Proposed Blasphemy Law

Nodin

Dades wrote: »

I think we're all agreed that in principle this is wrong, but I'm yet to be convinced that having such legislation on our books poses an actual threat to free speech.

It's the threat thats the threat.

If this site had a post with what someone considered "blasphemous" material, and the matter was taken to the Gardai, they might say 'just take it down and we'll leave it at that'. Now the choice is between saying no and risking court, lawyers fees and a possible guilty verdict with 100,000 Euro on top of it and just bowing down.....

rbrbrb

BEHEAD THOSE WHO TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM TO CRITICISE RELIGION!!!!

Trojan

CrazyStraighty wrote: »

If this is passed, I will be checking how may members of the Church of
the Flying Spaghetti Monster are based in Ireland. I will then insult
them at every opportunity until a case is brought in front of an Irish
court and then I will to have the state argue that I should be fined
for not believing in the sanctity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's
noodly appendage.

http://twitter.com/AMcDermott/statuses/1651110531

Let's get it on

pH

I'd like to know how many people think that Fitna was created with the 'intent' to cause outrage, and would a showing here in Ireland merit a prosecution under the new law?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7319188.stm

What about the infamous Passion of the Christ scene overdubbed with Benny Hill music (search youtube) that the mods won't allow us to post here, has that any artistic merit, is its intent solely to outrage and insult?

The other question I have is does the location and audience matter. Take the C4 investigation into mosques a couple of years back, let's say there's a radical Iman in Dublin saying very offensive things about Jews and non Muslims, but, and here's the important bit, it's only intended for the audience in the mosque, ie it's hate and offensive speech but not to its intended audience, would that be fine or prosecutable under this legislation? Now let's say someone records this speech and broadcasts it, now it offends people in the wider audience, who's liable now for prosecution?

eightyfish

Large selection of letters (including mine) published in the Irish Times today:

link

Ciaran500

Dades wrote: »

but I'm yet to be convinced that having such legislation on our books poses an actual threat to free speech.

Imagine a "religion" like scientology using these laws and its easy to see the threat.

The Mad Hatter

eightyfish wrote: »

Large selection of letters (including mine) published in the Irish Times today:

link

And mine. First on the page - oh dear.

Flamed Diving

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Imagine a "religion" like scientology using these laws and its easy to see the threat.

Is that religion officially recognised by the Institute of Recognology in Geneva?

Dades

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Imagine a "religion" like scientology using these laws and its easy to see the threat.

Technically I see the threat. But in reality I don't believe anyone will ever get as far as convincing the authorities to press charges. I don't believe they have any inclination get involved in such a can of worms.

Don't make it right, just less cause for hysterics.

Yoda

Someone suggested to me that the noise this will make is just to get the attention focussed on Ahern as the next leader of Fianna Fáil.

Gambler

Just got this email from Jim Walsh:

Thank you for your email.

A press release explaining and clarifying this matter is in your newspaper today. I hope it will relieve you of your concerns.

Rath Dé ort.


JIM WALSH

I'm all about the interwebs so does anyone know which newspaper this press release is in?

5uspect

Here it is:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0501/1224245748066.html

If the purpose of this law is simply to prop up an expensive absurdity in the constitution I don't understand the need for a €100,000 fine.
Why not make it a token €1?

Can't we just have an early general election with the referendum?

The Mad Hatter

Yoda wrote: »

Someone suggested to me that the noise this will make is just to get the attention focussed on Ahern as the next leader of Fianna Fáil.

'th any luck it'll win him the seat but cost him the election.

The Mad Hatter

5uspect wrote: »

Here it is:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0501/1224245748066.html

If the purpose of this law is simply to prop up an expensive absurdity in the constitution I don't understand the need for a €100,000 fine.
Why not make it a token €1?

Can't we just have an early general election with the referendum?

Government needs the money?

faceman

it makes more sense now. I dont fancy the tax payer having to fork out for a referendum to update the constitution.

Flamed Diving

Well, it is a maximum €100k fine, not mandatory.

I don't like the notion of blasphemy being in our constitution, though. It's so draconian, its quite frankly an embarrassment to our nation.

Gambler

5uspect wrote: »

Here it is:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0501/1224245748066.html

If the purpose of this law is simply to prop up an expensive absurdity in the constitution I don't understand the need for a €100,000 fine.
Why not make it a token €1?

Can't we just have an early general election with the referendum?

To be fair to him he does have a point that choosing to make certain parts of the constitution irrelevant with petty punishments is a dangerous precedent to set.

However I also feel that the fact that blasphemy is enshrined in the constitution is no excuse. When something in the constitution is so obviously disconnected from modern life then it needs to be removed, not ignored.

Goduznt Xzst

I must admit my ignorance here in regards to the '61 Defamation Act. So Ahern really isn't trying to change anything for the worse, in fact he's trying to make it less likely that an individual can be convicted for blasphemous libel by removing the possibility of prison sentences and private prosecutions for blasphemy

He also wants to append to it:

"and, crucially, that there be an intent to cause such outrage. Such intent was not previously required."

I had not realized our constitution was this archaic. It's still part of our constitution that someone can go to prison for blasphemy without the requirement that the person meant to cause outrage. We should be supporting Ahern tbh.

eightyfish

5uspect wrote: »

Here it is:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0501/1224245748066.html

If the purpose of this law is simply to prop up an expensive absurdity in the constitution I don't understand the need for a €100,000 fine.
Why not make it a token €1?

I just read this opinion piece on my coffee break and thought exactly the same thing. €100,000 for causing offence the whole reason why this thing is madness.

Flamed Diving

We hereby fine you €100,000 for hurting someones feelings.

Case closed.

:rolleyes:

DapperGent

The man makes some good points, fine's still too high but not by that much.

Trojan

faceman wrote: »

it makes more sense now. I dont fancy the tax payer having to fork out for a referendum to update the constitution.

Surely it's got to be on our next referendum (GE or Lisbon 2)

Goduznt Xzst

DapperGent wrote: »

fine's still too high but not by that much.

Higher than losing 7 years of your life in prison?

Gambler

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I must admit my ignorance here in regards to the '61 Defamation Act. So Ahern really isn't trying to change anything for the worse, in fact he's trying to make it less likely that an individual can be convicted for blasphemous libel by removing the possibility of prison sentences and private prosecutions for blasphemy

He also wants to append to it:

"and, crucially, that there be an intent to cause such outrage. Such intent was not previously required."

I had not realized our constitution was this archaic. It's still part of our constitution that someone can go to prison for blasphemy without the requirement that the person meant to cause outrage. We should be supporting Ahern tbh.

I agree that what he is proposing is better than the current situation, but it's still re-enforcing a principal that is basically wrong. Just because he's making a bad situation "less bad" doesn't mean it's a good law to have on the books or provision to have in the constitution..

DapperGent

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Higher than losing 7 years of your life in prison?

What?

Gambler

DapperGent wrote: »

What?

Taken from http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0501/1224245748066.html

THE 1961 Defamation Act provides that a person can be both fined and imprisoned for a maximum of seven years for the crime of blasphemous libel. The Government is moving to reform that Act, while respecting our Constitution, which requires that blasphemy must be punishable by law.

My intention is to remove the possibility of prison sentences and private prosecutions for blasphemy, currently provided for in Irish law. The only credible alternative to this move is a blasphemy referendum which I consider, in the current circumstances, a costly and unwarranted diversion.

Gambler

While I think of it could this not be put to the people as part of whatever the next referendum is?

Goduznt Xzst

DapperGent wrote: »

What?

Did you read the article linked from the Irish Times?

Gambler wrote: »

but it's still re-enforcing a principal that is basically wrong.

He's not though. He's changing it as much as possible but still keeping it constitutional so that it does not require an expensive referendum (and the way Ireland votes, I wouldn't even be entirely confident a referendum would guarantee its removal)

As it stands at the moment, you can be sentenced to a maximum of 7 years in prison for blasphemous material that has outraged a lot of people, but that you did not produce with the intent of outraging anyone. The way it is at the moment is a lot more dangerous than the changes Ahern is proposing.

The Mad Hatter

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

He's not though. He's changing it as much as possible but still keeping it constitutional so that it does not require an expensive referendum (and the way Ireland votes, I wouldn't even be entirely confident a referendum would guarantee its removal)

Well, even on Liveline you only had a couple of people calling in to say that they were in support of the bill. Hell, even John Waters thinks it's a bad idea (though his article does ramble and make little sense).

As it stands at the moment, you can be sentenced to a maximum of 7 years in prison for blasphemous material that has outraged a lot of people, but that you did not produce with the intent of outraging anyone. The way it is at the moment is a lot more dangerous than the changes Ahern is proposing.

Yes, but the law is so vague as to not allow for convictions.

DapperGent

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Did you read the article linked from the Irish Times?

Yes. I don't understand how the 1961 legislation affects my opinion that the provision for a €100,000 in the proposed legislation is too high.