Wrong again. It absolutely does mean that if the magistrate or judge isn’t even willing or able to issue the warrant.
Still stuck on needing a warrant to arrest someone? What kind of cop are you that you need to go before a judge to get a warrant to arrest someone when you witness a crime?
Nor is a court order necessary to arrest someone. As for “probable cause” you know darn well that is as broad and subjective a statement as can be in law and can be used or abused by enforcement very effectively.
It’s not as easy as you seem to think. If you can’t articulate probable cause to the officer of the court issuing the warrant, you won’t get the warrant. Period.
More about getting a warrant to arrest someone? Stop pretending you need to go before a judge to arrest someone for breaking the law.
Cop: “Your honor, I was going door to door selling tickets to the Policemen’s Ball” when I noticed multiple blasphemous books by well known atheist authors on the defendant’s book shelf just beyond the doorway. So I arrested the defendant for blasphemy.” (Under the cop’s breath): “Don’t blame me if you judges and politicians haven’t figured out how to prosecute someone under a vague law I didn’t put on the books. This is for you to figure out.”
If you seriously imagine any cop could address a judge or magistrate in such a fashion, and actually have the warrant issued it only proves you’ve never stood before a judge or magistrate and actually tried to get one. Let me make it clear to you: they don’t take orders from cops. Even a hint of attitude on the part of the officer will not go unnoticed.
Not giving up on getting a warrant to arrest someone. Your tenacity is admirable, but off the mark.
What is happening now is, and I’ll repeat it again since your selective reading ignores it, ‘blasphemy’ is now being more clearly defined (in accordance with the Irish constitution) so that the law can be enforced to all the way to a conviction, and, in a general sense, there is nothing wrong with this.
Exactly, it makes a law that was previously a vague, ill-defined, unenforceable dead letter, into a law that is now capable of being enforced. You seem to think nothing has changed, and that is not the case.
Don’t leave us hanging. What is the case?
One would not get that impression from reading your posts. You seem to have been arguing that not much has changed.
I’ve been posting here for quite a while and made my positions very clear on religion.
The blasphemy provision is a relic of that reality. But rather than change the constitution to reflect the more secular nature of today’s society, they have chosen to take a retrograde step—that of strengthening the the blasphemy provision.
Yes. Likely they are hoping no one will notice, or if it is noticed no one will care. This is where the OP comes in - someone cares!