So were I to make a claim that Mr Cowen current "TeaShock" and chief of the Zombies that currently run the country not only had problems with Onanism but has a face like the back end of the donkey that carried the holy family to Egypt shortly after Christmas 2009 odd years ago, a special arm of the irish police "the Be'Jaazus Squad" would appear at my door and drag me off to face a nice big fine and a term in Jail for taking the name (or arse in this example) of a holy donkey in vain.
Were the changes being discussed enacted, hundreds of thousands of euros could be raised by the "Be'Jaazus" squad were they to hang around all the parents of teenage sons in Ireland ready to slap a 5,000 euro fine on any parent that intoned the phase" Jesus, Mary, Joesph and the wee donkey too!" when their offspring came home with their tongue, eyebrow and foreskin pierced.Ireland would be free from the pecuniary effects of the credit crunch!
What annoys me most is the "special treatment complaint" proposal which would ban speech where:
How fecking daft is that? Lets take the word “religion” out of that phrase and put in “sport” or “political party”. No one would suggest that politicians or football teams get such protection, although it would appear that Chelski need it. If you were just generally making comments that caused outrage amongst the 4 or 5 people that make up the enitre congregation of the Church of the sacred bleeding turnip of Ballymunn in the back bar of McNulty's gin palace on a wet Tuesday in May would it be okay given that I have just outraged then all?the material be grossly abusive or insulting in matters held sacred by a religion; that it must actually cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion; and, crucially, that there be an intent to cause such outrage
Now I suppose on the face of it that doesn't sound like a bad idea, pluralism and all that, lets be nice to each other and just get along. However as an atheist this fills me with a certain amount of foreboding. For a god botherer could say that my position of total rejection of the sanctimonious bollocks that dribbles diarrhoea like from the pulpits, prayer mats and gospel tents of Erin's green land falls under the remit of "causing an outrage" (quite frankly I can't find the face that fecking cares whether they are outraged or not) But ... if it becomes law I will HAVE to be nice and polite to these people or face the legal consequences. Should this be enacted in law they can continue to spout their deluded crap but with protection under law from people like me who laugh at their frankly dangerous ramblings. For example when Pope Bendydick comes out with a statement Condoms Make Aids Worse that claims sacréd authority for his Pythonesque view that "Every Sperm is Scared" and sex is for "Procreation not Recreation" [isn't it odd how the Pope and the Arch Demon of Proddy rhetoric the Rev Ian Paisley agree on the sins of the flesh] . Obviously his senile ex cathedra pronouncements are fact because they are backed up by the words of talking camel that once took a crap on Moses's doormat on the instructions of an angel
And then there would be me ... I could no longer say that he is a child molester protecting, delusional old fecker who believes he eats the flesh and drinks the blood of his god every Sunday and not only should he be ignored but should be locked up under the mental health act. Well I can .. but can I afford the 5000 euro fine and the up to 7 years in jail?
BAH HUMBUG! Why give one section of society a right to ban the speech of the rest on grounds that they are offended when reason and rationality point out they are daft?
