We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
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.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THE BLASPHEMY REFERENDUM often seems like the lesser-spotted of the two votes taking place on Friday.
The proposal to remove the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution, and thus removing the need for the Oireachtas to legislate for it, is being put to the public after it was first proposed by the Constitutional Convention back in 2013.
We held a live debate between campaigners from both sides – arguing for a Yes vote was Jane Donnelly, human rights officer at Atheist Ireland, and arguing for a No vote was Colum Kenny, emeritus professor of communications at DCU and a former member of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland – to bash out the arguments for and against and to help you decide how to vote.
Watch the full debate above. Presented by Michelle Hennessy, video by Nicky Ryan.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
There’s no need for this in our constitution. Should be removed. There’s no credible arguments for keeping it.
@Seán Ó Briain: it’s a bit of fun for God’s sake
@Dave T: All I said was this bit of fish is good enough for Jehovah!
Thanks Ronan Mullen for helping me decide to vote to repeal this Mediaeval law
BTW Ronan Mullen isn’t in the above video, in case you go looking.
Vote : NO
@Tom Colgan: Any good reasons or should we just follow what you’re doing even though we don’t know you?
How can you be undecided???
@Me_a_monkey: People are entitled to be just as they are entitled to vote yes or no. Personally I fail to see the argument that it does no harm while at the same time admitting the gardaí investigated the Stephen Fry case. It can’t be both. He also makes a claim that it protects from hate speech, yet we have other specific laws in place to do that rendering this unnecessary.
If there are three men, one claims to hear the voice of God, another claims to see Elvis and a third claims to have been abducted by aliens. A fourth man ridicules the three of them, insults their views in speech and cartoons. Only one of them can accuse him of blasphemy yet all three may be honest and earnest in their beliefs, we may dismiss them, we may laugh or ridicule them but is it fair to give one the protection of the law because it involves religion while the other two don’t? I don’t believe so, which is why I’ll be voting to remove this archaic law.
@Me_a_monkey: It’s when you’re not sure which way to vote
I’m voting no. I think I would have to agree with him in what he says that free speech has limitations in countries around the world e.g one may not shout fire when there isn’t a fire and you get punished for it. I think the blasphemy law is there to protect people of all religions against hate speech. I agree with the proposal, however, that we could look at replacing it with different words than blasphemy and refining it rather than just deleting it like that. Ok so nobody has ever been charged with it BUT it’s there and sends a message that hate speech is wrong.
@Stephen Mc Elligott: You should look up the meaning of blasphemy, it’s quite different from hate speech.
@Stephen Mc Elligott: “I think the blasphemy law is there to protect people of all religions against hate speech.”
Firstly, we already have legislation for hate-speech. Blasphemy laws are there to protect religion, not people. Educate yourself.
@Larissa Nikolaus: I understand that which is why I said it’s better to be replaced with wording that does protect religious people and their beliefs putting limitations on what people can or can’t say. And until the government propose something like this prior to it being removed I agree with the man that we should just leave it in there rather than deleting it.
@Seán Ó Briain: But the legislation on hate speech needs to be refined and isn’t good enough so the blasphemy law should be left in until some sort of proposal to replace it or better refine the limitations to what people can say is added to the hate speech legislation.
@Stephen Mc Elligott: what limitations do you suggest on the freedom of speech when discussing religion?
@Stephen Mc Elligott: As it stands, it sends a message that persecuting blasphemy is right. What you’re saying can be taken care of with regular legislation and has no need to be enshrined in our constitution where others are holding it up as an example that they’re not alone in thinking it’s ok to persecute or murder those they disagree with.
@Seán Ó Briain: Stephens a Bible thumper, so it’s no surprise he would hold dear any laws which protects his beliefs from criticism or ridicule.
@Derek: I’ve never thumped a Bible in my life please retract that false statement.
@Stephen Mc Elligott: ” But the legislation on hate speech needs to be refined and isn’t good enough so the blasphemy law should be left in until some sort of proposal to replace it”
No it shouldn’t. It doesn’t cover hate-speech. It covers blasphemy, which has nothing to do with hate-speech. That’s like saying leaving in legislation about recycling plastics to protect people from hate-speech.
When was the last time anyone was arrested for blasphemy in Ireland?
@Sean O’ Donovan: there hasn’t been.. How and ever though.. When more people start coming into Ireland who follow different religions.. One in particular, they don’t take too kindly to criticism.. They take great personal offence to any criticism of their ideology.. Its important Irelands citizens are protected and are allowed to criticise religions however they like. Vote yes
@Sean O’ Donovan: You sound like a bit of a hoarder. Take heed, if you don’t like something and you haven’t used it in years, it’s time to get rid of it.
@Sean O’ Donovan: you can be sure the Muslims will love it. Quit this straw man argument about no one charged. They tried to pursue Stephen Fry
@Acedeuce: look up the meaning of blasphemy, it’s not the same as criticism.
@Sean O’ Donovan: j@ysis I don’t know
@Sean O’ Donovan: When was the last time someone was arrested for witchcraft in Ireland, we got rid of all antiquated laws.
@Acedeuce: Good point, but yet no doubt they’ll care too much about our laws.
@Anne Marie Devlin: I’d rather hoard something that’s never used, than waste millions to get rid of it;
http://www.thejournal.ie/referendums-costs-3106413-Jan2017/
@Seán Domhnall O’Sullivan: You really think they’ll care about our laws when Sharia law exists?
@Sean O’ Donovan: God only knows….
@Sean O’ Donovan: getting rid of this could be the start of (some) Irish finally waking up …unlike our overly politically correct neighbours in Europe
If we’re going to have laws to protect mythical creatures we shoul add santy to the list because it’s not right what they said about him coming down the chimney. Another example of guilty until proven innocent
No idea, no matter how sacred ut is jeld, should be above scrutiny or criticism. Vote YES to protect free speech and expression
@Good enough for Jehovah: When is expression just an expression and when is it offensive. Is expression seeking the truth or telling others that they are wrong because you don’t like what they believe? That is a point to it but this referendum might be to take any anger at the government out on this referendum instead of out on electing Micky D?
Ahern brought in the law to protect Irish dairy exports to Saudi after the organised outrage to the Danish cartoons led to the subsequent loss of their Middle East markets.
@Chemical Brothers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy?wprov=sfla1
All I said was this piece of halibut is good enough for Jehovah
@Drahcir Neirbo: you’re only making it worse for youself! Are there any women here today?
@BarronVonVaderHam: only false beards around here are married to Michael D
@Drahcir Neirbo: What about El Shaddai then?
Delighted to see Ronan Mullins involved his own ilk must even hate em he drives people to do the opposite of what he campaign s for
So Ronan Mullins is promoting a No, nuff said, that’s all I need to know.
Asia Bibi, 53, a mother of five from Punjab, Pakistan is on death row since 2010. She was accused of insulting Prophet Mohammed during an argument over a cup of water. In June 2009, she went to fetch water for her fellow farm hands while working in a field picking berries. The Muslim women she worked with objected her drinking from the same water bowl as them as she was a non-Muslim. Ms. Bibi said the woman insulted her religion and she asked the Muslim women what their Prophet Mohammed had done to save mankind. Her response prompted the other women to go to the local imam and accuse Ms. Bibi of blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammed. Eisham, her daughter, watched her get beaten up by a violent mob. The daughter together with Asia’s husband is in the UK, courtesy of Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need. She said she misses her mother whom she has not seen for nine years. If the Supreme Court does not rule in her favour, she will be the first executed for blasphemy.
We need rid of this discriminatory and ridiculous law. Vote YES on the 26th
@The Risen: To Joan lol.
Comments are closed coz nobody cares
The word blasphemy has as it seems two different meanings in the Bible. One being to swear using the Lords name but yet the other through a hermeneutical meaning is to use as in preach lies and evil through using them to represent God’s will according to those like false preachers as in an example of gnostic etc, who’s literature is being used to rewrite newer versions of the Bible… Sometimes the meaning of words are lost through popularism. It makes you wonder sometimes what is the law really based on but agreed lies?
have your say