that they might ask me for advice I would suggest the following:
Firstly, it is still about fourteen weeks before the final vote on this bill in the Dail. There are a number of stages to go through, and plenty of opportunity for discussion and change in the proposed bill. By coming out so strongly, in such an aggressive and black-and-white way, they have effectively ruled themselves out of any real engagement in the process from now on. They will condemn, and they will lobby individual legislators, but their public position is now fixed and unbending. This is not the way to go about influencing a democratic process.
Secondly, the choice of Cardinal Sean Brady as spokesperson for the campaign is a big mistake. Cardinal Brady is a lovely man, warm and friendly to meet at a personal level. But in the media he comes across as stiff and authoritarian. Also, whether we like it or not, he is massively damaged by his involvement in investigating a case of clerical sexual abuse in his early life. This has left him permanently ‘holed beneath the water line’, and as such, he is no longer the proper person to lead such a campaign. Apart from the Cardinal’s credibility difficulties, it appears as if the Catholic hierarchy have not yet recognized that they no longer hold a significant position of influence in Irish society—for two reasons: (a) their reluctance to tackle the clerical child sexual abuse issue and (b) their failure to revoke the church’s teaching on contraception as outlined in Humanae Vitae which is so out of tune with this generation that it makes the Church’s teaching on any sexual matter appear ridiculous.
‘Have the bishops considered that maybe this bill is as good as it gets for those who oppose abortion?’
Thirdly, in the first couple of days of the Church’s campaign against the bill, there is no sign of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin either at the initial press conference or at the gathering in Knock. He is by far the most effective media person in the hierarchy, and the one with most credibility. He is also the most politically astute of the bishops. If they really wanted to mount an effective action against this bill, why is he not fronting it?
Fourthly, considering the fact that the Government is seriously restricted by the 1983 insertion into the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruling on the X case, and the European Court, they have produced a very restrictive bill. Also it is a reality that we have very free access to abortion in this country, though it happens across the water. All the indications are that opinion is changing rapidly, and would seem to be in favour of more access to abortion at home, have the bishops considered that maybe this bill is about as good as it gets for those who oppose abortion? In opposing it in such drastic and dire language are they not in danger of hastening the day when abortion will be freely available?
Finally, I would say to them that it is not appropriate to attack the bill in such a forthright fashion without stating clearly their alternative position, taking into account the actual situation that the legislators face.
In this debate, it is essential to remember that the teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion still holds. It calls on us to respect the life of the unborn child. However, many people in this country no longer follow the teaching of the Catholic Church and it is the task of our politicians to legislate for all citizens.
Fr Tony Flannery is a member of The Association of Catholic Priests (ACP). The ACP is an association for Catholic priests who wish to have a forum and a voice to reflect, discuss and comment on issues affecting the Irish Church and society today.
You can’t say that though you can call for Jihad
If he has used the term Isreali rather than Jew and called for destruction of Israel woukd he have got jail sentence…
Whilst the libtards want the world to be lined with cotton wool, I also agree this is ridiculous. Obviously if there is outright incitement to and encouragement to violence then jail. But otherwise, free speech should be paramount. Yes this man is a horrible person but we should hear what he says, listen to his arguments and learn from him, then demonstrate the stupidity and hatred in his philosophy. Hiding him in jail just facilitates them even more.
So many rightards who don’t understand the difference between Free Speech and Hate Speech, not surprising given the low levels of intelligence amongst the Alt-Right cohort.
I think that a longer sentence would be appropriate as a deterrence.
@OpenBorders: I agree. The statements were false, prejudiced, extremely hateful, a dangerous denial of the human status of the victims and likely to stir up anti Semitic violence.
I disagree with his statements, but I’m not right leaning. Whether or not what he did was disgusting (and I think people who think like him are disgusting), I still think he should have the right to do so, once he does not specifically invite people to violence. And I want to know these people rather than have them locked up. Essentially he is being locked up for thought crime. He still thinks what he said I am sure. Also, because he said it without the protection of religion (some religions look unfavourably upon Jews) he could be prosecuted. If he stated the same thing from a religious stand he would not even be prosecuted.
@Clever Jake: What you point to is to a certain extent correct, but there is still an unimaginable lack of accountability at higher levels. Those people , are unfortunately above, and protected from all laws, national and international. Still a few brave and honest people around though. :
VIDEO: Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Legislation to Stop Arming Terrorists
Washington, DC—Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act today. The legislation would prohibit the U.S. government from using American taxpayer dollars to provide funding, weapons, training, and intelligence support to groups like the Levant Front, Fursan al Ha and other allies of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, al-Qaeda and ISIS, or to countries who are providing direct or indirect support to those same groups.
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/video-rep-tulsi-gabbard-introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists
@John B: I don’t think that there should be a right to spread hate, prejudice and hold up any group to contempt and hate by adopting the viewpoint of the Nazis.
@Pat O’Dwyer: Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said, “Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.[i]
“The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. This support has allowed al-Qaeda and their fellow terrorist organizations to establish strongholds throughout Syria, including in Aleppo.
“A recent New York Times article confirmed that ‘rebel groups’ supported by the U.S. ‘have entered into battlefield alliances with the affiliate of al-Qaeda in Syria, formerly known as al Nusra.’ This alliance has rendered the phrase ‘moderate rebels’ meaningless. Reports confirm that ‘every armed anti-Assad organization unit in those provinces [of Idlib and Aleppo] is engaged in a military structure controlled by [al-Qaeda’s] Nusra militants.’
@OpenBorders: I have little doubt that you are highly excremental but you are entitled to your opinion and to express it as you wish since you are merely attempting to ridicule me as an individual and not because I belong to a particular group or type.
So press ahead all you wish.
You’ve probably sussed it Tony but that last reply was from one of my admirers from Cork!
@OpenBorders: I knew that but it allowed me make a point.
The point is that people can express hate, abuse, contempt, ridicule and insult but as long as it is towards the individual as an individual it is legitimate and fair expression.
@Tony Daly: and the remark was directed to your admirer since yiu already know the point.
Free speech ?? As a counterbalance to (Mis) and (Dis ) information :
Jeff Bezos, Amazon endorse holocaust denial! (UPDATED)
By Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor
In what amounts to a ringing endorsement of the claims of Holocaust revisionists, Amazon.com has apparently concluded that their books cannot be effectively refuted – and therefore must be banned.
M.S. King, author of The Bad War, has been notified that his book has been banned from Amazon. The explanation:
We’re contacting you regarding the following book: The Bad War: The Truth NEVER Taught About World War II. During our review process, we found that this content is in violation of our content guidelines. As a result, we cannot offer this book for sale.
Amazon did not explain precisely which guidelines had been violated, nor did it cite specific passages. Therefore the “violations” claim is an obvious lie. The real reason King’s book and others were banned is that Jewish-Zionist pressure groups have mounted a campaign (timed to accompany the “cemetery desecration” PR stunt?) aimed at making Holocaust revisionism books unavailable. Obviously they believe the revisionists’ claims are irrefutable — and have convinced Amazon that such is the case.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/03/08/bezos-denial/
Hate speech, as damaging as it is, is just that – speech. You wouldn’t see 4 years sentences for serious assaults yet putting hateful comments online, which people have to follow you to see, is deemed worthy of a substantial sentence.
These fashionable offences are dragging all the attention away from the old-skool but more harmful theft and violent crime.
Israeli politicians have made similar disgusting remarks about Palestinians but there’s not even condemnation of that!
Its par for the course with some extremists in that part of the world. You get Palestinian politicians/ clerics telling their people to go stab jews etc etc. Im guessing you condemn this too?
@Jimmy Ireland: this was extreme,y dangerous hate speech and hadca hugh likelihood of leading to attacks on people who are Jewish or suspected of being Jewish. I think that, for the purposes of effective deterrence, a longer sentence would have been appropriate.
@Tony Daly: you not going to respond to David Rafferty or Honeybadger197? didnt think so
I know it’s important for you to tell us about what some nobody in England said and all but will you be doing an article about the dangerous armed Albanian ‘refugees’ that we recently received into *this* country?
That’s the UK too.
@Lisa Saputo:
They were arrested in the UK. They applied for refugee status in Ireland. Being able to read is super!
And? What’s the connection to this story?
@Lisa Saputo:
No connection.
I’m just curious as to why thejournal writes about court cases in other countries that would barely make the local news yet they ignore stories about dangerous foreign criminals in Ireland.
Because it’s not that interesting to anyone apart from rampant xenophobes.
@Lisa Saputo:
I find the fact that we allow dangerous armed criminals to wander around this country and others to be interesting and I’m not a rampant xenophobe.
Reporting on foreign criminals who claim asylum in Ireland is now xenophobic?! The shark has been jumped.
What war is currently being fought in Albania that necessitates these guys to claim asylum here?
Speaking of dangerous armed criminals, how are the kinahans getting along?
@Dave Thomas:
Go read one of the multitude of articles about them to find out!
So because Ireland has a homegrown gangland problem we should allow foreign criminals in to, otherwise it’s xenophobic?! Take the rest of the weekend off, Dave.
Eh…. That’s in the UK bucko… Fact check much?
@Dubabroad:
Yeah, bucko – I fact check all the time!
If you did the same you would know that the Albanians in question applied for asylum in Ireland, as stated both in the article I linked to and by my handsome self earlier in this thread!
Ha ha! Take your medicine Naberius, you got owned!
@OpenBorders:
I own everyone, especially you!
He got what he desirved just because irish judges don’t like jailing people don’t think four years is harsh
Has the journal reported Dane Tyghe to the Gardaí for calling Republicans subhuman animals? ☺
@Andrew Corcoran: it is a false statement and utterly unjustified but I consider that Republicans are not a racial, ethnic or religious minority.
Tony> the hate crime laws in the UK are actually more inclusive than that. A goth girl was beaten to death for being a goth so they expanded the laws to include all sorts of groupings.
@Kal Ipers: I am not keen on beating people to death because of their identity or for any reason.
Hateful prejudice can be powerfully contagious.
@Tony: so it’s only wrong to call someone a subhuman animal if they’re a minority?!! Surely it doesn’t matter what religion you are, what ethnicity you are or what race you are.
As an American I find this appallingly retrograde. Still jailing heretics! Thought crime!
It’s not heresy, it’s the ramblings of a deluded, disgusting bigot.
That said, no one should be jailed for speech unless it’s a direct threat of violence or slander.
Locking up bigots will not stop bigotry.
It’s not a thought if you said it out loud.
Genocide> As an American your country doesn’t have laws that we have. Hate speech is illegal here in Europe and it isn’t thought police. We are fully aware of what can happen when you allow it. What do you care about it? Thinly veiled racist name along with the misappropriation of the celtic cross as racist symbol. Wonder why racists need to steal other cultural symbols to use do you not have any artist people about. Hitler was a painter why did he need to steal an indian symbol
As a European I find America appalling.
He was jailed for inciting hatred which is a crime.
“Make America White Again” LOL .How will you go about doing this ?
@StopWhiteGenocide: it was far more than thought crime. It was prejudiced, malevolent and potentially capable of leading to violence and ghettoisation.
@StopWhiteGenocide: When you say StopWhiteGenocide, I assume you are referring to the White Genocide inflicted on the indigenous people of North and South America, and Australia, by white people?
The conviction was by a jury of ordinary citizens. It was a conviction based on evidence. The statement were wholly false, unjustified and way beyond the scope of ordinary prejudice.
It is unfortunate but social media and easier means of broad communication is giving a small minority of people a platform for disseminating hate.
Hate tends to lead to violence.
Look at the assassination of the late Jo Cox MP by Thomas Mair when thevrhetiruc if the far right pushes impressiinable and disturbed people into cowardly assassination.
Killing a human being silences the human being.
Speech can be dangerous when it is poisoned with pure hate.
Would we be happy for such remarks to be made against the Irish living in England?
The Defendant, Lawrence Burns, got a fair trial more than he would have allowed his victims.
have your say