Proposed Blasphemy Law

GhostInTheRuins

Heard this on the radio this morning and couldn't believe it. It's like we're heading back in time in this country.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0429/1224245599892.html

A NEW crime of blasphemous libel is to be proposed by the Minister for Justice in an amendment to the Defamation Bill, which will be discussed by the Oireachtas committee on justice today.

At the moment there is no crime of blasphemy on the statute books, though it is prohibited by the Constitution.

Article 40 of the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech, qualifies it by stating: “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.

“The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent material is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”
Last year the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of Fianna Fáil TD Seán Ardagh, recommended amending this Article to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafting the Article along the lines of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression.

The prohibition on blasphemy dates back to English law aimed at protecting the established church, the Church of England, from attack. It has been used relatively recently to prosecute satirical publications in the UK.
In the only Irish case taken under this article, Corway -v- Independent Newspapers, in 1999, the Supreme Court concluded that it was impossible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists”.

It also stated that a special protection for Christianity was incompatible with the religious equality provisions of Article 44.

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern proposes to insert a new section into the Defamation Bill, stating: “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.”

Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may issue a warrant authorising the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary using reasonable force, a premises where the member of the force has reasonable grounds for believing there are copies of the blasphemous statements in order to seize them.

Labour spokesman on justice Pat Rabbitte is proposing an amendment to this section which would reduce the maximum fine to €1,000 and exclude from the definition of blasphemy any matter that had any literary, artistic, social or academic merit.

I'd be very worried if this went ahead.

Crumble Froo

including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

dude, this isnt for A&A, politics or AH more likely.

but fuuuuuuuuuuuck. that's pretty nuts, a part of me can't imagine it going through... another part almost expects it.

GhostInTheRuins

Crumble Froo wrote: »

dude, this isnt for A&A, politics or AH more likely.

but fuuuuuuuuuuuck. that's pretty nuts, a part of me can't imagine it going through... another part almost expects it.

The text you quoted is part of the constitution, which won't be changed unless a referendum is held. That's not the issue here.

I think It's suitable for this forum.

Nodin

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

I'd be very worried if this went ahead.

Waste of time, effort and money. And Ahern can go blaspheme himself with his little suggestion.

philologos

Actually Nodin, it could be quite an earner at €100,000 a pop for blasphemy
I don't think this is the correct course of action mind.

It seems to be a protection against incidents such as the Muhammad cartoons arising here.

Crumble Froo

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

The text you quoted is part of the constitution, which won't be changed unless a referendum is held. That's not the issue here.

I think It's suitable for this forum.

fair enough, i gotta re-read it later when there's less talking around me.

philologos

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

The text you quoted is part of the constitution, which won't be changed unless a referendum is held. That's not the issue here.

I think It's suitable for this forum.

It's already in the constitution. The minister is trying to define it in the Defamation Bill (not the constitution) therefore no referendum is needed.

seamus

The problem is that it leaves the definition of what's grossly offensive wide open.

Everything should be fair game. If a theory is valid it should be more than capable of defending itself against criticism, it shouldn't need the government to legislate protection for it.

Dades

Since it's already in the constitution, which relies on legislation to define it, it seems to be a matter of clarification.

The definition in the proposed bill is interesting, in that it makes it quite difficult for something to fall into the definition:

"It must be 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".

So there must be clear intent to cause outrage, which is very difficult to prove.

All things being equal, however, why legislation is even necessary I do not know. It's not as if we have a huge population of outraged theists shouting for it, and libel laws serve their purpose in cases of attacks on an individual.

ChocolateSauce

Regardless of if and how it might actually be used, the very fact it is even up for discussion is illiberal, disturbing and disgraceful. Religion does not deserve protection, and I will alway insist on the right to treat it with ridicule and contempt.

Beruthiel

Utterly digusted with this.

Dades

First job for the new UCD Humanist society, ChocolateSauce?

threeleggedhors

I hope Tommy Tiernan's got a good lawyer

eightyfish

I feel outraged that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin. All the current evidence points to a given person being born gay, just as they are born Irish or Indian. Thus there is, in my eyes, no difference between homophobia and racism. The Church are guilty in my eyes of racism.

I feel outraged by the treatment of women in some Muslim countries, where they live in fear of God and society if they dare not submit to Allah. (see Ayann Hirshi Ali)

I feel outraged by these things but I do not feel that people should not be able to believe them. Why should someone who supports these views have to protection of the law when they get outraged at my beliefs?

Stephen

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

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually Nodin, it could be quite an earner at €100,000 a pop for blasphemy
I don't think this is the correct course of action mind.

It seems to be a protection against incidents such as the Muhammad cartoons arising here.

There's debate on whether or not any action should be taken to prevent those. While I'm one to defend muslims from stereotype, it would strike me as wrong to create an exemption for them.

Whereas I could see how one might see the reason to formulate a law to prevent the formentation of sectarian hatred, thats rather a different thing than what Ahern is proposing. Some catholic attitudes towards Protestant rites, and vice versa - if expressed in blunt language - can be extremely offensive to the 'opposition'. Given the wording of the act, as pointed by Dades, this could in theory lead to a court case.

Also - as threeleggedhors mentioned - Tommy Tiernan and whoever else might take the piss is also potentially target.

Zamboni

I disliked Dermot Aherne for many various reasons and then I read this.
What an idiot.
I'll be onto my local FF TD today to tell him his buddie is a tool.

Gambler

Given the other legal issues that Boards has had to dealt with does this risk a situation where Boards is open to prosecution under the blasphemy law because of the religious Humor thread?

Mena

Gambler wrote: »

Given the other legal issues that Boards has had to dealt with does this risk a situation where Boards is open to prosecution under the blasphemy law because of the religious Humor thread?

If it goes ahead, then yes, but not only that thread, this entire forum, and the christianity one as well.

Wow, for the first time in my life I'm almost compelled to hit the streets and take part in one of them there marches things the common folk do.

Tigger

is this a new southpark episode?

Mickeroo

Tigger wrote: »

is this a new southpark episode?

reminds me of the cartoon wars one.......

This is ridiculous, €100,000?? Well feck them.

*heads over to teeshirthell.com to stockpile blasphemous clothing for the revolution*

robindch

Lets see what happens during the debate before getting excited. It could all be removed yet.

That said, I find it difficult to believe that of all the things that the Dail could be doing just now, debating how much protection the state should provide to people's personal religious beliefs seems a particularly stupid waste of time.

JC 2K3

Ugh, fúck off.

Overblood

Well we're already going to hell so a €100,000 fine is petty in comparison.

Could this mean that atheist books like those from Hitchens and Dawkins would be taken off the shelves?

It's all very vague isn't it?

Pat Rabbite's suggestion that any matter that had literary, social or academic merit should be excluded from the definition of blashphemy. Aren't most atheist publications of literary, social & academic merit?

I really don't think that this will go ahead. I'd be willing to wager my last jar of babies blood on it.

By the way, this will be discussed on Joe Duffy's liveline today at 1.45pm.

ChocolateSauce

Dades wrote: »

First job for the new UCD Humanist society, ChocolateSauce?

The first thing I did this morning was send a group email to all contacts in ucdhumanistsociety@gmail.com about this!

Robin wrote:

That said, I find it difficult to believe that of all the things that the Dail could be doing just now, debating how much protection the state should provide to people's personal religious beliefs seems a particularly stupid waste of time.

Considering even Labour isn't condemning it, I think it has too high a chance of being passed, though probably in a watered down form.

toiletduck

Ridiculous.

Yogabba

Bring on the Inquisition!!

Shocking and incredibly backwards. There's already a facebook group started on this:

http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=190675270453&ref=nf

Zamboni

dermot@dermotahern.ie

Get to work folks.

Daemonic

Cowan - "So lads, countries going down the toilet...any ideas?"
Ahern - "We could have a bit of a pray, see what happens"
Cowan - "Jaysus, they'll be ripping the piss out of us if we try that"
Ahern - "Way ahead of you Brian, way ahead of ya"
:rolleyes:

GhostInTheRuins

Being discussed on radio 1 right now

Nodin

Overblood wrote: »

By the way, this will be discussed on Joe Duffy's liveline today at 1.45pm.

....the Patron saint of the Perpetuation of Ignorance....

Overblood

Nodin wrote: »

....the Patron saint of the Perpetuation of Ignorance....

How would he be perpetuating ignorance if he discusses this issue? He's going to have an atheist guest speaker on. A guy from atheist.ie:

http://www.atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=23200#p23200

Nodin

Overblood wrote: »

How would he be perpetuating ignorance if he discusses this issue?

It's a show which often assumes an hysterical tone.

Acacia

This has to be a piss-take. We're not living in the Dark Ages. Does this include taking 'the Lord's' name in vain? Cause it would be rather difficult for Irish people to stop saying ''For the love of Jaysus!" "Well Holy God!", etc, etc.:pac:

Overblood

Tis on the radio now.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah, everyone on duffy is being disgustingly reasonable so far.

liah

I miss Canada...

LookingFor

Really amazed at what I was reading in the times.

Yeah, let's not amend this out of our constitution..let's provide the criminal law to prop it up!

WTF?

Anyway, I popped an email to Ahern expressing my opposition as best I can. I'm sure others could do a much more coherent and better job of it, so please, mail him all you can. Maybe it won't do any good, but it's the first thing in a long time where I've felt I've had to say something directly to the government!!

Acacia

I've a feeling this is a rather cynical ploy to get some extra money into the government coffers...

Beruthiel

My angry e-mail has been sent.
For all the good it will do.

murrayp4

LookingFor wrote: »

Anyway, I popped an email to Ahern expressing my opposition as best I can. I'm sure others could do a much more coherent and better job of it, so please, mail him all you can. Maybe it won't do any good, but it's the first thing in a long time where I've felt I've had to say something directly to the government!!

I'll be doing the same myself

Phototoxin

“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.”

I consider YORE MA* grossly abusive to my relgion of Phototoxinism. Therefore we should kill YORE MA*

*Delete and replace as appropriate : judaism, christianity, islam, paganism, athiests, agnostics, deists, scientists, scientologists blahblahblah

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

But they cried all the more 'Crucify him, crucify him!'

toiletduck

Beruthiel wrote: »

My angry e-mail has been sent.
For all the good it will do.

Same as. He can't possibly ignore the A&A forum!

Malari

I thought you could only be blasphemous if you belonged to a religion. I mean if you don't believe in a god it's not blasphemous if you ridicule the idea is it?

Sean Moncrieff discussing it on Newstalk too.

Nevyn

Blasphemous to any religion...... oooooh fun.
I can see some of the radical pagans abusing this every which way they can.

LookingFor

Yeah.

Religious tolerance: "Tolerance is living as WE want you to live and by OUR rules. If you don't, you're being religiously intolerant!"

The state can't consider something blasphemous unless the state believes in all religions. Hmm. Blasphemy is an offence to religious authority, so unless the state fancies itself as a religious authority now, believing in all religions you care to introduce to it, the very idea of it is ridiculous.

Oh good googly moogly, this government is really becoming a joke. Although I cannot believe Labour is simply suggesting the fine be lowered rather than opposing the bill amendment altogether! I'm very disappointed by that.

Overblood

Nodin wrote: »

It's a show which often assumes an hysterical tone.

Well we should be feckin' hysterical about this!

Malari

Overblood wrote: »

Well we should be feckin' hysterical about this!

Something tells me the hysteria won't be on the side of the blasphemers, but the blasphemed-against!! :P

Elliemental

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Religion does not deserve protection, and I will alway insist on the right to treat it with ridicule and contempt.

+1.

This has the potential to be a damaging retrograde step, that undermines freedom of speech.

eightyfish

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
Denis.ODonovan@oireachtas.ie
Peter.Power@Oireachtas.ie
Maurice.Cummins@oireachtas.ie
joanna.tuffy@oireachtas.ie
Jim.Walsh@oireachtas.ie

gerard.murphy@oireachtas.ie (email bounces from this address)
sean.ofearghail@irlgov.ie (email bounces from this address)
Tony.Kett@oireachtas.ie (Senator Tony Kett dies after long illness)

These may also be useful:
dermot@dermotahern.ie
pat.rabbitte@oireachtas.ie
head_office@labour.ie

Gambler

Just an FYI - Email to gerard.murphy@oireachtas.ie bounced as an invalid address

[Edit]And another one -

<sean.ofearghail@irlgov.ie>: mail for irlgov.ie loops back to myself

[/Edit]