There’s a mistake with the blasphemy referendum and Michael D. didn’t spot it

Republican and Brehon Fachtna Roe has said: “There’s a problem with the referendum on Blasphemy and Michael D. Higgins didn’t spot it.”

“The public debate and discourse has been about blasphemy, which has a long list of meanings and things which can offended. But as it’s the Irish language version of the constitution that takes precedence the Irish language word must be examined. This is diamhasla, a much tighter definition, meaning only insulting god (dia (god) + masla (insult)).”

“The words are not the same, and the meanings of the words are not the same. There has been no discussion about this difference. As protector of the 1937 constitution, Michael D. Higgins has failed.”

‘Blasphemy’ has a longer list of things that can be offended than has ‘diamhasla’. The words are not the same. Tá liosta níos faide de na rudaí ar feidir leat ‘blaisféim’ i gcoinne i mBéarla na i nGaeilge. Níl na focail mar an gcéanna.
Tá liosta níos faide de na rudaí ar feidir leat ‘blaisféim’ i gcoinne i mBéarla na i nGaeilge. Níl na focail mar an gcéanna. ‘Blasphemy’ has a longer list of things that can be offended than has ‘diamhasla’. The words are not the same.

“The ultimate insult (in a legal context) is the  denial of the existence of a god, or of God. What is significant is that denial is a pre-requisite to denying the Irish people their sovereignty as it is “under God” that such sovereignty exists. That’s a problem when Brexit is is imminent.”

“There is an Act that outlines what ‘blasphemy’ is, the definition for the Irish language version is a direct translation from English to Irish. As that then lays the English meaning on top of the Irish version, that  in turn contravenes the principle that it’s the Irish language that takes precedence and such Act is therefore itself unconstitutional.”

“This isn’t the first time that President Higgins missed the point. He previously signed the legislative instrument that sought to privatise the water supply of the nation. This is unsurprising as he also took the Oath of office despite personal beliefs.”

“The significance of something as seemingly minor as this is as important as the change to the polarity of your world view as believing god not to be male, but female. A small difference seemingly, but now the polarity of every thing changes and the world is seen more clearly.”

“At a very minimum, this referendum is unsafe, so I shall change my vote from ‘yes’ to ‘no’ until the question is resolved.”

Total Views: 1581 ,

2 thoughts on “There’s a mistake with the blasphemy referendum and Michael D. didn’t spot it”

  1. If there are people who consider all things natural to be sacred including the female body for instance then would that not also be contradictory that would mean any insult towards anyone was blasphemy in fact it would also mean vandalism to be blasphemy and all thoughts and acts of violence blaspheny. It may mean we’d run out of criminals and empty courtrooms and prisons wouldn’t that be terrible I’m inclined also to withdraw vote until that is clear !!!!

  2. If we consider our bodies sacred or like many consider nature sacred then all offences and insults and vandalism would be considered blasphemy and if all acts of violence are blasphemous then we may run out of criminals and empty courtrooms I’m inclined to hold off on voting too until that is clarified is there a double standard for what’s sacred ??? Are objects sacred or are humans ?????

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.