Proposed Blasphemy Law

Sam Vimes

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

It was on the radio early this morning (I think it was newstalk). A guy from atheist Ireland said they were planning to get a statement printed with the intention of causing as much offence to as many people as possible.

Yeah it was newtalk. They said their intention is to test the law as soon as possible by making a statement that could be considered offensive to as many religions as possible including one they started themselves called dermotology who worship Dermot Ahern.

He said they were having trouble coming up with a statement though because the law is so vague and is judged on what someone else might find offensive

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Are Atheist Ireland planning to try and breach the blasphemy laws or something? That's what's suggested in this thread, though I can't find an official word on it anywhere. Sounds like a very ill-advised idea if it was the case. Not the way to get believers on your side.

They've convened a Church of Dermotology, devoted to the proposition that Minister Dermot Ahern is a God, and the blasphemy statute is His Law. Facebook group here and more here.

Dades is right -- pointing and laughing is far better treatment for religion than taking it seriously. Unless the law is involved, of course...

Mena

Pointing and laughing gets nobody anywhere though. I full support this test of the law they will be attempting.

Also, I deny the existence of Dermot Ahern, he is a sham! Down with Dermatology!

Sam Vimes

Mena wrote: »

Pointing and laughing gets nobody anywhere though. I full support this test of the law they will be attempting.

Also, I deny the existence of Dermot Ahern, he is a sham! Down with Dermatology!

What's your problem with branch of medicine dealing with the skin and its diseases?

The religion is Dermotology :P

eightyfish

GhostInTheRuins, Sam Vimes; thanks, missed that. Was is Michael Nugent?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He said they were having trouble coming up with a statement though because the law is so vague and is judged on what someone else might find offensive

All they have to do is draw a few cartoons.

Sam Vimes

eightyfish wrote: »

All they have to do is draw a few cartoons.

They said that too

They'll be drawing cartoons depicting Dermo

Mena

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What's your problem with branch of medicine dealing with the skin and its diseases?

The religion is Dermotology :P

I was wondering why my skin was crawling!!

Sam Vimes

eightyfish wrote: »

Was is Michael Nugent?

Yes it was

We

Could this be considered as restricting our freedom of speech?

And if so, is this the first of its kind or have we other laws in place which try and stop defemation on a similar level?


Just trying to get a feeling for how rediculous a law this is, besides the obvious reasons

Mark Hamill

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah it was newtalk. They said their intention is to test the law as soon as possible by making a statement that could be considered offensive to as many religions as possible including one they started themselves called dermotology who worship Dermot Ahern.

He said they were having trouble coming up with a statement though because the law is so vague and is judged on what someone else might find offensive

I think they would be better off just suing every religion on behalf of every other religion. Just wheel out some piece of doctrine for each religion that would insult any other (wouldn't be too hard to find) and start calling witness from everywhere. Very quickly show what a sham the whole notion of blasphemy is.

lostexpectation

Dades wrote: »

Are Atheist Ireland planning to try and breach the blasphemy laws or something?

That's what's suggested in this thread, though I can't find an official word on it anywhere. Sounds like a very ill-advised idea if it was the case. Not the way to get believers on your side.

how would you suggest challenging the bill along with believers?

i think a lot most believers would see it as ridiculing of the bill rather then of their god, they'd not see it as as an issue of faith but law and politics.

if it ever got to court you'd not discussing god but whether deliberate outrage was provoked in believers.

Dades

Probably better off reserving judgment to see what exactly they intend doing to get themselves prosecuted.

Though the law (bill) is so vague that is going to have to be something quite specifically nasty. Something humourous and/or tame isn't going to spur the DPP into action.

ChocolateSauce

I wonder will someone in UCD who gets inevitably offended by our humanist society (and me in particular ) bring charges against us (or me)?

Scary thought. Good thing I'm stubborn.

Hivemind187

Dades wrote: »

Probably better off reserving judgment to see what exactly they intend doing to get themselves prosecuted.

Though the law (bill) is so vague that is going to have to be something quite specifically nasty. Something humourous and/or tame isn't going to spur the DPP into action.

Depends on who in the DPP is reviewing the instance.

Mohammad cartoons for example? Jesus and Mohammad web comics would be deeply offensive to muslims (not being allowed to create an image of the chief-beard).

Hypothetically.

You are an outspoken critic of religion at a college in Dublin. You reproduce a series of "Mohammad and Jesus" cartoons and display them in your car, on a t-shirt or pin them to a board somewhere or even include them in a public display of art or design. Producing an image of big Mo is a serious no-no to begin with. By virtue of being an outspoken critic/member of the AI/Humanist etc you could be construed to be deliberately trying to offend rather than trying to enlighten etc.

Theoretically, if some cranky zealot were to become offended by viewing these images and were to make a complaint it is conceivable (depending on the interpretation of the law and personal, emotional stance of the individual receiving said complain) that you could find your bedroom door being kicked in by the Gardai confiscating all of your papers, pc's etc.

What worries me is that this means that An Garda Siochana (who are not my favorite mob of quasi-militias at the best of times) could be used as religious police. This is what such measures in law amount to.

The trouble with vague laws is that it allows the authorities far too much leeway in the interpretation and implementation. Moreover, Ireland has a particularly bad track record of creating additional "patch" legislation to tie up bits and pieces the original legislation doesnt cover rather than scrapping something as a bad idea in the first place.

The minister, from the reading of his public statements, has a poor grip on reality and an even more tenuous grip on the concept of justice. Something that may or may not be a suprise since he is educated as a solicitor.

drkpower

Hivemind187 wrote: »

You are an outspoken critic of religion at a college in Dublin. You reproduce a series of "Mohammad and Jesus" cartoons and display them in your car, on a t-shirt or pin them to a board somewhere or even include them in a public display of art or design. Producing an image of big Mo is a serious no-no to begin with. By virtue of being an outspoken critic/member of the AI/Humanist etc you could be construed to be deliberately trying to offend rather than trying to enlighten etc.

Theoretically, if some cranky zealot were to become offended by viewing these images and were to make a complaint it is conceivable (depending on the interpretation of the law and personal, emotional stance of the individual receiving said complain) that you could find your bedroom door being kicked in by the Gardai confiscating all of your papers, pc's etc.

Why does everybody post on this topic without realising what the ingredients of the offence are....

Outrage has to be actually caused in a substantial number of adherents of a religon and the Defendant has to intend that outrage. Neither exist in your example.

Skrynesaver

In fairness I think it's clear that the Jesus and Mo site is intended to be offensive to religion, not nesecarily to the historical figures, just to the half wits who have made prophets/godheads of them

Hivemind187

drkpower wrote: »

Why does everybody post on this topic without realising what the ingredients of the offence are....

Outrage has to be actually caused in a substantial number of adherents of a religon and the Defendant has to intend that outrage. Neither exist in your example.

Numbers arent given for a value of "substantial".

Precise quotiants are not given for "outrage"

No method or parameters are included to deinfe "intent".

These three things mean that the law can be interpreted in such a way as to apply to individuals.

For example, is a pissed off imam a larger or smaller value for "substantial" than a half dozen parishoners?

Is two people offended? How do you discover the number offended? Do you run a poll?

The problem isnt with my analysis of the issue but the with potential for misuse and poor implementation of the new legislation. It is entirely plausible that a closet-zealot could abuse such legislation by assuming that "large or substantial numbers" of a particular sect had been offended. A religious leader could proselytize that a large number of his/her flock were offended etc etc etc.

My main issue with this is that it robs me of my right to be as offensive as I like without be persecuted by the government. Whatever about civil law, crimiinal law is not the placet o legislate on the behalf of imaginary creatures.

drkpower

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Numbers arent given for a value of "substantial".

Precise quotiants are not given for "outrage"

No method or parameters are included to deinfe "intent".

These three things mean that the law can be interpreted in such a way as to apply to individuals.

For example, is a pissed off imam a larger or smaller value for "substantial" than a half dozen parishoners?

Is two people offended? How do you discover the number offended? Do you run a poll?

The problem isnt with my analysis of the issue but the with potential for misuse and poor implementation of the new legislation. It is entirely plausible that a closet-zealot could abuse such legislation by assuming that "large or substantial numbers" of a particular sect had been offended. A religious leader could proselytize that a large number of his/her flock were offended etc etc etc.

My main issue with this is that it robs me of my right to be as offensive as I like without be persecuted by the government. Whatever about civil law, crimiinal law is not the placet o legislate on the behalf of imaginary creatures.

Of course, any law can be mis-implemented and interpreted but remember, this is a criminal statute. It will have to be strictly interpreted and, in the absence of a definition of outrage, it is likely to be interpreted narrowly. And it will have to be shown that you intended to actually cause outrage as opposed to just intending to cause offence.

Believe it or not, the last thing D Ahern wants or needs is a bunch of people being prosecuted for this offence. The DPP isnt stupid either. And, as I understand it, this will be a non-minor offence requiring a jury trial.

I dont like the law either but the chances of a prosecution being taken succesfully are very very slim.

On a side issue, the right to be as offensive as you like is a "right" which, if exercised regularly, will likely result in more of these type of laws being enacted by a Government. If you exercise a little restraint and respect, the type of people who press for these laws are less likely to feel threatened and are less likely to get a hearing from the powers that be. Perhaps have a think about that the next time you feel like exercising your "right to be offensive"

Skrynesaver

While the chances of a prosecution are slim this law needs to be publicly flouted in order to demonstrate its absurdity. If I am not free to publicly say that your sincerly held belief in your particular flavour of sky fairy is as valid a proof of the existence of such a being as an asylum inmates belief that the voices in their head are the revealed word of $DEITY then we no longer live in a secular republic, if however, as it has been introduced under defamation legislation, the law required $DEITY to initiate procedings I could live with it.

drkpower

Skrynesaver wrote: »

While the chances of a prosecution are slim this law needs to be publicly flouted in order to demonstrate its absurdity. If I am not free to publicly say that your sincerly held belief in your particular flavour of sky fairy is as valid a proof of the existence of such a being as an asylum inmates belief that the voices in their head are the revealed word of $DEITY then we no longer live in a secular republic, if however, as it has been introduced under defamation legislation, the law required $DEITY to initiate procedings I could live with it.

You were free to say that yesterday; you are still today; and you will be tomorrow.

Skrynesaver

So describing the Trinity as a Sky fairy and equating belief in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour" to that of a lunatic won't cause sufficient offense.

How about my freedom to say that if you beief in the Trinity Jesus was a mother rapist?
Would that outrage a suffcient number of the faithful.

Or that the Angelus is at its root a celebration of the rape of a 12 year old girl and as such explains much about the nature of the Catholic church?

At what point do you think blasphemy would kick in ?

drkpower

Skrynesaver wrote: »

So describing the Trinity as a Sky fairy and equating belief in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour" to that of a lunatic won't cause sufficient offense.

How about my freedom to say that if you beief in the Trinity Jesus was a mother rapist?
Would that outrage a suffcient number of the faithful.

Or that the Angelus is at its root a celebration of the rape of a 12 year old girl and as such explains much about the nature of the Catholic church?

At what point do you think blasphemy would kick in ?

Do you think a substantial number of Catholics would be "outraged" by that statement, not just offended, but outraged. Possibly, but unlikely.

Did you intend to outrage them, not just offend them, but outrage them?

Zillah

Wait, so with this Dermotology thing...are they going to sue themselves for their outrageous comments?

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

Wait, so with this Dermotology thing...are they going to sue themselves for their outrageous comments?

Only the DPP can take case.
It is a criminal offence; one private party cannot sue another.

Undergod

Dermotologists are pedos. Everything that dermotologists hold sacred is donkey balls.

Zillah

Undergod wrote: »

Dermotologists are pedos. Everything that dermotologists hold sacred is donkey balls.

As a newly awakened Demotologist I am outraged by your comment. All we need is one more and we have an argument to prosecute him.

Wait, did you intend offense?

robindch

Skrynesaver -

Skrynesaver wrote: »

it's clear that the Jesus and Mo site is intended to be offensive to [...] the half wits who have made prophets/godheads of them

Firstly, welcome to the A+A forum.

As you may not yet be fully familiar with forum etiquette hereabouts, please take a few minutes to read the long intro here, and a recent shorter one here. Specifically, do please avoid dismissing the members of one religious sect or another as "half-wits". Quite apart from its slightly offensive tone, religion as a whole is far, far more subtle than that, and benefits from a much more nuanced understanding of what's going on.

Anyhow, lecturing aside, I hope you enjoy the forum and continue to post here

Undergod

Zillah wrote: »

As a newly awakened Demotologist I am outraged by your comment. All we need is one more and we have an argument to prosecute him.

Wait, did you intend offense?

I too have joined the spiritual awakening, in preparation for the rapture. Can I outrage myself, you horrible little fellow bastard?

pts

Michael Nugent's Opinion piece in the Times "Blasphemy law is silly, dangerous and unjust"

OPINION: Instead of passing an anachronistic and medieval blasphemy law, we should be building a secular Ireland, writes MICHAEL NUGENT

WHY HAS Dermot Ahern, in 2009, made blasphemy a crime punishable by a fine of €25,000? When this anachronistic part of the now Defamation Act is signed into law (it passed through the Oireachtas last night but only on the casting vote of the chair of the Seanad), Atheist Ireland will quickly test it by publishing a blasphemous statement. People need protection from harm, but ideas and beliefs should always be open to challenge.

The new law is both silly and dangerous.

It is silly because it revives a medieval religious crime in a modern pluralist republic. And it is dangerous because it incentivises religious outrage, by making it the first

trigger for defining blasphemy.

The problematic behaviour here is the outrage, not the expression of different beliefs. Instead of incentivising outrage, we should be educating people to respond in a more healthy manner than outrage when somebody expresses a belief that they find insulting.

The law also discriminates against atheist citizens by protecting the fundamental beliefs of religious people only. Why should religious beliefs be protected by law in ways that scientific or political or other secular beliefs are not?

Here’s the background. The Constitution says that blasphemy is an offence that shall be punishable by law. That law currently resides in the 1961 Defamation Act. Because he was repealing this Act, Ahern said he had to pass a new blasphemy law to avoid leaving “a void”.

But this “void” was already there. In 1999, the Supreme Court found that the 1961 law was unenforceable because it did not define blasphemy. In effect, we have never had an enforceable blasphemy law under the 1937 Constitution.

After several retreats, Ahern claimed both that he had to propose this law in order to respect the Constitution, and also that he was amending it to “make it virtually impossible to get a successful prosecution”. How is that respecting the Constitution?

This type of “nod and wink” politics brings our laws, and our legislature, into disrepute. In practice, we cannot be certain how our courts will interpret unnecessary laws, as we discovered after the abortion referendum.

Also, the matter might be taken out of our hands. In 2005, the Greek courts found a book of cartoons to be blasphemous, and issued a European arrest warrant for the Austrian cartoonist who drew them. This can be done if the same crime exists in both jurisdictions.

Instead, we should remove the blasphemy reference from the Constitution by referendum. Many independent bodies have advised this, including the Council of Europe in a report last year co-written by the director general of the Irish Attorney General.

We could do this on October 2nd, the same day as the Lisbon referendum. It could be the first step towards gradually building an ethical and secular Ireland. We should be removing all of the 1930s religious references from

the Constitution, not legislating to enforce them.

The preamble to our Constitution states that all authority of the State comes from a specific god called the Most Holy Trinity. It also humbly acknowledges all of the obligations of the people of the State to a specific god called Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Up to a quarter of a million Irish atheists cannot become President or a judge unless they take a religious oath. These religious declarations are contrary to Ireland’s obligations under the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Constitution also states that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. This is much more than an assertion of the right of citizens to worship this god. It is an assertion of the right of this god to be publicly worshipped by citizens.

Our parliament recognises the rights of this god by praying to it every day. This prayer explicitly asks this god to direct the actions of our parliamentarians, so that their every word and work may always begin from and be happily ended by Christ Our Lord.

Atheist Ireland is an advocacy group that campaigns for an ethical and secular Ireland, where the State does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion. As well as a secular Constitution, we want to see a secular education system.

Most primary schools in the Republic of Ireland are privately run denominational schools with a religion-integrated curriculum. This denies most children access to a secular education. It also affects teachers who are not religious.

We are also launching a campaign encouraging people to read the Bible and other sacred books. Objectively reading the Bible is one of the strongest arguments for rejecting the idea of gods as intervening creators or moral guides.

We will be holding our first annual general meeting from 2pm to 5pm this Saturday, in Wynn’s Hotel in Dublin. Members of the public are invited, if you want to help our campaign to repeal the blasphemy law and to build an ethical and secular Ireland.

Michael Nugent was involved recently in setting up Atheist Ireland – www.atheist.ie

Hivemind187

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, any law can be mis-implemented and interpreted but remember, this is a criminal statute. It will have to be strictly interpreted and, in the absence of a definition of outrage, it is likely to be interpreted narrowly. And it will have to be shown that you intended to actually cause outrage as opposed to just intending to cause offence.

Sorry but the past history of these things says otherwise. Current behavior of the minister of justice and that of the department he runs suggests that it will be interpreted broadly.

This is in reference to both intent, outrage and offence, neither of which are constituted with any parameters allowing for any interpretation to be applied.

drkpower wrote: »

Believe it or not, the last thing D Ahern wants or needs is a bunch of people being prosecuted for this offence. The DPP isnt stupid either. And, as I understand it, this will be a non-minor offence requiring a jury trial.

Correction, minister Ahern doesnt care. Exactly when did you start believing the words of a man who has lied and contradicted himself repeatedly about this and every other piece of legislation he has tried to ram home?

Whether anyone is prosecuted by thuis legislation is irrelevant, the intention is to scare people into "being nice to the cuddly wuddly jihadi". A deterrant is useless without an example.

drkpower wrote: »

I dont like the law either but the chances of a prosecution being taken succesfully are very very slim.

Sucess of prosectuion was not my point. My point was that this kind of legislation (much like every other piece of legislation the minister has devised) is open to the wrost excesses of misapplication.

drkpower wrote: »

On a side issue, the right to be as offensive as you like is a "right" which, if exercised regularly, will likely result in more of these type of laws being enacted by a Government. If you exercise a little restraint and respect, the type of people who press for these laws are less likely to feel threatened and are less likely to get a hearing from the powers that be. Perhaps have a think about that the next time you feel like exercising your "right to be offensive"

Sorry but thats nothing more than apologetics. Its this kind of thinking that permits the erosion of peoples fundamental rights to free speach, free dessent, free assembly and the right to hold those in authority accountable.

If you take away peoples right to shout "Look look, the Emperor is bollock naked on Sackville Street!" then you are in serious trouble. The simple fact is that everyone finds something offensive, it is their choice wheter they are offended or not and frankly little more than their own personal issue. Just because a majority of people deem something to be offensive does not automatically make it so.

Slavery - the majority of those with power did not think this was offensive for a long time.

Homosexuality - the vast majority of people believed this to be offensive, so much so that it was actually criminal.

These days these are entirely reversed in their perceptions.

Slavery is now a criminal offence and is scorned throughout the world. Homosexuality now enjoys legal protections preventing persecution or discrimination based on it.

Interestingly, in a lot of these cases it was the act of "being offensive" that secured their positions. Middle class white america did not approve of black on tv or using the same water fountains etc, but through concerted effort that right was earned. Homosexuals were also "offensive" but took to the streets with the "pint of creme de menthe" protests which were intended to offend and outrage the classes that repressed them.

Being civil and "having restraint" is great for dinner parties but it does jack to progress civilisation.