Proposed Blasphemy Law

Sleazus

imokyrok wrote: »

They won't suceed but in that won't prevent them causing needless suffering to free minded individuals in the meantime. Check out discussion of the topic on politics.ie for an indication of what one such group claims it intends.

I had a quick browse, but couldn't find anything. Would it by okay to post a link (if we can't link directly to another board or something, that's okay - I'm just not sure)?

And, I feel like I'm justifying the law (I'm not - it's a disgrace, I just don't think it will be so "real" a threat to free speech in practice), but I'm fairly sure that prosecuting an offense is a responsibility that lies with the Director of Public Prosecutions. So, lobby these groups might, but the office isn't going to take on a borderline or fringe case. It's quite similar to how families might get upset if the office doesn't pursue particular drivers in accidents that cost lives.

I'd have to review the legislation, but I don't think that blasphemy would be a privately-enforceable affair (like defamation, which is a tort, and creates a right that can be enforced by a person against a person). From reading about the law, it seems it would create a right that can only be enforced by the state against a person.

Again, not to justify the law. It is offensive and outdated, but I somehow doubt we'll magically find ourselves back in the good old days of "Rome rule", though everyone else will think we are.

Dades

Sleazus wrote: »

Again, not to justify the law. It is offensive and outdated, but I somehow doubt we'll magically find ourselves back in the good old days of "Rome rule", though everyone else will think we are.

Completely agree. In fact this is something I've mentioned up a couple of times in this thread.

ShooterSF

The thing is if I type "God doesn't exist" after this law comes into effect I am surely breaking it. It is clearly going to offend multitudes of religious people and while I could argue it was not my intention isn't it enough that I knew it would cause outrage to cover the intent issue.

From wiki (I know!)

The policy issue for those who administer the criminal justice system is that, when planning their actions, people may be aware of many probable and possible consequences. Obviously, all of these consequences could be prevented through the simple expedient either of ceasing the given activity or of taking action rather than refraining from action. So the decision to continue with the current plan means that all the foreseen consequences are to some extent intentional, i.e. within and not against the scope of each person's intention. But, is the test of culpability based on purely a subjective measure of what is in a person's mind, or does a court measure the degree of fault by using objective tools?

philologos

ShooterSF: It isn't clearly. It depends on how widely it is published I would assume. I could only imagine that it would legislate against things like the Muhammad cartoons incident in 2006. I don't agree with it but I think people are reading too much into what it's de facto effect will be on Irish law.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I could only imagine that it would legislate against things like the Muhammad cartoons incident in 2006

I sincerely hope it doesn't. Things like that should be encouraged as an expression of free speech, not made illegal in case we offend their imaginary friend

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

I could only imagine that it would legislate against things like the Muhammad cartoons incident in 2006.

Honestly ... what the hell was so bad about that cartoon that it was worth the lives in innocent people completely unconnected to the piece and the right to free expression of criticism and dissent against established religions?

Ok, it wasn't funny but neither is Alan Carr.

ShooterSF

I agree at the level that I really doubt I'd be prosecuted for it. It'd be probably as likely as being arrested for watching a backed-up dvd. But by the letter of the law from the wording I've read and taking oblique intent into the equation I would say that it would be technically illegal. Nowhere does the law state a required magnitude other than that the statement would offend a large section of a religion. To that point if a religious sect consisting of only 3 people all found my comment and were offended I would be in trouble from a legal point as far as I can see.

Sleazus

ShooterSF wrote: »

To that point if a religious sect consisting of only 3 people all found my comment and were offended I would be in trouble from a legal point as far as I can see.

I get the impression that the law isn't directly enforceable person-to-person, in the same way that a tort would.

For example, if I hit you, you can both sue me for the tort of battery (and maybe assault - which has an odd legal meaning in this context, as it means putting fear in you that I would beat you, battery is the damage itself) and the state can also lock me up for assault. Even if the DPP decides that I'm not worth the time it would take to prosecute me or any other pragmatic reason they might have not to pursue me, you can still sue me directly for money and damages. As blasphemy is an offense, the State is the only one that can prosecute me. The DPP would ultimately decide which cases to pursue.

Of course, there's no way to know, and there will be questions of locus standi undoubtedly raised, but that's the way I'm reading it at the moment.

As far as I can see, as many others have pointed out, the goal would be to keep public order in cases like the Mohammed cartoons incident. Which is a very Irish thing to do, at least legally. And a lot more understandable, if still an offensive restriction on free speech. I can see no reason why we'd want to publish something so openly offensive, but I wouldn't criminalise it either. I'd like to know that people could say it, even if I'd hope they'd be polite enough not to.

What's odd is that I imagine the government could calm a lot of people if they made it explicitly clear that was what they were trying to do. Of course, if they seem like they're placating Islamic belief, all hell could break loose (I'm disappointed to say).

ShooterSF

Sleazus wrote: »

I get the impression that the law isn't directly enforceable person-to-person, in the same way that a tort would.

For example, if I hit you, you can both sue me for the tort of battery (and maybe assault - which has an odd legal meaning in this context, as it means putting fear in you that I would beat you, battery is the damage itself) and the state can also lock me up for assault. Even if the DPP decides that I'm not worth the time it would take to prosecute me or any other pragmatic reason they might have not to pursue me, you can still sue me directly for money and damages. As blasphemy is an offense, the State is the only one that can prosecute me. The DPP would ultimately decide which cases to pursue.

Of course, there's no way to know, and there will be questions of locus standi undoubtedly raised, but that's the way I'm reading it at the moment.

As far as I can see, as many others have pointed out, the goal would be to keep public order in cases like the Mohammed cartoons incident. Which is a very Irish thing to do, at least legally. And a lot more understandable, if still an offensive restriction on free speech. I can see no reason why we'd want to publish something so openly offensive, but I wouldn't criminalise it either. I'd like to know that people could say it, even if I'd hope they'd be polite enough not to.

What's odd is that I imagine the government could calm a lot of people if they made it explicitly clear that was what they were trying to do. Of course, if they seem like they're placating Islamic belief, all hell could break loose (I'm disappointed to say).

I agree that like a lot of laws in this country it's likely that it will not be enforced as often as it should, as in my example which by the letter of the law (should it come in) could be seen as an act of blasphemy.
And personally if they came out and claimed it was to prevent the Mohammed cartoon incident I'd still be outraged. No beliefs should be free of challenging.

Sleazus

ShooterSF wrote: »

And personally if they came out and claimed it was to prevent the Mohammed cartoon incident I'd still be outraged. No beliefs should be free of challenging.

I did say understandable, rather that stating that it would make it excusable.

imokyrok

ShooterSF wrote: »

I agree that like a lot of laws in this country it's likely that it will not be enforced as often as it should, as in my example which by the letter of the law (should it come in) could be seen as an act of blasphemy.
And personally if they came out and claimed it was to prevent the Mohammed cartoon incident I'd still be outraged. No beliefs should be free of challenging.

It is interesting that the only group that is supporting this legislation is MPAC ( Muslim Public Affairs Committee mpac.ie) . For those who are not familiar with this organisation they are a UK based extremist group who are attempting to "radicalize" muslim groups in this country. Their only support here appears to be the tiny Liam Egan cohort but they are very vocal and already have been boasting online about the cases they will take under this legislation. I doubt they could succeed but I find the possibility very sinister for it's potential impact on free speech.

ShooterSF

Sleazus wrote: »

I did say understandable, rather that stating that it would make it excusable.

Understandable as a motive yes but nothing else. It would be as understandable as him saying he's doing it cause he hates athiests (I'm not claiming that's the case).
All we would have is a clearer understanding of his motive.

If that's what you meant that I guess I agree, not that it's really agreeable, rather a factual (hypothetical) statement.

Brain = sore

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

ShooterSF: It isn't clearly. It depends on how widely it is published I would assume. I could only imagine that it would legislate against things like the Muhammad cartoons incident in 2006. I don't agree with it but I think people are reading too much into what it's de facto effect will be on Irish law.

I really don't think we should criminally prosecute people for drawing comics, regardless of how absurdly reactionary Muslims are.

Dades

imokyrok wrote: »

It is interesting that the only group that is supporting this legislation is MPAC ( Muslim Public Affairs Committee mpac.ie)... they are very vocal and already have been boasting online about the cases they will take under this legislation.

Well unless one of their members gets made DPP or Minister for Justice, I really wouldn't worry what those idiots boast about.

And they can quote me on that when I'm in the dock.

Genghiz Cohen

Dades wrote: »

Well unless one of their members gets made DPP or Minister for Justice, I really wouldn't worry what those idiots boast about.

And they can quote me on that when I'm in the dock.

We'd bust ya out Dades, then we'd have an emergency A&A Beers.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

ShooterSF: It isn't clearly. It depends on how widely it is published I would assume. I could only imagine that it would legislate against things like the Muhammad cartoons incident in 2006. I don't agree with it but I think people are reading too much into what it's de facto effect will be on Irish law.

Where religon A winds up Religon B in this country, its not going to be 'muslim' inserted for either 99 times out of a 100.

imokyrok wrote:

about the cases they will take under this legislation..

'he', more than likely.

imokyrok

http://www.politics.ie/justice/70397-law-blasphemous-libel-amended.html

For todays speech from Ahern see the above link. A press Release from FG TD Charlie Flanagan in reply to Aherns attempt to justify his actions is also on the thread. It is excellent. He's been one of the better TD's on the issue.

Black Swan

If they pass laws like these, the next thing they will do is to outlaw humour?

The Mad Hatter

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

If they pass laws like these, the next thing they will do is to outlaw humour?

Humour's already illegal in Ireland. It's in the constitution, but it's only been brought to court once, and they figured out it's too hard to tell the difference between humour and politics.

Hivemind187

Ahern is truly the master of double-talking jibberish.

I have no choice ...

So I chose to ...

It would almost make me laugh if I hadnt seen his brand of politics up close and personal for the last 18 months.

adamd164

imokyrok wrote: »

Not sure if this has been posted yet so:

PUBLIC MEETING - BLASPHEMY IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME
VENUE: WYNN’S HOTEL, ABBEY STREET, DUBLIN
DATE: MONDAY 25th MAY TIME: 8-10pm

The Dublin meeting is the second of several to be held around the country, organised by Atheist Ireland, an advocacy group for an ethical and secular Ireland. Speakers will include:
Michael Nugent, chair of Atheist Ireland and co-author of the play I Keano
Ian O’Doherty, columnist with Independent newspapers
Other speakers to be confirmed.
Local politicians will be invited.

http://blasphemy.ie/

Dick Spicer, who chairs the HAI, has also been confirmed for this.

Atheist Ireland are organising a similar meeting in Waterford tomorrow (some of the speakers will be different, but same topics) and there will be one in Cork on June 3rd for anyone in those parts. Galway date tbd I think. See http://www.atheist.ie

ceret

One of Ahern's defences is that we'd have to have a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy, and that a referendum now would be bad use of public funds. It's my understanding that the government wants to have another referendum on the Lisbon treaty. So why not just have 2 referendums on the same day? It's been done before.

imokyrok

ceret wrote: »

One of Ahern's defences is that we'd have to have a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy, and that a referendum now would be bad use of public funds. It's my understanding that the government wants to have another referendum on the Lisbon treaty. So why not just have 2 referendums on the same day? It's been done before.

I was told it was because the lisbon treaty is so complicated that it would be a bad idea to complicate matters further with another referendum. It doesn't wash though because whatever about the Lisbon Treaty a referendum on blasphemy would be pretty straightforward. The number of people advocating for it is miniscule.

Hivemind187

ceret wrote: »

One of Ahern's defences is that we'd have to have a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy, and that a referendum now would be bad use of public funds. It's my understanding that the government wants to have another referendum on the Lisbon treaty. So why not just have 2 referendums on the same day? It's been done before.

That would certainly be preferable and more in keeping with his "As a republican I would prefer the separation of church and state".

adamd164

Someone on here suggested, I think pretty plausibly, that they're afraid of pissing off the religious right or having them associate Lisbon with secularism, which could endanger the chances of it being passed.

Whole thing is a mess.

Sam Vimes

Ahern is quoted as saying "It does show that when you scratch the surface, there is an incredible intolerance among pseudo-liberals in this country"

We don't want a law making it illegal to offend one specific group of people and that makes us intolerant

The only thing we're intolerant of is intolerance

getz

i still [even more now] believe this blastphemy law has been introduced ,because the irish goverment knew that the child abuse report,would cause serious problems for the catholic church-the idea if people start saying anti/catholic statements we can take action under the blastphamy act-and we all now know by now,that the church has the goverment under its control-by its passed record

adamd164

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ahern is quoted as saying "It does show that when you scratch the surface, there is an incredible intolerance among pseudo-liberals in this country"

We don't want a law making it illegal to offend one specific group of people and that makes us intolerant

The only thing we're intolerant of is intolerance

I'd say Ahern is the one with the pea-sized brain personally.:rolleyes:

ShooterSF

ceret wrote: »

One of Ahern's defences is that we'd have to have a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy, and that a referendum now would be bad use of public funds. It's my understanding that the government wants to have another referendum on the Lisbon treaty. So why not just have 2 referendums on the same day? It's been done before.

imokyrok wrote: »

I was told it was because the lisbon treaty is so complicated that it would be a bad idea to complicate matters further with another referendum. It doesn't wash though because whatever about the Lisbon Treaty a referendum on blasphemy would be pretty straightforward. The number of people advocating for it is miniscule.

Well we already had a referendum on Lisbon not so long ago. I don't remember the last one on blasphemy. Let's have a referendum on which referendum we want

adamd164

If Ahern's own shambolic party hadn't made a complete balls of Lisbon 1 then this wouldn't be in the way now either.