Proposed Blasphemy Law

robindch

Gambler wrote: »

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

Lisbon II, later this year.

If what he's saying is right, then it's not immediately clear why he just doesn't put the blasphemy nonsense to a referendum at the same time.

Though given the kind of religious bedmate that Declan Ganley has recently acquired in his ongoing search for groups that might provide him with political support, it's possible that Ahern is worried that any referendum on the topic might hand Ganley a nailed, religious stick to beat him with.

Goduznt Xzst

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

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

Yeah I know, I'm just in agreement with Ahern that the law should be made even more vague by appending the requirement to prove a person meant to cause outrage. It's a wart on the constitution, no doubt about it, and it's probably just an attempt by Ahern to raise his profile, but still, I'd rather in the worst possible scenario currently that someone received a fine for blasphemy then had to serve jail time for it.

DapperGent

A referendum is clearly the best way to go but I'd be petrified it would be lost. How much does a referendum cost the state? Given that it would be held on a day already slated for a plebiscite?

Gambler

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)

I agree that it may not necessarily be removed by a referendum but the point is that we should be given the choice. Also as someone posted in the politics forum:

lostexpectation wrote: »

dermot ahern said a referndum would be costly and unwarrented distraction, wow, he really does respect constitutional law, since when were referendums ever to be judged on cost ? and not at a far more serious level.

The question that I (and I believe a lot of other people here) have is should the constitution have a provision specifically outlawing the criticism of religion.

Maybe if the law specified that blasphemy had to be something that is said that can be categorically proven to be untrue like libel then it would be something we wouldn't have issue with but that isn't the case here.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

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 new law refers to something that is considered "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion". The grossly abusive could and should be covered under some sort of hate crimes legislation.

The part that really bugs me is the grossly insulting part, who decides what is considered insulting? How do you deal with a situation where I post something like "If there is a god then in my opinion he's a complete b*****d for what he does to people day in and day out around the world. Oh and if you ask me he must be a racist too because he's killing of the non-whites much faster than he's killing off the whites." in the A&A forum? That could be considered grossly insulting to anyone who holds a sacred belief that god is a loving and caring entity that wants nothing but the best for us.

Does boards have a requirement to remove that because if someone takes offence to it then they can be sued and end up having to pay 100K to someone?

Just because a law is better than the current situation doesn't make it a good thing or mean that the constitutional provision shouldn't be challenged or put to a vote.

The Mad Hatter

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yeah I know, I'm just in agreement with Ahern that the law should be made even more vague by appending the requirement to prove a person meant to cause outrage. It's a wart on the constitution, no doubt about it, and it's probably just an attempt by Ahern to raise his profile, but still, I'd rather in the worst possible scenario currently that someone received a fine for blasphemy then had to serve jail time for it.

Is he making it more vague, though? Seems he's trying to make an actionable definition of it (though, granted, the idea of blasphemy itself is so vague anyhow that it can't get much more specific than it is).

I think it could be argued that, say The Life of Brian or The God Delusion intended to cause offence. Not solely, of course, but partly.

5uspect

He does make good points. Clearly the constitution needs correction.
A sticky plaster law should not have such dramatic consequences tho.

Gambler

robindch wrote: »

Lisbon II, later this year.

If what he's saying is right, then it's not immediately clear why he just doesn't put the blasphemy nonsense to a referendum at the same time.

Though given the kind of religious bedmate that Declan Ganley has recently acquired in his ongoing search for groups that might provide him with political support, it's possible that Ahern is worried that any referendum on the topic might hand Ganley a nailed, religious stick to beat him with.

Hehe I think Declan might get a surprise if he tried that given the thoughts of the christians here on the issue: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055551680

Sparks

Feck's sake. Yay, it's all okay now because it's better than the 1961 act's provisions?

No. It isn't okay. The correct way to handle concerns over the 1961 act's provisions is to repeal them. Not to fine-tune the crime of blasphemy! And if anyone thinks that €100,000 being less of a deterrent than a possible maximum of seven years, they're not understanding the term 'deterrent' correctly.

Goduznt Xzst

Sparks wrote: »

if anyone thinks that a possible maximum of €100,000 being less of a deterrent than a possible maximum of seven years, they're not understanding the term 'deterrent' correctly.

FYP

Yes, I think we are all in agreement that it needs to be repealed, there should be no deterrent at all. My point is that what Ahern is doing is not a bad thing, it's not necessarily the best thing either. If Ahern had stated that he wanted a referendum to remove this blasphemy law from the defamation act I guarantee there would be outrage at the proposal for such an expense to remove a law that, for all intents and purposes, will probably never get used again.

If its removal gets tacked on to the Lisbon II referendum then that would be the best possible solution. But, as I said, I would not put all my confidence in such a referendum passing in favor of this law being removed. In such a situation, the law should still be reduced in impact to the point that if it does not get removed there is a much greater chance that it can never be used, and even if the criteria is met the worst possible outcome is a fine.

Sparks

Well, there's the issue of should the Lisbon 2 referendum even happen in the first place to consider - saying the best approach is to tack something onto it, that's a kinky little sidestep of the question of should we run it in the first place

That said, I don't see the issue with running the referendum on the removal of blasphemy from the constitution on the same day as the elections this year. It's just another slip of paper, the biggest cost is in the pay for the folks doing the actual election staffing, no?

Stercus Accidit

Does the part of the constitution that mentions blasphemy not also mention that it should be dealt with in accordance with the current laws?

In that case, surely removing the law does not affect the constitution, as it would be punished in accordance with the current laws, ie, not at all.

I believe the constitution is worded in such a way that the crime of blasphemy is on a sliding scale of importance with the law at the time, by intent or not, this means it is subject to the current law, and it is that law that should be removed.

faceman

Trojan wrote: »

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

Thats what I would expect anyway. As a tax payer, i wouldnt support it getting its own referendum alone.

The Mad Hatter

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Does the part of the constitution that mentions blasphemy not also mention that it should be dealt with in accordance with the current laws?

In that case, surely removing the law does not affect the constitution, as it would be punished in accordance with the current laws, ie, not at all.

I believe the constitution is worded in such a way that the crime of blasphemy is on a sliding scale of importance with the law at the time, by intent or not, this means it is subject to the current law, and it is that law that should be removed.

Hm...doubt it'd be that easy tbh.

Sparks

faceman wrote: »

Thats what I would expect anyway. As a tax payer, i wouldnt support it getting its own referendum alone.

How much does it cost to run a referendum, if it's run in concert with an election?

Zamboni

I read Dermot's piece and to be honest I thought cop out.

No matter what way you look at this or the reasons behind it (improving the previous Defamation Bill, Constitutional requirements) it still give the religious the right to be offended, the means in which to complain about said offence and the means for the State to punish by fine.

Either way, we and free speech are on the losing side here.

Zamboni

By the by, even if the massive cost of a referendum was put paid and it was held do you think we'd even win??? :pac:

No chance!

The Mad Hatter

Zamboni wrote: »

By the by, even if the massive cost of a referendum was put paid and it was held do you think we'd even win??? :pac:

No chance!

No-one seems to support it, though. The only people I've heard defending it were a couple of callers to liveline (three, to be specific) and Ahern himself.

GhostInTheRuins

Zamboni wrote: »

By the by, even if the massive cost of a referendum was put paid and it was held do you think we'd even win??? :pac:

No chance!

If people bothered to vote on it, then yes definitely. If it's only old grannys that vote then probably not.

imokyrok

I've noticed that our media haven't given this half as much attention as I would expect. There's much comment in media and blogs all around the world on how astonished they are at a modern democracy taking such a retrograde step and very little here. I'm very suspicious. Someone suggested that the media have a quid pro quo arrangement to make sure this defamation bill doesn't make life too difficult for them. Indeed the civil law division of the Dept of Justice told me that this has all been in the public domain since 2007 and she didn't understand why people were only objecting now when it's nearly too late. I certainly didn't hear about it in 2007 and haven't found any links to articles on it that predate this week.

It's getting a lot of attention on p.ie if anyone is intersested:
http://www.politics.ie/justice/64231...ee-speech.html

argolis

Sent emails to Ahern and all members of the Select Committee :mad:

I don't understand how he can say it's too expensive to put it to referendum even though it's agreed to be the correct course of action. Surely if there's all-party agreement (and there seems to be) it would sail through. How much can it cost to add another ballot paper or whatever to Lisbon II?

Zillah

Recession/unemployment figures distraction successful.

lol blasphemy law.

Ahern: Hey guys, we need to stir up some shit for a while. Who is almost as reactionary as the Muslims but not as dangerous?
Biffo: Why, militant atheists of course!

Yoda wrote: »

Can you possibly be serious?

All I can think of now is Andre Agassi.

DapperGent

John McEnroe

The Mad Hatter

Zillah wrote: »

Ahern: Hey guys, we need to stir up some shit for a while. Who is almost as reactionary as the Muslims but not as dangerous?
Biffo: Why, militant atheists of course!

Y'know, that gives me an idea - I'm gonna write a book.

The Ahern Delusion.

STBR

Right, not sure on this.

Has it been passed?

I was told it was passed but I looked it up online and couldn't find anything stating that is has.

Would really appreciate confirmation on this.

And if not, have they gone against it? Or have they decided yet?

murrayp4

The "constitutional requirement" argument put forward by Ahern is bull. Capital punishment was provided for in the constitution until quite recently That provision did not necessitate the death penalty.

murrayp4

Anyway, here's my letter to "the man with the plan"

Dear Minister
It is with some alarm that I read in today’s Irish Times (29/04/2009) that your department is considering introducing a criminal offence of blasphemy onto our statute books.
While appearing in name to promote tolerance and social cohesion in the common good, the implementation of this concept will likely foster intolerance and may serve to justify restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms, a fortiori the enumerated albeit qualified right to freedom of expression laid out in our Bunreacht.
In a free-thinking and democratic society, as I would like to think we live in, it should be the right of a citizen to offend. It is not a necessary corollary of this right that a person who takes offence from what he has seen or heard should obtain personal rights because of his personally held outrage. The term outrage is necessarily subjective and will likely be determined by the severity of reaction from those who are offended, notwithstanding the reasonableness of that reaction.
The controversy over the ‘Danish cartoons’ serves to remind us of the perverse frame of mind that has emerged from heavy-handed political correctness. When asked about the controversy most public figures, including The Pope, condemned the cartoons and not those who had murdered in the name of religious ‘outrage’. This by any decent or moral person’s standard is a perverse point of view, but one which was accepted out of a wish to placate and appease.
Those who make religious claims should be allowed the freedom to do so, but a law which criminalises those who question these religious claims in a manner which some find offensive is at best draconian and at worst totalitarian.
I urge you to reconsider.
Mise le meas,

coffee_cake

Glad to see everyone agrees..
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/label-atheism-a-thought-crime-1726762.html

5uspect

Does he know what a thought crime is?

bnt

5uspect wrote: »

Does he know what a thought crime is?

More importantly, does he know that I'm committing one right now? Ooo-err!

More distressing news this morning: Ahern is tipped to take over the leadership of Fianna Fáil from Brian Cowen, meaning that he's likely to be the next Taoiseach. Great ...

eightyfish

From today's letters page:

For example, to support traditional marriage these days you run the risk of being labelled either homophobic or a religious bigot or worse.

"Supporting traditional marriage" = opposing gay people's right to also get married. This is homophobic, isn't it?

PS- Went to see Bohemians brilliantly hammer Dundalk 5-0 in Dailymount last night. The special guest for the evening? Dermot Ahern!