Verified answer

I don't know how such a law could possibly be enforced. People could find it offensive and blasphemous to say you disagree with specific beliefs and give reasons for such a viewpoint. Even if having a rational discussion, it's possible that you will offend someone if you're not in the privacy of your own home. Either the law will eventually fail or everyone in the country will face heavy fines at some point.

As Michael Nugent of Atheist eire has spoke of: The proposed regulation does no longer take care of non secular concept; it incentivises outrage and it criminalises loose speech. under this proposed regulation, if a individual expresses one concept approximately gods, and persons think of that this insults a distinctive concept approximately gods, then those people can substitute into outraged, and this outrage could make it unlawful for the 1st individual to particular his or her ideals. So Irish regulation has now enshrined the concept that the taking of offence is greater significant than loose expression. If something ought to reason a inspired team to be "outraged", particularly than, say, lead them to stay in worry, then that's unlawful, with a incredible of as much as €25,000 payable. word the ease with which a prosecution must be introduced, and the punitive nature of the effective: that isn't law that purely serves to tie up some loose ends. The minister claimed that his purely decision to this law became into to have a referendum. This returned, is technically genuine: any constitutional adjustments in eire require this. however the minister skipped over the thought of establishing a referendum as being too costly in those straitened cases. yet today, we are instructed there is to be yet another Lisbon referendum in October. does no longer it have been smart to hold the two the Lisbon referendum and a referendum on the abolition of the belief-approximately blasphemy from the form on an analogous day, scaling down on costs?

Very disturbing. Here is the part that will be abused (via discrimination):

"...any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, ..."

In other words, it will be perfectly okay to bash Wicca and Buddhism, but not one of the 'others'.

@Erin: The way they will enforce it is by having top-driven public protests on television. That will be used to determine post-facto that you were guilty. If you insult a smaller religion, and only 100 people show up on TV in protest, then that faith is fair game. Good hunting.

That's a real shame for a country that has produced some wonderful writers and thinkers. Are they going to start banning Oscar Wilde books from schools for his often inflammatory writings on the subject?

-Religion is the fashionable substitute for belief

Oscar Wilde

- It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it.

G.K. Chesterton

Dumb Law, sounds out dated too. Blame it on the invaders, the Brits!

That is messed up. It sucks that people have to make "tolerance laws" just so people don't get their feelings hurt. How are they to enforce this, except through tattle tales? This is such a grade school situation.

I grew up in the ROI, and I have to say this a huge step back for the country, in my opinion. A lot of progress had been made there, in terms of separating law and punishment from religion, but it seems they've all been undone.

Freedom of speech is perhaps one of the best liberties to have, and it is a very communist/ marxist ideal to have it so one cannot express his/her own opinions against and idea. Religious sympathy to the max?

It's a terrible law. I think it's wrong to censor people.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion even if it is a crazy one or a very negative one.

I'm an atheist and I'm definitely not a fan of banning criticism of religion.

Everything should be scrutinized.

That's scary, and very Communist in nature, aside from the fact that Communists hate religion. I'm talking about the governmental censorship of free speech.