Our Constitution - how well do you know it!?

teaser

Here are a few entries from the constitution that some people may not be aware of, add a post if you know any more.

Extracts From : BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS Personal Rights
Article 40
6
The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

========================================
Article 29
9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section where that common defence would include the State.

*******************************************************
BTW does anyone know if the recent bill brought to the people (the citizenships thing) hass been signed by the president and if its in operation, because I downloaded a PDF of the constitution from the dept of the taoiseach website and there was no change. thanks
*******************************************************

seamus

teaser wrote:

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS Personal Rights
Article 40
6
The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

Luckily, it's left to the law, which afaik, hasn't any penalties in regards blasphemous material, or at the very least is no longer enforced.

Article 29
9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section where that common defence would include the State.

This article was added when we voted yes to the treaty of nice, wasn't it? And I wholly agree with this article.
To be perfectly vulgar, I've found it a handy loo read from time to time....

Sparks

From just before the bit about the blasphemy...

6.i.
The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

So free speech, but not for the media.

Stabshauptmann

Sparks wrote:

From just before the bit about the blasphemy...

The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

So free speech, but not for the media.

All it says is that you cant act the bollicks, not too much to ask.
Why should you have the right to lie, verbally abuse others or incite riots or hate??

Sparks

I didn't say it was a bad thing Necromancer. I mean, look at the "fair and balanced" alternative...

teaser

seamus wrote:

To be perfectly vulgar, I've found it a handy loo read from time to time....

ha ha lol,

Flukey

Our constitution is old now, and parts are outdated, going back to a time well before it was even written. You find you only go to look at it when you are involved in a debate or a discussion like this one.

arcadegame2004

BTW does anyone know if the recent bill brought to the people (the citizenships thing) hass been signed by the president and if its in operation, because I downloaded a PDF of the constitution from the dept of the taoiseach website and there was no change. thanks

Unfortunately, the Government is adopting a go-slow apporach to the insertion of the said Amendment (which was already written and is therefore not a hypothetic to be drafted from scratch) into our Constitution. They haven't already passed the Amendment into law, and newspaper reports indicate the may not until 2005. Nigerian con-artists are no doubt pleased.

Flukey

What about the far more abundant Irish con-artists?

johnKarma

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

This is a very interesting provision. It is extremely rare that a Consitution mandates the existence of a crime. This demonstrates how desperate the drafters were to keep the Church on their side while drafting what was essentially a Constitution in the Liberal mould.

The issue came before the Supreme Court in 1999. (Full text of the decision is available here.)In the aftermath of the last Divorce referendum, an article by Conor Cruise O'Brien appeared in the Sunday Independent, alongside a cartoon with the caption "Hello Progress, Good-bye Father?", depicting John Bruton, Prionsiais de Rossa and Ruairi Quinn walking away from a Priest who appears to be offering them communion. (Shocking!)

A certain Mr Corway suffered "offence and outrage" by reason of this "insult, ridicule and contempt shown towards the sacrament of the Eucharist", and brought an action in blasphemy against the Paper.

The High Court and the Supreme Court were having none of it.

The Supreme Court adpoted a very legalistic stance. It decided that the old crime of blasphemy under common law did not survive the enactment of either the 1922 Constitution (Which was secular and guaranteed "Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion ".) or the 1937 Constitution (which promises that the State shall "respect and honour" the Catholic Church, and "recognise" other prevailing religions at the time, like the Jewish congregation, the Mormons, and the Quakers - no mention of Islam in there!) Since the old crime of Defamation presupposed the establishment of the Church of England it could not considered to be applicable. So the Court decided that although the cartoon was in "Poor Taste", it could not be considered as blasphemous. Although undoubtedly blasphemy is a crime in Ireland (The Constitution says so!) no-one knows when it is committed because it's up to the Oireachtas to define what it is in light of the Constitution.

Many see this as a copout. Given the fawning language in which the Constitution refers to "the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church" as "the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens", it's difficult to sustain the argument that any offence of blasphemy wouldn't outlaw such a cartoon. Basically the courts (quite understandably) didn't want to be seen to be out of step with the times and deferred to the legislature. They did this in the full knowledge that it's very unlikely that the Oireachtas will be passing a Blasphemy Act any time this century.

This leads to the question of what a certain Mr De Valera would have thought of this business. Originally seen as a very Catholic document, the Constitution has been interpreted by the courts in cases like this to strike a blow for pluralism and social progress. Another good example is the case of McGee v Att General, decided in 1974, in which the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution contained a right to "marital privacy" which ensured that married couples should have the right to decide to use spermicidal jelly! (So much for "every sperm is sacred!")

I reckon that it's high time for some constitutional house-cleaning. Wouldn't it be much better to delete all reference to religion from the constitution altogether, rather than rely on judges to "interpret" around it?

Tommy Vercetti

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Unfortunately, the Government is adopting a go-slow apporach to the insertion of the said Amendment (which was already written and is therefore not a hypothetic to be drafted from scratch) into our Constitution. They haven't already passed the Amendment into law, and newspaper reports indicate the may not until 2005. Nigerian con-artists are no doubt pleased.

*yawn* here we go again....

teaser

....like the Jewish congregation, the Mormons, and the Quakers - no mention of Islam in there!)....

you just reminded me of something.
I know this isnt the religion board, but I want to let you all know anyway!

Duffman

Flukey wrote:

Our constitution is old now, and parts are outdated, going back to a time well before it was even written. You find you only go to look at it when you are involved in a debate or a discussion like this one.

You have to remember that the Constitution is considered to be always "speaking" in the present. Although the original/historical purpose of various articles is often considered, the meaning of certain provisions should be considered in a modern context.

Art. 40.6 - The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

In the case that johnKarma mentioned, the Supreme Court decided that blasphemy at common law (ie. historically, long before the Constitution was written) is an offence against Christianity and Christianity alone.

There are articles of the Constitution that guarantee freedom of religion. In the Constitutional order of things these are far more important than 40.6.

An offence that could only be committed against one particular religion was clearly in conflict with such guarantees of religious freedom.

This is why there will no one can ever be prosecuted for publishing blasphemous material in Ireland.

Raskolnikov

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Nigerian con-artists are no doubt pleased.

Oh come on moderators, I'm begining to think that this is some sort of troll trying to goad people into a response.

gandalf

Closing thread.