Crime of blasphemous libel proposed for Defamation Bil

the_syco

A NEW crime of blasphemous libel is to be proposed by the Minister for Justice in an amendment to the Defamation Bill, which will be discussed by the Oireachtas committee on justice today

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern proposes to insert a new section into the Defamation Bill, stating: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000.”

And here was me thinking that church and state were seperate. Seemingly not. I wonder what will now happen to you if you wear a t-shirt saying "Jesus is a c***", when "c***" ryhmes with "month"? Is this one step towards a bible belt? I acknowlegde that this law looks like it's for all religons, but I can see a lot of stuff getting banned as it's "blasphemous" :mad:

wes

the_syco wrote: »

And here was me thinking that church and state were seperate.

Doesn't the Catholic church like control most of our schools? I think the seperation of church and state in this country has never happened completey. There are still links between the 2.

donaghs

wes wrote: »

Doesn't the Catholic church like control most of our schools? I think the seperation of church and state in this country has never happened completey. There are still links between the 2.

Blasphemy is nonsense. The amount of ways that various religions can claim offense would make it unworkable. It only works if applied to one religion, and that's hardly fair. The very existence of certain religions and sects is blasphemous in itself to others, so its all quite silly really.

The main reason the Catholic Church still controls most schools is that it would take a lot of effort and money by the government to bring them into State control. And this isn't going to happen any time soon. It suits the government to pass on this responsibilty.

wes

donaghs wrote: »

The main reason the Catholic Church still controls most schools is that it would take a lot of effort and money by the government to bring them into State control. And this isn't going to happen any time soon. It suits the government to pass on this responsibilty.

Its still means there is a link between the church and state, even if it is done out of sheer laziness.

El_MUERkO

hilarious stuff, hopefully people will rebel against it and the government will be embarrassed into scrapping it

I'm going to guess this'll be a no-no then

Sparks

Given that the non-religious are the second or third largest segment of the population when you look at religious demographics, are atheists going to be able to sue the state for broadcasting the angelus or schools for teaching religion under this new act?


And how long until 'Jedi' becomes an officially recognised religion here as well?

Raiser

Why can't people just keep their imaginary friends to their own fcuking selves?

LoveDucati2

Raiser wrote: »

Why can't people just keep their imaginary friends to their own fcuking selves?

FFS Religon is not real.

How can you make a law to protect a fictional delusion.

Orchard Rebel

The definition of blasphemy has always been so subjective that it is difficult to see how the State can come up with one to encompass a multi-ethnic multi-faith society.

If they do and it means I can no longer call Opus Dei a bunch of right-wing idiots, I'll be a bit disappointed though....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Professor_Fink

LoveDucati2 wrote: »

FFS Religon is not real.

How can you make a law to protect a fictional delusion.

No, religion is very real. It's deities that are fictional, not religions (with the possible exceptions of Jedis and Pastafarians).

Sleepy

Isn't it great that our government has the time to waste on such nonsense now that they've cleaned up our banks, tackled the bloated public service, found the money to pay for cervical cancer vaccines, re-built our delapidated schools and developed world class infrastructure?

Oh wait a second...

Sparks

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In accordance with which law? There wasn't a law to implement the blasphemous statement until this, so far as I know.

irish_bob

one can only suspect that this proposal coincides with the increase in this countrys muslim population

yet more fianna fail populism

Nodin

irish_bob wrote: »

one can only suspect that this proposal coincides with the increase in this countrys muslim population

One can do otherwise quite easily. Theres insufficient numbers of muslims here to be worth courting, even if they were pushed one way or another.

Sparks

irish_bob wrote: »

one can only suspect

Perfectly correct. One certainly can't prove it. Or even reasonably believe it, to be honest.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It offers the legal basis to do so - that's not the same thing as making it 'acceptable'.
Of course, it also gave us the legal basis to rule Northern Ireland, to give the Roman Catholic Church a 'special relationship' with the State, to prohibit divorce, to prohibit exit from the state by citizens (ie. women leaving for the purposes of obtaining an abortion), and a fair few other things that most right-thinking people don't find acceptable today.

JonathanAnon

This is such a non issue at the moment, I cannot believe that the government is wasting time with it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

tba

seriously? wtf? I'd really love to kick all these backward bastards in the baby makers.

The Raven.

I must say that I am absolutely shocked by this proposal :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:!!!!!

This is a gravely backward step. I don't know what this nutcase is thinking of. Where did this spring from? As if we haven't enough problems without this lunacy!

Last year the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of Fianna Fáil TD Seán Ardagh, recommended amending this Article to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafting the Article along the lines of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0429/1224245599892.html

So what happened there? I wasn't following that one.

How did it get from that to this?

Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may issue a warrant authorising the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary using reasonable force, a premises where the member of the force has reasonable grounds for believing there are copies of the blasphemous statements in order to seize them.

It just gets even more ridiculous :eek:!

Labour spokesman on justice Pat Rabbitte is proposing an amendment to this section which would reduce the maximum fine to €1,000 and exclude from the definition of blasphemy any matter that had any literary, artistic, social or academic merit.

Oh, thanks, Pat. That's very thoughtful of you :rolleyes:!!

Remind me. This is 2009, isn't it?

CtrlSource

Grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented

Yoda

The Raven. wrote: »

Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may issue a warrant authorising the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary using reasonable force, a premises where the member of the force has reasonable grounds for believing there are copies of the blasphemous statements in order to seize them.

It just gets even more ridiculous :eek:!

This is not "ridiculous". It's frightening.

100gSoma

absolutely STUNNED! what a backward thinking vile bunch of a-holes running this country. :eek::eek::eek:

Blangis

Is this new crime going to be blasphemy, or blasphemous libel?

Surely there is some concept of truth of falsehood inherent in libel. i.e. a statement is a libel if it can be proven to be untrue or unfounded, and is not a libel if it can be proven to be true.

So how is this supposed to be established with regard to blasphemy?

So if someone says that Jesus was not a God, he was just a carpenter who started a cult, for example, then who is going to be able to prove or disprove that?

drunkmonkey

I'm looking forward to the day the Rastafarians challenge parts of the criminal justice bill as being blasphemous to their religion...it shoud make for an intresting case...

r0nanf

I've mentioned this before, but does it strike you as odd that something that would be so difficult to legislate for would be rearing its head now? This fits in with a pattern of "leaked reports" and relatively minor issues that keep on appearing every few days, serving no major purpose bar to deflect attention away from the major issues. Its no different from an Orange Alert.

I am completely against giving any religion legislative protection btw, but surely this should be deemed irrelevant considering the predicament we find ourselves in??

Dr Galen

this is pretty crazy. yet another nanny state law from the government.

how can this even be proven in court?


are we going to have the Bible entered into evidence in courts now? doesn't libel action have to be taken by the person being libelled in the first place? so this then is a new category of offence, as obviously JC ain't coming down from a cloud on high to make an appearance in the 4 courts....

at a time when gangsters are going mental in Limerick, and Gardai need direction and support from the DoJ we have this nonsense.

Hookey

Who's defining "blasphemy"? Since the definition of blasphemy is closely tied to whichever religion you follow, and freedom of religious expression is enshrined in the European Human Rights Act, I could be accused of "blasphemous libel" from all kinds of directions. I'm also pretty sure that Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Hitchens would be getting their collars felt if they crossed the Irish Sea.

Notwithstanding the insanity of blasphemy laws in this day and age, I don't think the eejit who came up with the idea has realised the implications; such laws could just as easily be used against the catholic authorities in this country as by them.

As an atheist I'm screwed anyway

Darragh29

What is all this about??? If I say to someone, "Jesus Christ you're some w*nker", could I be charged with this blasphemous libel legislation??? Seriously, I'm

Hookey

Darragh29 wrote: »

What is all this about??? If I say to someone, "Jesus Christ you're some w*nker", could I be charged with this blasphemous libel legislation??? Seriously, I'm

No, but if you wrote it down, you could be . Actually in that case you wouldn't be because you haven't libelled the religion, which is what "blasphemous libel" is all about; its supposed to be an anti-hate crime thing but it also destroys free speech. My personal view is that all religions are fair game for my bile and it really pisses me off when people think I should automatically respect a religious view simply because its religious; like its any more valid than say, a political view.

Darragh29

Hookey wrote: »

No, but if you wrote it down, you could be . Actually in that case you wouldn't be because you haven't libelled the religion, which is what "blasphemous libel" is all about; its supposed to be an anti-hate crime thing but it also destroys free speech. My personal view is that all religions are fair game for my bile and it really pisses me off when people think I should automatically respect a religious view simply because its religious; like its any more valid than say, a political view.

So if I'm standing at a road and a lad comes tearing down the road in a car and puts the car into a lamp post and I say, "Jasus fuppin Christ", and someone happens to be standing beside me takes offence to me saying that, I could be charged with this new law???

Actually I see your point, this would be blasphemous "slander", but who is this proposed law actually aimed at, people who write down things that could be considered to be "blasphemously libel"...

Who in all seriousness would fall into this catagory??? Sure doesn't the bible have some references to other religions being inferior???

To be honest, I think the place for this thread is over there in Christianity forum, there are a few nuts over there who would do this thread to death good and proper!

thebman

We all know this is ridiculous, the real question is how did it even get this far?

Shows us how incompetent our elected officials really are in this country.

edanto

Any punishment for blasphemy should be between the person and a god, it's certainly not the place of our mortal courts to rule on such things.

If anyone would like to express their opinions directly to the minister for Justice, I would suggest his personal email is probably best for these things - dermot {at} dermotahern.ie

Sparks

thebman wrote: »

We all know this is ridiculous, the real question is how did it even get this far?

And why? Is this a legislative troll to get outrage flowing against an easily discarded target to defer outrage from something less easily addressable?

the_syco

Darragh29 wrote: »

To be honest, I think the place for this thread is over there in Christianity forum, there are a few nuts over there who would do this thread to death good and proper!

Well, no. Two reasons: 1)I'm banned from there 2)They'd think it was a great idea.

I must get a "Jesus is a c*nt" tshirts before this goes through.

Sparks

the_syco wrote: »

I must get a "Jesus is a c*nt" tshirts before this goes through.

Naw, need something cleverer than that.

edanto

Sparks wrote: »

And why? Is this a legislative troll to get outrage flowing against an easily discarded target to defer outrage from something less easily addressable?

I doubt the government is that well co-ordinated!! If I had to guess, I would say the legislation is designed to prevent something like this being seen in Ireland, as it caused uproar in the UK.

G_R

i have to be honest i never actually read the constitution before (prob the same as most people). According to wikipedia and im assuming its correct it says that we have freedom of speech but we cant use freedom of speech to undermine morality or the state's authority

i dont know so correct me if i'm wrong but isnt there some EU Directive/Law that guarentees freedom of expresion??

if so then surely it conflicts with the Constitution because im guessing that when the EU say freedom of expression they dont mean towards anyone except the church and the government. And as it says in the Irish Const., European law has supremacy over Irish law.

and aside from the legal arguement, its total bull anyway. Ireland is a secular society, ie. state should have nothing to do with religion.

personally i think that their should be a referendum the next time people are voting (hopefully sooner rather that later) on changing it from:

the right to free speech except when it when its against X Y and Z
to
the right to free speech, period

i mean jesus christ like for god's sake (woops):D

r14

dannym08 wrote: »

i have to be honest i never actually read the constitution before (prob the same as most people). According to wikipedia and im assuming its correct it says that we have freedom of speech but we cant use freedom of speech to undermine morality or the state's authority

i dont know so correct me if i'm wrong but isnt there some EU Directive/Law that guarentees freedom of expresion??

if so then surely it conflicts with the Constitution because im guessing that when the EU say freedom of expression they dont mean towards anyone except the church and the government. And as it says in the Irish Const., European law has supremacy over Irish law.

and aside from the legal arguement, its total bull anyway. Ireland is a secular society, ie. state should have nothing to do with religion.

personally i think that their should be a referendum the next time people are voting (hopefully sooner rather that later) on changing it from:

the right to free speech except when it when its against X Y and Z
to
the right to free speech, period

i mean jesus christ like for god's sake (woops):D

You're thinking of the ECHR which guarantees freedom of expression. The ECHR is separate to the EU and is not supreme over the Irish constitution.

tbh I think the only reason they're doing this is to avoid a referendum to remove blasphemy from the constitution. The Government are on pretty shaky ground not having the law because the constitution provides that there shall be a law, thus there is a constitutional imperative to enact the law. So they're being pressured into either enacting the law or amending the constitution.

A referendum costs c 5 million and will lead to a huge amount of right wing religious people ripping into the government and (judging from Lisbon) will prob be rejected so this is the safer (albeit more ridiculous) route.

btw freedom of expression can always be limited even under the ECHR. Limitations can be imposed for public order (IRA) and morality (blasphemy). Personally I think religious people should just grow up and accept that if they give homosexuals/fornicators/blasphemers stick then they should take it too.

Also re the secular state have a look at the constitution and look at the amount of times God and the Trinity are mentioned. Really shows what a right wing catholic country we are.

G_R

r14 wrote: »

You're thinking of the ECHR which guarantees freedom of expression. The ECHR is separate to the EU and is not supreme over the Irish constitution.

tanx for clearing that up, my mistake

r14 wrote: »

Personally I think religious people should just grow up and accept that if they give homosexuals/fornicators/blasphemers stick then they should take it too.

+1

r14 wrote: »

Also re the secular state have a look at the constitution and look at the amount of times God and the Trinity are mentioned. Really shows what a right wing catholic country we are.

unfortunately i cant argue with u, its there alot alright

Jim_Are_Great

wes wrote: »

I think the seperation of church and state in this country has never happened completey. There are still links between the 2.

We don't actually have a legally-mandated separation of church and state like the States. See?

Also, "Blasphemous Libel" doesn't mean libel published about a religion, if the draft text is anything to go by. It just means publication/utterance of blasphemous matter. Doesn't make it any less stupid a law, mind.

The Raven.

There is a very interesting article in the Irish Times yesterday (Thursday 30th April), by Carol Coulter, entitled For God's sake, why have blasphemous libel?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0430/1224245681506.html

Coulter points out that:

These provisions came unannounced in a proposed amendment to the Defamation Bill, which was before the Oireachtas Committee on Justice yesterday (but was not discussed).

It is truly amazing how this outrageous proposal suddenly appeared, and is getting so little media attention. I didn’t see it mentioned on RTE or Aertel, except for a brief article in their on-line news. It is also shocking how the Labour party seem to have accepted it at least in principle. Unless I am mistaken, there was nothing either in the Oireactas report.

What about other religious groupings and faiths? The proposed amendment makes the degree of outrage among adherents of any religion, in response to things said or written about them, a defining factor in determining whether an offence has been committed. We have seen elsewhere in Europe large-scale expressions of outrage by members of the Muslim community in response to films, books and cartoons. Books such as Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses and films and cartoons, such as those published by a Danish newspaper and which offended some Muslims, would almost certainly be criminalised in Ireland by the present proposal.

Before anyone utters the R word, I would suggest that these instances be considered calmly and rationally, in light of this newly proposed legislation. I have a feeling that this legislation may be a case of pandering to the whims of certain elements of Irelands new multi-cultural society.

This is in marked contrast to the state of the law at present. The Constitution qualifies the right to freedom of speech, making it subject to “public order or morality or the authority of the State”, and says the publication of “blasphemous, seditious or indecent material” is punishable. The 1961 Defamation Act prescribed penalties but did not define the offence or any prosecutions.

In 1991, the Law Reform Commission concluded there was no place for an offence of blasphemous libel “in a society which respects freedom of speech”. “The argument in its favour that the publication of blasphemy causes injury to feelings appeared to us to be a tenuous basis on which to restrict freedom of speech,” it said. “The argument that freedom to insult religion would threaten the stability of society by impairing the harmony between groups seemed highly questionable in the absence of any prosecutions.”

There was only one case taken under this law: Corway -v- Independent Newspapers 1999, where Corway complained about a cartoon, which he claimed ‘was an insult to the Catholic faith.’ The Supreme Court upheld a High Court ruling that ‘there was no legislation defining blasphemy and describing the offence of blasphemous libel.’

There the matter rested until the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of Seán Ardagh, reported last year, recommending the deletion of references to sedition and blasphemy in the Constitution. While there appears to be no appetite for an amendment to do so, there equally has been no conspicuous clamour to legislate to fill the void identified by the Supreme Court.

I suppose that would have meant a referendum, and Ardagh got no support. The TDs would have had the Lisbon referendum on their minds at the time.

Meanwhile, in the UK, where our blasphemy law has its origins, the law prohibiting blasphemy was repealed in July last year. The present proposal comes in an international context where a campaign seeking to outlaw the “defamation of religion” has been waged for some years, spearheaded by a number of Muslim countries in the United Nations and supported by the Vatican.

Last December, there was a vote on a resolution on “combating defamation of religion” at the UN, which was adopted by 86 votes to 53, with 42 abstentions. The resolution was tabled by Egypt on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Ireland, in common with all other EU countries, voted against.

However, at the Durban Review conference in Geneva last week (reviewing a 2001 UN conference on racism) references to “defamation of religion” were removed from the final document. At the same meeting, the human rights organisation Article 19 launched the Camden Principles, defending freedom of expression combined with the right to equality. They were drawn up with a high-level group of UN officials, representatives from other intergovernmental organisations, NGOs and academic experts.

Explaining Ireland’s vote at the December UN meeting, in response to a question from Green TD Ciarán Cuffe in the Dáil last month, Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin said: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.”

He went on to distinguish between this and discrimination based on religious belief and incitement to hatred, pointing out that Ireland supported a UN resolution on “Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief.” Has our policy on the defamation of religion changed since last December and, if so, why?

That is the million-dollar question! WHY?? The Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern should be forced to tell the people of Ireland why he is proposing this incongruous and repressive legislation, which flies in the face of their freedom of expression. The Labour spokesman on justice Pat Rabbitte should also be asked to provide clarification on his party’s stance on this proposal.

ART6

The bit I don't understand is why religion has been singled out using the term "blasphemy" that might offend a number of people. If someone writes that the Irish are all a gang of drunken bog paddies, a lot of people including me are likely to be very offended. If someone writes that women are an inferior species then even more people are going to be seriously offended. So what's so special about religion that it needs this protection? Is it possible that it has anything to do with the increasingly hysterical radical Islam?

Goonerette

What a truly sickening, sinister and regressive proposal by the Government.

The Raven. wrote: »

I have a feeling that this legislation may be a case of pandering to the whims of certain elements of Irelands new multi-cultural society.

I have the same feeling. I know this is pure speculation, especially given Ireland's "no" vote on the UN anti-blasphemy resolution. However, bending over backwards for the sake of tolerance and multiculturalism will only bring on more unreasonable demands from certain religious elements. Deference will get us nowhere unless we of course want Sharia courts such as the ones they now have in Britain.

Yoda

ART6 wrote: »

So what's so special about religion that it needs this protection?

Magic?

lostexpectation

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.

lostexpectation

ART6 wrote: »

The bit I don't understand is why religion has been singled out using the term "blasphemy" that might offend a number of people. If someone writes that the Irish are all a gang of drunken bog paddies, a lot of people including me are likely to be very offended. If someone writes that women are an inferior species then even more people are going to be seriously offended. So what's so special about religion that it needs this protection? Is it possible that it has anything to do with the increasingly hysterical radical Islam?

there are other laws for those issues art6, and forgods sake will people recognise that biggest religious threat to ireland has been Catholicism and will be for along time to come.

r14

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.

I agree. What this really needs is a referendum to remove the crime of blasphemy from the Constitution. I really don't think there is anything particularly sinister or pandering behind this. It is simply that if someone decided to challenge the lack of a blasphemy law at the moment they would win, so the Government have to act.

Dermot Ahern explains it pretty well in the Times today: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0501/1224245748066.html

The key point here is that successive attorneys general have advised the various ministers for justice, in the context of the reform of defamation law and the repeal of the 1961 Act, that article 40.6.1.i of the Constitution imposes an obligation to implement the constitutional offence of blasphemy.

Solution: remove the crime of blasphemy form the Constitution or legislate to give it some actual form. They chose the latter option - probably don't fancy having to run three referendum campaigns in a year (including Lisbon II).

The lesson to learn from this is that we should amend the constitution to remove the requirement for a referendum every time we amend. It's an outdated example of direct democracy that doesn't work in modern times.

Nodin

ART6 wrote: »

Is it possible that it has anything to do with the increasingly hysterical radical Islam?

Not unless Dev was thinking of that in 1937, no.

Goonerette wrote:

I know this is pure speculation

Excellent.

Goonerette wrote:

However, bending over backwards for the sake of tolerance and multiculturalism will only bring on more unreasonable demands from certain religious elements

...."certain elements" meaning muslims. Theres been none of any weight in this country. Nor is there a large population of them here.

Goonerette wrote:

unless we of course want Sharia courts such as the ones they now have in Britain.

Theres a precedent over there for it. From your own article -

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

(my bold)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

As far as I understand it, theres no reason there can't be a Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Hindu or whatever arbitration under the 1996 act. None can override British law. Personally I think its a bad idea, but it certainly didn't originate from muslims.