Referendum-watch - Remove "blasphemy" from the Constitution?

Delirium · 30-09-2014 10:52am #1

The Government is set to agree to hold a referendum on removing the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution, following recommendations of the constitutional convention earlier this year.

Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald is to bring a memo to Cabinet today proposing that a referendum be held on the issue.

While no timeframe is outlined, it is claimed the vote will be held on “an appropriate date to be decided by the Government”.

full article

Should have been done when they worked on the blasphemy law previously.

robindch · 30-09-2014 11:44am

Well, this one came out of left field, but no less welcome.

Minister for Justice, Frances Fitzgerald, is to propose to the cabinet to hold a referendum on removing blasphemy from the Irish Constitution.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-due-on-removing-blasphemy-from-constitution-1.1945835

Irish Times wrote:

The Government is set to agree to hold a referendum on removing the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution, following recommendations of the constitutional convention earlier this year. Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald is to bring a memo to Cabinet today proposing that a referendum be held on the issue.
While no timeframe is outlined, it is claimed the vote will be held on “an appropriate date to be decided by the Government”.

Ms Fitzgerald’s proposal, which is due to be discussed by Ministers at their weekly meeting, is to accept the convention’s recommendation of a referendum to “delete the offence of blasphemy” from the constitution.
The sixth report from the convention, submitted to the Government in January, said a “clear majority” of members of the constitutional thinktank favoured the removal of the blasphemy clause.

It also proposed replacing the offence of blasphemy with “the introduction of a new set of detailed legislative provisions to include incitement to religious hatred”.

Former minister for justice Dermot Ahern introduced a new crime of blasphemous libel in 2009, with the offence coming with a fine of at least €25,000. At the time, Mr Ahern said it was a short-term solution to avoid holding a referendum in an economic crisis.

The constitutional convention said in its report that it received “very many” submissions on blasphemy and said “there seemed to be an overwhelming support for the removal of the clause. The issue is regarded by many of those who made submissions as part of a much wider debate, including the role of God and religion in the Constitution and the separation of Church and State.” Following recommendations from the constitutional convention, the Government has already committed to holding referendums on same-sex marriage, reducing the voting age to 16 and lowering the age at which people can run for the presidency.

It is expected all three will be held next spring, probably in April, although there have been some arguments for holding the same-sex marriage referendum on its own, alongside the byelection to fill the Carlow Kilkenny Dáil seat vacated by Phil Hogan if he is made European commissioner.

lazygal · 30-09-2014 11:50am

Countdown to Iona complaining begins…….

Nick Park · 30-09-2014 12:08pm

Ludicrous that such a silly law needs a referendum in order to get rid of it - but a positive step nonetheless.

MrPudding · 30-09-2014 1:50pm

Nick Park wrote: »

Ludicrous that such a silly law needs a referendum in order to get rid of it - but a positive step nonetheless.

They don't need a referendum to remove the law. They need a referendum to change the constitution to remove references to blasphemy. It is the constitutional references that caused the (supposed) requirement for the law to be written.

Two things need to happen, first, the constitutional amendment, this we are talking about here, and secondly, repealing the legislation. Do not confuse one with the other.

MrP

Turtwig · 30-09-2014 2:08pm

This is good, but iirc the convention recommended a "incitement to religious hatred" offence. Which imo could be even worse.

/skeptical

eyescreamcone · 30-09-2014 2:11pm

Up yours Allah and Thor!

MrPudding · 30-09-2014 2:24pm

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Up yours Allah and Thor!

Careful now. They have still not removed it, you can still get done.

MrP

robindch · 30-09-2014 2:30pm

Turtwig wrote: »

This is good, but iirc the convention recommended a "incitement to religious hatred" offence. Which imo could be even worse.

Well, as MrP points out, the first thing that has to go is the reference to blasphmeny in the Constitution. Following that, the law providing for the heavy fine is likely to be repealed.

Then, new legislation is likely to be brought forward in the general area of "incitement to hatred" - I can't recall in much detail what Ireland have in this area already, but countries do limit free speech in those terms, specifically hatred based upon race, ethnicity, sexuality, physical attributes etc. Incitement to religious hatred should be viewed at least a differently since religion is (supposed to be) something you choose and can change, not an innate attribute like ethnicity, race etc which you don't and can't.

keane2097 · 30-09-2014 4:16pm

robindch wrote: »

Well, as MrP points out, the first thing that has to go is the reference to blasphmeny in the Constitution. Following that, the law providing for the heavy fine is likely to be repealed.

Then, new legislation is likely to be brought forward in the general area of "incitement to hatred" - I can't recall in much detail what Ireland have in this area already, but countries do limit free speech in those terms, specifically hatred based upon race, ethnicity, sexuality, physical attributes etc. Incitement to religious hatred should be viewed at least a differently since religion is (supposed to be) something you choose and can change, not an innate attribute like ethnicity, race etc which you don't and can't.

Presumably this is the sort of law under which people are being jailed for outlandish abuse on twitter etc?

An "incitement to religious hatred" notion seems ok to me from the POV that spitting venom at Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists because they are Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists doesn't sit well, although I suppose the idea of legislating against anti-blonde jokes is only a step further down the road then.

Ah well, yet another ethical issue I don't know where to come down on!

AshOB · 01-10-2014 7:31am

lazygal wrote: »

Countdown to Iona complaining begins…….

Actually I think David Quinn is on record as saying he supports the removal of blasphemy from the constitution. Not sure what he wants it replaced with...

robindch · 01-10-2014 1:12pm

AshOB wrote: »

Not sure what he wants it replaced with...

The Ten Commandments?

Peregrinus · 02-10-2014 7:00am

robindch wrote: »

Well, as MrP points out, the first thing that has to go is the reference to blasphmeny in the Constitution. Following that, the law providing for the heavy fine is likely to be repealed.

Then, new legislation is likely to be brought forward in the general area of "incitement to hatred" - I can't recall in much detail what Ireland have in this area already, but countries do limit free speech in those terms, specifically hatred based upon race, ethnicity, sexuality, physical attributes etc. Incitement to religious hatred should be viewed at least a differently since religion is (supposed to be) something you choose and can change, not an innate attribute like ethnicity, race etc which you don't and can't.

Two thoughts:

First, the Convention recommended not only that the constitutional requirement that there should be a blasphemy offence should be deleted but also that it should be replaced with “a general provision to include incitement to religious hatred”. And there was a further recommendation that there should be detailed legislation to fill this out, which would again include incitement to religious hatred.

Which means that the first question the government will face is, do we simply bring forward a referendum to delete the existing constitutional provision or, as the Convention recommended, do we seek to replace it? And, if we replace it, with what, exactly? The Convention recommendation was the new provision should “include” (i.e. should not necessarily be limited to) incitement to religious hatred.

Obviously, if they are going to do as the Convention recommended, they will seek to put some high-level statement of principle in the Constitution, and this will set parameters for what the more detailed legislation can and cannot provide.

Secondly, I take the point that belief is a choice which can be changed, not an innate characteristic like gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. But how important is this? Existing equality legislation covers both inherent characteristics like gender and ethnicity and elective characteristics like marital status and religious belief or the lack of it. Indeed, a common criticism of existing equality legislation on this board is that it fails to provide sufficient protection on the religion ground (in that it allows religious schools to hire employees on the basis of religious belief). So, clearly, treating someone adversely on the basis of a choice they have made is, both in Irish law and in the minds of Boardies, capable of being regarded as just as objectionable as treating them adversely on the basis of an inherent characteristic.

Should the position be different here? Existing equality legislation limits property right and freedom of association; incitement/“hate speech” legislation will limit freedom of speech. It’s not immediately obvious that if we don’t distinguish between inherent characteristics and chosen characteristics in the former, we should in the latter.

more than S.A.D. · 02-10-2014 7:14am

I don't believe your religious views are something you can change, no more than you can change your gender.
Are you an atheist? Can you change?
Ask a devoted Christian, or Jew, could they change?
Or someone who was brought up in any religion, or none, and converted (reverted?) to Islam, can they change?

/OT

lazygal · 02-10-2014 7:19am

more than S.A.D. wrote: »

I don't believe your religious views are something you can change, no more than you can change your gender.
Are you an atheist? Can you change?
Ask a devoted Christian, or Jew, could they change?
Or someone who was brought up in any religion, or none, and converted (reverted?) to Islam, can they change?

/OT

What? I was raised Catholic and was pretty involved in the church growing up because I knew no different. I'm not Catholic any more. Loads of people reject religion or convert to other faiths. Religion is a choice.

Peregrinus · 02-10-2014 7:21am

more than S.A.D. wrote: »

I don't believe your religious views are something you can change, no more than you can change your gender.
Are you an atheist? Can you change?
Ask a devoted Christian, or Jew, could they change?
Or someone who was brought up in any religion, or none, and converted (reverted?) to Islam, can they change?

The evidence is against you. Lots of people do change their religious views. Arguably, most people change their religious views to some extent, and a fairly signficant minority change their religious views to the extent that they change religions, or become unbelievers (or, having been unbelievers, become believers).

more than S.A.D. · 02-10-2014 7:54am

What was it yer man John 3:16 said? Do not marvel what I say to you, you must be born again.

Yeah your views may change, but they are what they are at the time, and then you find the 'truth' whatever that may be for you...
It's not really a conscious decision, like what will I have for breakfast, what religion will I be today...

Absolam · 02-10-2014 7:59am

more than S.A.D. wrote: »

It's not really a conscious decision, like what will I have for breakfast, what religion will I be today...

What about 'What if I read this book today?' or "What if I consider this scientific theory today'? These would be conscious decisions which could cause someone to change/abandon/embrace religions.
Or if you're feeling really philosophical one morning, 'what will I have for breakfast' could maybe do the trick even...

more than S.A.D. · 02-10-2014 8:05am

Biscuit, or cake?

Absolam · 02-10-2014 8:09am

more than S.A.D. wrote: »

Biscuit, or cake?

That's schism talk that is.

Peregrinus · 02-10-2014 8:10am

Well, what you believe is not a decision you make as lightly as what you'll have for breakfast, or as capriciously. But it's still a decision.

Even if you take the line that you are compelled to a particular belief by the evidence, or by reason, or by your experience, or whatever, there is still a decision there - namely, the decision to shape your beliefs according to evidence/reason/experience/whatever.

lazygal · 02-10-2014 9:07am

more than S.A.D. wrote: »

What was it yer man John 3:16 said? Do not marvel what I say to you, you must be born again.

Yeah your views may change, but they are what they are at the time, and then you find the 'truth' whatever that may be for you...
It's not really a conscious decision, like what will I have for breakfast, what religion will I be today...

Why must I be born again? Suppose I never come across the bible, does that mean I'm doomed? We're not raising our children in a faith, do you think they should be? Would they be making a conscious decision if they decided to follow a faith?

MrPudding · 02-10-2014 9:19am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, what you believe is not a decision you make as lightly as what you'll have for breakfast, or as capriciously. But it's still a decision.

Even if you take the line that you are compelled to a particular belief by the evidence, or by reason, or by your experience, or whatever, there is still a decision there - namely, the decision to shape your beliefs according to evidence/reason/experience/whatever.

This is a tricky thing, for me anyway. We are told by a number of the more evangelical poster that we must beleive before we will get proof. If we decide to believe then we will be entered by something and changed. Aside from the fact that I find this kind of creepy, I literally cannot force myself to believe something I find patently ridiculous. I can't choose to beleive god exists.

But, perhaps you are right... Perhaps I could somehow make a decision to ignore what I beleive and believe in god but first, I can't see a way to do this and secondly, even if I somehow could, I would just be pretending. There is also the fact that I really don't want to, because I genuinely believe it is rubbish and I see no benefit in trying to make myself beleive.

MrP

Peregrinus · 02-10-2014 9:49am

MrPudding wrote: »

This is a tricky thing, for me anyway. We are told by a number of the more evangelical poster that we must beleive before we will get proof. If we decide to believe then we will be entered by something and changed. Aside from the fact that I find this kind of creepy, I literally cannot force myself to believe something I find patently ridiculous. I can't choose to beleive god exists.

But, perhaps you are right... Perhaps I could somehow make a decision to ignore what I beleive and believe in god but first, I can't see a way to do this and secondly, even if I somehow could, I would just be pretending. There is also the fact that I really don't want to, because I genuinely believe it is rubbish and I see no benefit in trying to make myself beleive.

MrP

Well, just to put this in the context of hate speech legislation, it’s Robin back in post #9 who suggests there may be a distinction between hate speech focussed on something like gender or ethnicity, which is inherited and is difficult or impossible to change, and hate speech focussed on religious belief which, OK, is also inherited to a significant extent, but is (Robin’s words, but I’m inclined to agree with him) “something you choose and can change”.

I take the point that you (that’s the generic “you”, not you, MrPudding) will be unable to believe certain things, because they are flatly contradicted by evidence (“the moon is made of green cheese”) or because while theoretically possible they seem wildly unlikely (Russell’s teapot) or because your upbringing and condition predispose you to reject them strongly even before you get to sober consideration of the evidence (“black people are inferior and their natural condition is as dependent slaves of white people”). But once you rule those out there are still a wide range of beliefs you could entertain. And while you don’t choose them in the sense of choosing them capriciously, you do select your beliefs on the basis of definite decisions that you make, or that other suggest to you and you accept. Richard Dawkins, for example, is forever urging people to adopt “evidence-based beliefs”, and he clearly regards that as a choice that people can make. Do you think he is wrong?

And of course people can also choose beliefs for unacknowledged reasons - unacknowledged even to themselves, that is. Whether you describe that as a “choice” is perhaps debatable; maybe it’s only a choice in a qualified sense.

more than S.A.D. · 02-10-2014 10:18am

lazygal wrote: »

Why must I be born again? Suppose I never come across the bible, does that mean I'm doomed? We're not raising our children in a faith, do you think they should be? Would they be making a conscious decision if they decided to follow a faith?

Im just amusing myself here rather than trying to get into a philosophical debate, but...

I suppose what I meant was 'born again' in a very broad sense, you have whatever faith you were brought up in, you explore that faith, have some 'awakening' (in a very general sense), and are born again into... a stronger version of that faith? a different faith? no faith? Whatever.

You might have put a lot of thought into which 'faith' (or none) suited you, but how much of a choice did you really have?

Nick Park · 02-10-2014 11:30am

I'm not convinced by this argument that hate speech against people who have made a choice (eg atheists or Christians) should be treated as any less objectionable than hate speech against people because of an inherent characteristic (colour of skin or gender).

For example, surely homophobic acts or speech are equally reprehensible whether they are directed at each of the following:
a) Someone who strongly believes they were born gay.
b) A bisexual person who has chosen a same sex relationship rather than a heterosexual relationship.
c) A person who sees themselves as heterosexual but has, due to circumstances (eg being in prison) embarked on a same sex relationship.

I don't see that any of these scenarios are less deserving of protection from hateful speech or acts than the others.

keane2097 · 02-10-2014 11:33am

I'm not convinced by the prevailing attitude to what belief is.

The fact that it is subject to change doesn't, to my mind anyway, make it something that's subject to choice. I didn't choose to not believe in a god any more than I choose the people I get attracted to.

Anyone here up for taking on the experiment of choosing to believe the Bible for a month?

Both are open to change but I don't really have all that much conscious control over them.

robindch · 02-10-2014 12:03pm

keane2097 wrote: »

Anyone here up for taking on the experiment of choosing to believe the Bible for a month?

Interesting challenge, but I'm not sure that my mind is bendy enough to "choose to believe" something.

I'll never be able to find the bible credible any more than I'll ever be able to eat celery and find that tasty. Now, one can certainly pretend to believe, or one could proceed as if one believed, but actual belief? Nope + never.

keane2097 · 02-10-2014 12:53pm

robindch wrote: »

Interesting challenge, but I'm not sure that my mind is bendy enough to "choose to believe" something.

I'll never be able to find the bible credible any more than I'll ever be able to eat celery and find that tasty. Now, one can certainly pretend to believe, or one could proceed as if one believed, but actual belief? Nope + never.

Yeah that's how it seems to me as well.

Am I missing something or does that not lead us to the idea that belief or lack of should be as much or little protected as the other stuff mentioned, since we can't control what we believe?

I don't think inciting people to hate Hindus should be any more or less legal than inciting people to hate gay people, say.

Cabaal · 02-10-2014 3:22pm

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/10/02/for-the-love-of-god/

Seriously, Bannon is a fool. FG seem to be screwing up things in all directions at this stage.

Deputy James Bannon (Fine Gael) speaking in the Dáil this morning on retaining blasphemy legislation in the Constitution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNk2NlB3_nk

Deputy Clare Daly speaking on the same subject said that in 2011, Ireland’s blasphemy legislation was applauded by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

She said “Let’s face it for Ireland to be cited by countries like Pakistan as having the best practice really makes us worse than bedfellows.”

Cabaal · 02-10-2014 3:23pm

keane2097 wrote: »

Anyone here up for taking on the experiment of choosing to believe the Bible for a month?

But how does that work exactly?

If I choose to believe it I'd have to seriously hurt and/or kill several people I know in the first week.

Referendum-watch - Remove "blasphemy" from the Constitution?

Comments