Proposed Blasphemy Law

Flamed Diving · 30-04-2009 1:44pm

My email:

Your proposed choking and suppression of free speech worries me. Just what is held to be blasphemy is an entirely subjective notion, just like religion in its entirety. How can this be the basis for legislation? Should we also have a law for denying the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? For me, the Abrahamic god is one of the most vile characters ever created. Should I be fined and jailed for expressing that view? I must ask you minister, do you wish for this country to return to being a backward, superstitious basket case of a country, or are we willing to catch up with the finest minds of the 18th century and seperate church and state, once and for all? How can you possibly justify this proposed law?

Zamboni · 30-04-2009 1:44pm

I am surprised there is not more of an uproar about this.

The fecking pensioners put up a better show.

jtsuited · 30-04-2009 1:47pm

of all the things the FF governments have ever done (and that includes everything from running the country arseways, being corrupt beyond belief, and displaying ingnorance of the highest level in all areas),

this is the thing that has made me genuinely angry. Like physically angry. Like the type of angry, where you're grinding your teeth and clenching your fists.

In other words, I'm pretty angry.

LookingFor · 30-04-2009 1:50pm

Zamboni wrote: »

I am surprised there is not more of an uproar about this.

The fecking pensioners put up a better show.

I'd like to think there's been a torrent of mail to various politicians over this, but..who knows..

I've spoken to some people about this who have a very "well, it wouldn't affect me, so I don't really care" attitude about it. As if you have to be a blaspheming outrager to see that this should be challenged

faceman · 30-04-2009 1:58pm

CrazyStraighty wrote: »

Will members of the Church of the Flying
Spagetti Monster be able to sue a journalist, a priest, a reverend, a
rabbi, an atheist for pointing out that their religion seems a tad
ridiculous?

If this is passed, I will be checking how may members of the Church of
the Flying Spaghetti Monster are based in Ireland. I will then insult
them at every opportunity until a case is brought in front of an Irish
court and then I will to have the state argue that I should be fined
for not believing in the sanctity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's
noodly appendage.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Should we also have a law for denying the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? For me, the Abrahamic god is one of the most vile characters ever created.

Be wary if using analogies like this when contacting the powers that be. The new law would only cover official recognised religions therefore that point isnt entirely valid. But it is, if you know what I mean!

Ultimately the big issue here is the stranglehold on freedom of speech. It would also present major issues given the laxidaisy wording as to what defines blasphemy. If for example you disagree with a view point of a religious body, are you blaspheming.

I dont think it will be just atheists raging with this law, many religious heads will be too.

IvyTheTerrible · 30-04-2009 1:59pm

eightyfish wrote: »

These are the email addresses of the members of the oireachtas committee of justice who will be voting on the issue:

sean@ardagh.org
brendan.howlin@oir.ie
niall.blaney@oireachtas.ie
finian.mcgrath@oireachtas.ie
gerard.murphy@oireachtas.ie
sean.ofearghail@irlgov.ie
Denis.ODonovan@oireachtas.ie
Peter.Power@Oireachtas.ie
Tony.Kett@oireachtas.ie
Maurice.Cummins@oireachtas.ie
joanna.tuffy@oireachtas.ie
Jim.Walsh@oireachtas.ie

Tony Kett is dead, no?

Flamed Diving · 30-04-2009 2:02pm

faceman wrote: »

Be wary if using analogies like this when contacting the powers that be. The new law would only cover official recognised religions therefore that point isnt entirely valid. But it is, if you know what I mean!

That is exactly my point and it is why I included it. Just what is an 'officially recognised religion'. How do you gauge that? Do you need a bare minimum of crazy old guys with beards?

It's nonsense. Either you give all religions, no matter how small, protection under this law or you have no law at all.

Not only is the 'official' religion law immoral, it is consitutionally illegal.

Undergod · 30-04-2009 2:07pm

Yeah, going into territory of which religions are officialy recognized is all kinds of dangerous.

eightyfish · 30-04-2009 2:18pm

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Tony Kett is dead, no?

Is he?

I got the list of names from here here and the email addresses from here.

IvyTheTerrible · 30-04-2009 2:19pm

eightyfish wrote: »

Is he?

I got the list of names from here here and the email addresses from here.

He died around April 20th I believe. I'll go find a link.

Et voila:

http://news.ie.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=16199896

20goto10 · 30-04-2009 2:21pm

Undergod wrote: »

Not in Ireland it wasn't.

BLASPHEMER!!!

DapperGent · 30-04-2009 2:24pm

threeleggedhors wrote: »

How do we go about reducing their salaries ??

Vote Labour.

Goduznt Xzst · 30-04-2009 2:33pm

Undergod wrote: »

and it could be proven in court that that viewpoint had been expressed with the intent of causing outrage.

Yeah that could never happen. I mean I'm sure there are loads of Judges that side with Atheists, you know, all the ones who chose not to take a religious oath... oh wait.

eightyfish · 30-04-2009 2:41pm

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

He died around April 20th I believe. I'll go find a link.

Et voila:

http://news.ie.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=16199896

Well I guess now he knows if there is a God.

Dades · 30-04-2009 2:44pm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yeah that could never happen. I mean I'm sure there are loads of Judges that side with Atheists, you know, all the ones who chose not to take a religious oath... oh wait.

Oh please. It'll almost certainly never be used.

And this isn't an "atheist" thing anyway. You don't have to be an atheist to 'blaspheme'.

cavedave · 30-04-2009 2:52pm

galileo galilei

E pur si muove!

I have not seen a list of specific actions that would have been illegal under this law. Theo Van Gogh's film, the danish cartoons, the book the satanic verses. Which of these would be illegal?

LookingFor · 30-04-2009 2:54pm

Dades wrote: »

Oh please. It'll almost certainly never be used.

Given recent history, I don't know if I'd be so sure.

And if a law isn't going to be enforced it should be taken off the books.

cavedave wrote: »

galileo galilei

I have not seen a list of specific actions that would have been illegal under this law. Theo Van Gogh's film, the danish cartoons, the book the satanic verses. Which of these would be illegal?

I think the key 'up for debate' point in these cases would be whether there was intent to outrage or not. Doubtless they all created outrage so they fulfil that part of this law's definition of blasphemy. The remaining bit would be whether it was intended.

Something that would be very difficult to pin down..but a court ultimately would make the decision. I don't think courts should be within spitting distance of making decisions like that in matters like this. Even if someone did intend to outrage, pissing people off has had its uses in fighting theocracy and the like..and religion doesn't need any more protection from incitement to hatred or violence etc. than already exists for everything else.

Dades · 30-04-2009 2:58pm

LookingFor wrote: »

And if a law isn't going to be enforced it should be taken off the books.

The problem is because it's in the constitution - it is required to be in legislation.

Yes - it should be removed from the constitution but with the state of the country at the moment they can hardly justify a referendum on the issue.

They could consider lumping it in with Lisbon II, only that would give the crazies an excuse to claim Lisbon was anti-religion etc - even though the two had nothing to do with one another.

Malari · 30-04-2009 2:59pm

Dades wrote: »

Oh please. It'll almost certainly never be used.

Beside the point I would have thought.

It impacts free speech and if it was brought in to discourage the printing of mohammed caricatures in papers, then it displays cowardice and I think the opposite is needed.

cavedave · 30-04-2009 3:04pm

I think the key 'up for debate' point in these cases would be whether there was intent to outrage or not. Doubtless they all created outrage so they fulfil that part of this law's definition of blasphemy. The remaining bit would be whether it was intended.

Darwin delayed publishing the origin of the species for years due to concerns it would outrage people. Gaelileo had similar problems. There are all sorts of religiously sensitive areas of research. Race and IQ for example. Without studying this the Flynn effect may have remained hidden.

Usually it is not libel if it is true but does scientific truth fall under this protection?

I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the Pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference – the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death!

Stephen Hawking

LookingFor · 30-04-2009 3:04pm

Dades wrote: »

The problem is because it's in the constitution - it is required to be in legislation.

My understanding is that though it would be..desireable to have clarification on it from the court's POV, the minister was not obliged to address it, and could have let sleeping dogs lie. It's ten years since the first and only relevant case..there was no need to all-of-a-sudden provide clarification on this.

He could have left things as they are or were and we could have dealt with it constutionally down the road when there was less on the agenda.

Goduznt Xzst · 30-04-2009 3:04pm

Dades wrote: »

Oh please. It'll almost certainly never be used.

And this isn't an "atheist" thing anyway. You don't have to be an atheist to 'blaspheme'.

I thought you'd know me well enough by now to know that was tongue-in-cheek :rolleyes:

Plus everyone loves a sensationalist storm in a teacup

Admit it, the reason you aren't more vocal about this is that you are itching to append to the "Be nice!" sticky...

"In short, go for the ball and not the player, and we can all enjoy the game.

WARNING: going for the ball may lead to a €100,000 fine"

:pac:

eightyfish · 30-04-2009 3:06pm

Dades wrote: »

They could consider lumping it in with Lisbon II, only that would give the crazies an excuse to claim Lisbon was anti-religion etc - even though the two had nothing to do with one another.

LookingFor · 30-04-2009 3:09pm

cavedave wrote: »

Darwin delayed publishing the origin of the species for years due to concerns it would outrage people. Gaelileo had similar problems. There are all sorts of religiously sensitive areas of research. Race and IQ for example. Without studying this the Flynn effect may have remained hidden.

Usually it is not libel if it is true but does scientific truth fall under this protection?

Not under this, no. And I don't believe there's any 'special case' protection of expression wrt scientific values or beliefs or knowledge beyond regular 'freedom of expression'. This would be a special case, a special limit on freedom of expression, just for religion.

A side note, but I could easily see a prosecutor skewing knowledge that an expression would probably outrage as indication of intent to do so

Sparks · 30-04-2009 3:22pm

Dades wrote: »

The problem is because it's in the constitution - it is required to be in legislation.

No, it isn't. It's already been ruled in court that there are "aspirational" articles in the constitution (Article 29 which reads "Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law" has been ruled as aspirational by the High Court). So an article's mere existence is not a requirement for legislation to be drafted. Further, the article itself does not demand legislation, it just says any prosecution for blasphemy should be in accordance with the law. Since there is no law, there should be no prosecution. That's an anomaly, not a problem. And it's far from being the only anomaly in Irish law, and many more are far more worthy of being addressed.

Dades · 30-04-2009 3:54pm

I'm only going on what I've read. If the Justice Minister and AG are incorrect, then so be it...

JUSTICE Minister Dermot Ahern has defended the introduction of a new crime of blasphemous libel, stating that a new definition was required by the Constitution.

Speaking after an Oireachtas committee meeting, Mr Ahern yesterday defended a fine of up to €100,000 that will be imposed on blasphemers.

The Government moved to revive the crime by placing it onto a fresh statutory footing following advice from the office of the Attorney General.

Full article.

Sparks · 30-04-2009 3:57pm

In fairness Dades, we don't have Ministerial infalliability in Ireland (yet)

threeleggedhors · 30-04-2009 3:59pm

Sparks wrote: »

In fairness Dades, we don't have Ministerial infalliability in Ireland (yet)

:D:D Good one

Undergod · 30-04-2009 4:10pm

20goto10 wrote: »

BLASPHEMER!!!

Hey man, not me to blame here, check the 2006 census results!

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yeah that could never happen. I mean I'm sure there are loads of Judges that side with Atheists, you know, all the ones who chose not to take a religious oath... oh wait.

And I'm sure the majority of Christian judges will give a crap when someone complains about my newspaper "Vishnu sucks cocks."
Besides, I do think it would be hard to make it stick, what needs to be proven under the suggested law is not offense itself but intent to cause offense.

Overheal · 30-04-2009 4:15pm

Stephen wrote: »

**** this bull5hit. What's the best way to let the minister know how we feel about this?

give him a free personality test

eightyfish · 30-04-2009 4:25pm

Dades wrote: »

I'm only going on what I've read. If the Justice Minister and AG are incorrect, then so be it...
Full article.

Gardai will now have the power to seize blasphemous material from the home or any other premises used by a person convicted of blasphemy.

This makes me incredibly angry.

You'd better burn those books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, Rushdie, Atkins, Adams, Pullman etc before the police come and take them away. Welcome to theocratic Ireland. F*ck this government.

eightyfish · 30-04-2009 4:31pm

Thank you for communication concerning the government decision to include a section on blasphemous libel in the Defamation Bill. The Bill is at Committee stage and the proposed new section has not yet been reached.

The Labour Party is opposed to the inclusion of such a section. We support the proposal from the Constitutional Review Group to remove the reference in the constitution by way of referendum.

Tactically we have taken a "belt and braces" approach i.e. if the Minister refuses to excise the reference in the Bill our amendment will seek to constrain the government's proposal. According to this morning's newspapers, the Minister intends to press ahead.

Sincerely

Pat Rabbitte TD

Position clarified. More of this, please.

5uspect · 30-04-2009 4:32pm

Response from Pat Rabbitte:

EDIT snap!

robindch · 30-04-2009 4:58pm

The Dear Leader wrote:

A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. “Blasphemous matter” is defined as matter “that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

Abjuring much expertise in legal draftsmanship, the quote above appears to say that while you can be fined for publishing or uttering blasphemous material, the source material itself can only be declared blasphemous if (a) people get offended, (b) you intended to offend and (b) it's published.

The implication appears to be that you can't be fined for saying something that isn't published, since blasphemous material has no definition in the absence of published copy.

My $.02.

bigeasyeah · 30-04-2009 5:04pm

I dont think this will effect people speaking out against the church or religion.
The issue here is slander,which is illegal.

LookingFor · 30-04-2009 5:08pm

bigeasyeah wrote: »

I dont think this will effect people speaking out against the church or religion.
The issue here is slander,which is illegal.

Umm..no..

The issue - and this is part of what's so ridiculous about the legislation - is anything that can be considered offensive that causes outrage among a significant, but undefined, number of people.

So it can be anything varying and depending on what a particular religious group might find outrageous. What is considered blasphemous here is or will be a function of the outrage it causes, outrage based on arbitrary religious belief (which perversely means the legislation also rewards such outrage).

You don't need to look too far to see that need not necessarily be slander. That could be as simple as someone publishing a cartoon or wishing to hold a debate on euthanasia.

Obni · 30-04-2009 5:13pm

robindch wrote: »

The implication appears to be that you can't be fined for saying something that isn't published ...

Well, this whole topic centres around the proposed Defamation bill. Defamation would require written material rather than spoken, which would be slander. Not having read the bill, I couldn't say whether slander is also covered by the bill.

ChocolateSauce · 30-04-2009 5:14pm

And for that matter, so what if I slander a religion? It's a matter of opinion if I say a draconian institution of grizzly old virgins (many of them pedophiles) is indoctranating our young and helping spread AIDS in Africa through a diliberate campaign of lies and misinformation while at the same time hording their vast wealth.......uh, wait...

bigeasyeah · 30-04-2009 5:17pm

LookingFor wrote: »

Umm..no..

The issue - and this is part of what's so ridiculous about the legislation - is anything that can be considered offensive that causes outrage among a significant, but undefined, number of people.

So it can be anything varying and depending on what a particular religious group might find outrageous. What is considered blasphemous here is or will be a function of the outrage it causes.

That need not necessarily be slander. That could be as simple as someone publishing a cartoon or wishing to hold a debate on euthanasia.

What you described is slander.The issue here is tolerance of peoples faith.It wont outlaw atheistism.
Im more concerned about lessening the powers of the Garda Commissioner.

Dades · 30-04-2009 5:21pm

LookingFor wrote: »

You don't need to look too far to see that need not necessarily be slander. That could be as simple as someone publishing a cartoon or wishing to hold a debate on euthanasia.

The proposed legislation requires that the act be intended to cause outrage.

Holding a debate could hardly been seen as that. Intent is very difficult to prove.

Malari · 30-04-2009 5:29pm

Dades wrote: »

The proposed legislation requires that the act be intended to cause outrage.

Holding a debate could hardly been seen as that. Intent is very difficult to prove.

Well that's just the problem, isn't it? Publishing a cartoon of mohammed is blasphemous (according to the muslims). There aren't many people who don't know that. So if publishing it is intended to be humerous, not blasphemous, it means it's therefore not libelous?

Similarly a debate on euthanasia. You know it's going to cause offense to someone but you do it anyway. Not for the cause of causing outrage, but to raise the issues, or whatever. How is that treated?

AtomicHorror · 30-04-2009 5:30pm

PZ Myers has noticed...

Once again, Ireland makes a splash in the big leagues with a pure /facepalm moment. *sigh*

Jimmy Bennett · 30-04-2009 5:31pm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

And for that matter, so what if I slander a religion? It's a matter of opinion if I say a draconian institution of grizzly old virgins (many of them pedophiles) is indoctranating our young and helping spread AIDS in Africa through a diliberate campaign of lies and misinformation while at the same time hording their vast wealth.......uh, wait...

Shhh, Sauce! :eek: You just published blasphemy. They're coming for you.

It's this thing of 'offence' that I have a problem with. I'd have no problem with legislation on incitement to hatred. But just because a group of people doesn't like (ie. are 'offended' by) what someone says publicly, doesn't mean they have the right to criminalise that person.

We should have a referendum to remove all mention of blasphemy from the constitution, not ammend the defamation bill to match this grossly outdated language.

I for one plan to increase my blasphemy, just like the numbers of young smokers initially increased after the smoking ban. Spite, my friends, spite.

LookingFor · 30-04-2009 5:31pm

Dades wrote: »

The proposed legislation requires that the act be intended to cause outrage.

Holding a debate could hardly been seen as that. Intent is very difficult to prove.

It is, but in thinking about other crimes and 'intent', it's often construed as simply being right-minded and knowledgeable of the consequences of your act ahead of time.

For example if I rob a shop, and unavoidably injure someone, but knew ahead of time that injury would be caused, a court might well consider that to be intent enough...even if the injury wasn't my primary intent or intended at all.

Intent is difficult to pin down as I said earlier in the thread, but I wouldn't want it to be judged by a court in a matter like this, because it would be too easy to simply say "ah sure, yeah, he intended it". A case could be prosecuted also without necessarily proof of intent..it could be left to a court decide, but even arresting someone, confiscating property, bringing someone to court and then acquitting them, on a basis of intent for example, is going too far IMO.

Also, no one is saying this law would outlaw atheism. But it could potentially make certain expression criminal.

Also, a cartoon or euthanasia debate or scientific theory, even, are slander?! The issue isn't also about tolerance of faith. Religion and faith do not need this special protection in order to enjoy tolerance (and arguably, some religious faith does not deserve tolerance..and that's why expression regarding religious beliefs, even if it causes outrage among believers, needs to be protected).

Handsome Bob · 30-04-2009 6:07pm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

And for that matter, so what if I slander a religion? It's a matter of opinion if I say a draconian institution of grizzly old virgins (many of them pedophiles) is indoctranating our young and helping spread AIDS in Africa through a diliberate campaign of lies and misinformation while at the same time hording their vast wealth.......uh, wait...

I suggest that you practice some diplomacy if you want the Humanist Society in our University to be successful.:p

Dades · 30-04-2009 6:39pm

I think we're all agreed that in principle this is wrong, but I'm yet to be convinced that having such legislation on our books poses an actual threat to free speech.

Jimmy Bennett · 30-04-2009 6:43pm

Dades wrote: »

I think we're all agreed that in principle this is wrong, but I'm yet to be convinced that having such legislation on our books poses an actual threat to free speech.

Would someone like tommy tiernan not be under threat?

He seems to tick most boxes. Ok intent is the shady bit and he probably wouldn't be convicted, but even the thought that someone could have a case made against him for blasphemy makes me feel a bit sick...

Stercus Accidit · 30-04-2009 7:19pm

Principle, intent, usage of this law or just the threat it could be used as, wielded by some of the least scrupulous people it would protect.

Threat of conviction, being taken to court, threat of being taken to court, who among us thinks that is something that is not something to be opposed?

Dades, the actual conviction is the final spear thrust of this law, it is the crucifiction by court, legal costs, time and sleep lost that is equally dangerous, and it could be used as a threat against anyone at anytime who opposes anything that could be construed as being proposed on religious grounds.

Pro life, anti stem cell, anti euthanasia, any number of other ideas that cause controversy, will attract a new expensive legal weapon that will make those with money more able to censor their opponents.

That deserves outrage and opposition.

Jimmy Bennett · 30-04-2009 7:24pm

Hear hear, Stercus. Can anything be done about this?????

rbrbrb · 30-04-2009 7:36pm

I wrote the following to Dermot Ahern and my local TDs

Dear Mr/Ms.......
I am writing to you regarding the proposed introduction of a law against blasphemy. I was absolutely incensed when I heard that such a law might be introduced in Ireland and I had a mind to write a very strongly worded email. Instead I am writing you an email pleading for you not to introduce the amendment to the bill. The information I have on the proposed law has come from RTE so I have limited knowledge of the proposed amendment. However I believe that any law against blasphemy is fundamentally wrong despite that fact that it is provided for in our Constitution though with little effect.

The western world, particularly Europe, prides itself on its liberalism and promotion of free speech. Ireland in particular has become incredibly liberalised compared to the very conservative nation we were in the first half of the 20th century. Our values should be celebrated and encouraged. This includes peoples rights to hold views about religion and their right to express them and disciss them openly. It would be a massive mistake to bow to the wishes of radicals who want nothing more than to see the end of western society. By introducing this law we are allowing those who attacked Danish embassies worldwide and murdered innocent people as a result of the publication of cartoons to dictate our domestic policy.

Recently the a group of nations in the UN attempted to pass a resolution banning defamation of religion. Countries where there is a risk of death for apostacy were part of this group of countries. Countries with appalling human rights records were part of this group. Countries where public executions still take place were part of this group. Many of these countries revile our western value of free speech. Ireland and more specifically you, is aligning itself with these countries in an attack on western values. Please please please do not introduce this amendment to the bill. For the sake of free speech and our young nation which has for centruries fought against oppression for the freedom we enjoy today, please do not introduce this amendment.
Yours faithfully...

Proposed Blasphemy Law

Comments