Proposed Blasphemy Law

Sleazus

Because, based on experience, the only people that would vote would be the secularists and the right wing christians.

I'm not sure I buy that logic - I think that a reasonable amount of reasonable people will vote. I don't deny that turnout among the fringes on both sides will be proportionately higher (as with anything ever), but I think the "big middle" will have a very large say in this. And I've actually yet to hear anyone but the Minister support his proposal - even religious groups are claiming they had nothing to do with it. Every opinion I've read, be it on the web, in the Times, or even in the Herald, has slated the proposal. I think more people care than you suspect, but, even if they don't, I wouldn't worry.

I could make a series of cheap jabs about past referenda and whether they prove or disprove this hypothesis, but surely the rejection of various proposals to restrict (even more than it is restricted already, anyway) abortion in 1992 and 2002 point to the fact that be the Irish public, 80% or 90% Catholic though they may be, won't be led to excessive extremism? That's not to say that rejecting these amendments represented a liberal or even moderate approach, but just an embrace of the more moderate of the two options. As such, abolishing blasphemy doesn't require a particularly liberal secularism in the way that, say, completely removing religious freedoms would.

I think it's unfortunate that the Minister's first reaction was to make a law rather than discussing having a referendum on the proposal. This is no longer the Ireland that banned contraception... not that the rest of the world knows that anymore.

Mickeroo

Judging by the reaction in the Christianity forum, even the more right wing posters were against it.

I also would like to point out a certain percentage of people put "Jedi" as their denomination on the Census forms, and good on them!

fitz0

So if there are 20 Jedi in Ireland and I said that the Jedi faith is a load of bollox would I be fined if, say, 15 of them got offended?

GhostInTheRuins

fitz0 wrote: »

So if there are 20 Jedi in Ireland and I said that the Jedi faith is a load of bollox would I be fined if, say, 15 of them got offended?

Maybe if you wrote a slating review of star wars.

Can this refer to any religion? The constitution only mentions christianity doesn't it?

Flamed Diving

Well, Christianity is the only religion that matters, so...

dvpower

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, Christianity is the only religion that matters, so...

Your summons is in the post.

fitz0

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

Maybe if you wrote a slating review of star wars.

Can this refer to any religion? The constitution only mentions christianity doesn't it?

The constitution may but the new law states any religion. Whos up for creating a new religion? Preferably one that gets grossly offended at the mention of the number 2.

eightyfish

fitz0 wrote: »

The constitution may but the new law states any religion. Whos up for creating a new religion? Preferably one that gets grossly offended at the mention of the number 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn

http://www.venganza.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Religion

Stercus Accidit

You can worship me if you like lads.

I am the messiah, I will grant tax exempt status to my disciples, the positions of apostles are up for grabs boyos, and they are going to go fast!

I'm a handsome messiah also ladies, up some some sacrilidge*


Also there will be no sins, except the sin of faith in any other, uh, faith, everthing is fair game!**


Come on now lads, cheap petrol, mandatory drinking on christmas and good friday, novelty hats, pirate dressup day, weird weddings, not to mention the plethora of legal protection and tax benefits we will receive.

Get cracking on embelishing my qualities, especially party tricks (miracles) and proceed to pass on this knowledge through chinese whispers until they are an exagerated/polarised/outright fabricated version of the real events, then, we write the holy book!

Also, we are easily offended if the offensive party has deep enough pockets.

What say you lads/ladettes?!


*lack of firefox makes my spelling fallible

**subject to local legislation

Undergod

Mickeroo wrote: »

I also would like to point out a certain percentage of people put "Jedi" as their denomination on the Census forms, and good on them!

That was mostly an Australian thing, it didn't really work though. Nowhere seems to have recognized it the way it was intended, Ireland didn't anyway.

Mickeroo

fitz0 wrote: »

So if there are 20 Jedi in Ireland and I said that the Jedi faith is a load of bollox would I be fined if, say, 15 of them got offended?

TBH I think a fine would be the least of your worries if you pissed off the Jedi :pac:

Galvasean

fitz0 wrote: »

The constitution may but the new law states any religion. Whos up for creating a new religion? Preferably one that gets grossly offended at the mention of the number 2.

Our new religion needs a logo. We'll use this

ZorbaTehZ

PZ Myers blogging on that insane letter that was in the independent...

MrPudding

Mickeroo wrote: »

TBH I think a fine would be the least of your worries if you pissed off the Jedi :pac:

I love that pic.

MrP

Fighting Irish

ibvforvendettamarch

darjeeling

Has anyone noticed the irony that atheism and evolution are often labelled as religions by the shriller defenders of faith, yet when protection of religion under the law is at issue, they cease to be so.

Valmont

They won't actually convict someone of blasphemy, no way. I thought maybe they were just paying lip service to the law so they wouldn't have to have a referendum?

GhostInTheRuins

Valmont wrote: »

They won't actually convict someone of blasphemy, no way. I thought maybe they were just paying lip service to the law so they wouldn't have to have a referendum?

You'd never know, if it does happen it'll create a modern day atheist martyr for us all to look up to.

fitz0

Valmont wrote: »

They won't actually convict someone of blasphemy, no way. I thought maybe they were just paying lip service to the law so they wouldn't have to have a referendum?

If they have no intention to enforce it why create a law? €100,000 seems like a lot of lip service to me.

Valmont

Surely they know that anyone convicted under this will be martyred and there will protests and all that, they're not that stupid are they? What was the reason for making this law again? I thought it was because it was in the constitution and that they had to do something about it or have a referendum. I'm probably wrong, that's just what I initially thought.

Can anyone shed any light on the legalities of the law and its relation to the constitution? It might clear matters up a bit with regards to the governments intention in enforcing this law.

Sleazus

Can anyone shed any light on the legalities of the law and its relation to the constitution? It might clear matters up a bit with regards to the governments intention in enforcing this law.

Dermot Ahern is correct, at least legally. Blasphemy should be a crime, per the Constitution. Amazingly, for a nation as religious as us, it only really became in "issue" (inverted commas) in 1999 when some prude Corway took a case against The Irish Independent for a cartoon depicting the government and the church somewhat sarcastically after the divorce referendum. Anyway, the Supreme Court said that, while Corway was right, and the Constitution did outlaw blasphemy, the Court could do sweet f***-all about it without legislation, as the courts don't make law (that's another discussion). They threw the case out, but recommended legislative action to fill the lacuna.

So, it's an issue. But it's been an issue since 1937 and it's been flagged a decade by the Supreme Court. In fairness if Michael McDowell (the most pro-active - love him or loathe him - Minister for Justice in the history of the State) say fit to leave it lie, maybe it should be left lying. In short, it's waited a decade. Why not wait another decade until we're out of a recession and we can afford a referendum without being labelled "money wasters"?

Sparks

Sleazus wrote: »

Dermot Ahern is correct, at least legally. Blasphemy should be a crime, per the Constitution.

No, the constitution says it should be dealt with in accordance with the law.

1. That doesn't demand that there be a law, merely that blasphemy not be dealt with by getting a mob together to tar and feather the blasphemer;
2. It's already been ruled in the High Court that Article 19 of the constitution, the one saying we'd adhere to international law and therefore just a wee bit more important than blasphemy in terms of ethics and morals, is "aspirational".

So frankly, the "oh, legally we have to do it" line is bunk. We no more have to do this than we were legally required to invade the North or give the Catholic Church a seat in cabinet.

Dades

Sparks wrote: »

give the Catholic Church a seat in cabinet.

They already have a full compliment of cabinets so we can whisper our sins to them. :pac:

Sleazus

The offending article:

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

The important part of that statement is "is an offence" - it isn't "in accordance with law" (which merely states that the crime itself and all punishments should be outlined in legislation where there is more space and isn't, you know, the guiding principle of our legal system).

For example...

Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution shall be initiated in the House of Representatives as a Bill, and shall upon having been passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of Parliament, be submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people in accordance with the law for the time being in force relating to the Referendum.

...doesn't mean that the Constitution just thinks it might be a good idea to change the Constitution by popular vote if there happens to be a law about it. It means you change the Constitution by reference of the people, but there is legislation to iron out the particulars.

That blasphemy is an offense isn't a suggestion. It's a statement. The Constitution just leaves up to individual statutes to properly codify it.

Originally posted by Spark:
It's already been ruled in the High Court that Article 19 of the constitution, the one saying we'd adhere to international law and therefore just a wee bit more important than blasphemy in terms of ethics and morals, is "aspirational".

EDIT: Apologies, you seem to be referring to a more general obligation to follow international law. However, on reviewing the Constitution, I couldn't find it. Article 19 refers to the election of the Senate. In fact, Article 29 states that only international relations shall be governed (as far as practical) by international law. On the subject of national law:

No international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State save as may be determined by the Oireachtas.

So, basically, the Oireachtas decides what international laws and standards it takes into account when making laws.

As for those international standards, there is a discussion to be had on whether we should adopt them, but, in strictly practical terms, the only real internation agreements that we're bound to on-par with the Constitution are the EU and the ECHR.

EU law does overrule Irish law (that's why we have all those referenda round agreements). However, the EU has learnt, through the Constitution and Lisbon fiascos that it really has to tone done the "fundamental rights" stuff (a right to healthcare was in there for cryin' out loud).

You might have more of an argument with the ECHR (which is obviously more rights'-based), but the ECHR Act pretty much says that all the Courts can do is issue a declaration of incompatibility and ask the government to act. That request more than likely could end up sitting on a desk in some office somewhere in the same way the Corway document did.

Beyond that, the Constitution is the law of the land. Whether we like or lump it, it is the last word on this matter. The Minister is correct that something should - in theory - be done. It could be (and has been) ignored, or we could have a referendum. But, nope, the government chose this.

Originally posted by Spark:
We no more have to do this than we were legally required to invade the North or give the Catholic Church a seat in cabinet.

Somehow I doubt you actually expect an answer, but, yep, there were some fairly tough legal questions force by the old Articles 2 & 3. For example, do we extradite terrorists back to the North, since they are fighting for a unified Ireland, the stated goals of those two Articles? The Supreme Court flip-flopped on the issue, even though there's no way to morally justify to keeping those murdering terrorist scum away from justice. Just because we don't like the effect, it doesn't mean we ignore the document.

And for the record, because of those provisions, we eventually did refuse to extradite individuals (though the Supreme Court reached two different decisions under two different governments).

Also, on an obvious, more practical level, Articles 2 & 3 did block us from having any meaningful discourse with Northern Ireland, which is why we had to amend them before we could really jump on board the peace process. So yes, the Constitution can be goddamn cumbersome sometimes, but it is (generally) the last word on the rule of law in this country. Thank God it's relatively easy to change (as compared to say the US).

Regarding your statement on the Church, the provision reads:

The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.

That article (as disturbing as it may be in principle) is pretty much self-fulfilling in that it recognises the Church in the highest law of the state. Naming an offense and stating that a punishment should be specified in statute clearly indicates that legislation to enforce it is required.

I'm not supporting or condoning any of this, but there is a huge difference between the provisions on the Church's role in Irish life and the provisions outlawing blasphemy.

I hope this answers any questions anyone might have.

Apologies for the long, revised post, I'm just a huge constitutional law nut.

adamd164

Has no one mentioned Blasphemy.ie, then?

It's Atheist Ireland's official campaign site against it.

PZ Myers blogged it earlier on: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/irish_atheists_want_your_help.php

Sleazus

Has no one mentioned Blasphemy.ie, then?

In fairness, it seems to be more "the following amusing/thought provoking items would be illegal under said law" site than a campaign site, but maybe we should give it time.

Dave!

FYI this proposed law was discussed on Questions and Answers last night. Among others, Mary Harney and a rather wierd guy from the Humanist Association of Ireland were there.

I only caught the end of the discussion, but it'll be on the RTE website in the next few days

pts

Thanks Dave! In case anyone is looking for the link it is: http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1047592

EDIT: The Humanist guy does look a bit twitchy alright

leincar

If this law comes to pass, I take it I could be prosecuted for the following;

POPE SEES WHERE IT ALL DIDN'T HAPPEN

Pope Benedict today visited the historical sites of the made-up stories that form the basis of his crazy,voodoo religion.

The Pope visited Jerusalem,Nazareth and Bethleham to pray at the sites of the ancient legends that he continues to insist are real in an elaborate, but ultimately futile attempt to stop people having sex whenever they feel like it.

His itinerary included the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, built on the exact spot where nothing happened around the time of the already well-established winter solstice, 2000 years ago.

The Pontiff then travelled on to the Sea of Galilee in Nazerath where absolutely no-one has ever walked on water, before continuing on to Cana where there may well have been a wedding at some point, but certainly it was not attended by a charismatic teacher named Jesus and the guests drank.... well whatever happened to be available at the time.

Pope Benedict then arrived in Jerusalem where he visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the historic scene of nothing, now controlled by four different Christian denominations each with a slightly different opinion about various things that never happened.

The Pope completed his visit by blessing the Jewish people, none of whom actually believe Jesus ever existed but have decided not to point that out in case the Pope gets out his old Hitler Youth costume and it all kicks off again.

Pope Benedict's visit to the Holy Land has had a special significance for Christians all over the world, mainly because he is an old man who has read the Bible frombeginning to end while wearing a big shiny hat.

Historian Dr Cary Leincar said: "You see,the thing about the Bible is, It's just a book and just because something is in a book, it dosen't actually mean that it's real. Please tell me you understand that.

Which comes first for me? Hell or prison.

The Mad Hatter

leincar wrote: »

If this law comes to pass, I take it I could be prosecuted for the following;

<snip>

Yes, but why you're quoting a long article from a spoof newspaper in a discussion forum is a bit mystifying...