Blasphemous libel proposal

Fanny Cradock

I'm quite shocked that this is being proposed by the Minister for Justice. I think it is fundamentally unworkable and I don't necessarily see why non-Christians should have to abide by this.


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

JimiTime

Is it specifically for christians? It reads to me like its blasphemies of things considered sacread by whatever ones faith?

I can't help but feel suspicious about it anyway.

jayteecork

This has got to be some sort of a joke.

€100,000 fine.

Whatever.

PDN

One way of reading this is that a minister who offends Muslims by saying Mohammed is not God's only prophet could be prosecuted.

Dermot Ahern is an ass.

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

Is it specifically for christians? It reads to me like its blasphemies of things considered sacread by whatever ones faith?

I can't help but feel suspicious about it anyway.

It seems to for anyone who seeks to offend the sensibilities of any given religion. That would make the A&A forum a pretty quiet place. Better get all my blasphemy in before this goes through.

jayteecork

The Blasphemy law was invoked a few years back in England when some young lad was arreested wearing a Cradle of Filth "Jesus is a C***" T-shirt.

Not sure what his outsome was.

wolfsbane

jayteecork wrote: »

The Blasphemy law was invoked a few years back in England when some young lad was arreested wearing a Cradle of Filth "Jesus is a C***" T-shirt.

Not sure what his outsome was.

That slogan could have been dealt with under ordinary decency laws. People have been done for wearing ACAB tee-shirts. How hypocritical that a godless country like the U.K. reached for blasphemy laws.

But to the OP issue: I share the general concern expressed here. This seems a very dangerous tool against your democratic freedoms. You guys know the politics of Ireland better than me - why would a government minister come up with this at this time? Is he just an ass?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

But to the OP issue: I share the general concern expressed here. This seems a very dangerous tool against your democratic freedoms. You guys know the politics of Ireland better than me - why would a government minister come up with this at this time? Is he just an ass?

The evidence suggests so. It's a little baffling, since going by the feedback here the Christians don't seem to want it and neither does anyone else.

antiskeptic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm quite shocked that this is being proposed by the Minister for Justice. I think it is fundamentally unworkable and I don't necessarily see why non-Christians should have to abide by this.


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

This is Ireland - not England. The law here is something to worry about at the point of it being enforced - not when it becomes law.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is Ireland - not England. The law here is something to worry about at the point of it being enforced - not when it becomes law.

But why wait till then. Nip it in the bud. We shouldn't have to wait until some cartoonist is being dragged before the courts.

Edit: And save some tax money by firing the people who suggested it.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The evidence suggests so. It's a little baffling, since going by the feedback here the Christians don't seem to want it and neither does anyone else.

The Christians here don't want it, but the Christians here are generally those who think about their faith.

Ahern's proposal is designed to appeal to unthinking cultural Christians who read the Daily Mail. It is a grubby attempt at populism that deserves to get the boot - as does the ass that has proposed it.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

The Christians here don't want it, but the Christians here are generally those who think about their faith.

Ahern's proposal is designed to appeal to unthinking cultural Christians who read the Daily Mail. It is a grubby attempt at populism that deserves to get the boot - as does the ass that has proposed it.

I can't hep but think there's some alterior motive behind though, i.e. its not 'just' an election stunt. Then again, I am wearing a tin foil hat:)

philopus109

Tommy Tiernan is lodging an appeal against the proposal!

The Mad Hatter

PDN wrote: »

The Christians here don't want it, but the Christians here are generally those who think about their faith.

Ahern's proposal is designed to appeal to unthinking cultural Christians who read the Daily Mail. It is a grubby attempt at populism that deserves to get the boot - as does the ass that has proposed it.

Wow.

Does anyone like Daily Mail readers...?

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

I can't hep but think there's some alterior motive behind though, i.e. its not 'just' an election stunt. Then again, I am wearing a tin foil hat:)

To take our minds off important issues?

Fanny Cradock

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Wow.

Does anyone like Daily Mail readers...?

Jesus does.

Phototoxin

He might be perfect Fanny, but he's not an idiot!

Handsome Bob

PDN wrote: »

The Christians here don't want it, but the Christians here are generally those who think about their faith.

Ahern's proposal is designed to appeal to unthinking cultural Christians who read the Daily Mail. It is a grubby attempt at populism that deserves to get the boot - as does the ass that has proposed it.

Could you please elaborate PDN on just how it appeals to "unthinking cultural Christians"?

The Mad Hatter

Phototoxin wrote: »

He might be perfect Fanny, but he's not an idiot!

I get what you mean but...

lol, God is perfect fanny. [/juvenile]

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Does anyone like Daily Mail readers...?

The Daily Mail publishers?

crotalus667

it seems to me that they may get the law passed but it wont hold up


Corway -v- Independent Newspapers, in 1999, the Supreme Court concluded that it was impossible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists”.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Wow.

Does anyone like Daily Mail readers...?

Pretty sure even Daily Mail readers hate them.

robindch wrote: »

The Daily Mail publishers?

Not a chance! Unless they express their love for people by constantly terrifying them.

MrPudding

crotalus667 wrote: »

it seems to me that they may get the law passed but it wont hold up


Corway -v- Independent Newspapers, in 1999, the Supreme Court concluded that it was impossible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists”.

Is that not the point of this legislation? To define what is to be considered blasphemy.

MrP

Stercus Accidit

MrPudding wrote: »

Is that not the point of this legislation? To define what is to be considered blasphemy.

MrP

And priority number one should be removing blasphemy from any and all legal references.

My views are blasphemous to your religion, should that be a crime to express them?

Your religious views are blasphemous to others religions, should your local priest be prosecuted for blasphemy?

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Not a chance! Unless they express their love for people by constantly terrifying them.

Nah, there's lots of people out there who enjoy having the carp scared out of them on an ongoing basis. Feeds their prejudices. Energizes them.

pts

robindch wrote: »

Nah, there's lots of people out there who enjoy having the carp scared out of them on an ongoing basis. Feeds their prejudices. Energizes them.

Ah, you mean Republicans?

Nodin

wolfsbane wrote: »

Is he just an ass?

Absolutely, and a very large one, though that wouldn't be the primary force behind this. Apparently theres a constitutional requirement to have such a law. However a commitee recommended some years ago that this section of the constution be confined to the bin.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ahern-defends-new-blasphemy-law-1724069.html

Of course theres no onus on the ass to make it a particularily grevious offence, or to add on such a huge fine. Considering that one can destroy a listed building with far less consequences, its rather ridiclous. The smart thing to do, short of removing that section from the constituion, would be to make it so vague and the penalty so light that even in the unlikely event it was enforced nothing serious could come of it. But, that would be the smart thing to do.

pts wrote:

Ah, you mean Republicans? ?

Judging by the recent hullabaloo at Tescos, they don't have a monopoly.

PDN

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Could you please elaborate PDN on just how it appeals to "unthinking cultural Christians"?

It appeals to those who have little or no commitment to Christ, but see Ireland as a 'Christian country'. Therefore they are prone to kneejerk reactions against anything that they see as diluting our 'Irish heritage'.

pts

Nodin wrote: »

Judging by the recent hullabaloo at Tescos, they don't have a monopoly.

I was more talking about this kind of Republican, should have been more clear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E

Nodin

pts wrote: »

I was more talking about this kind of Republican, should have been more clear

My apologies.

Groovy Funkster

Nodin wrote: »

Absolutely, and a very large one, though that wouldn't be the primary force behind this. Apparently theres a constitutional requirement to have such a law. However a commitee recommended some years ago that this section of the constution be confined to the bin.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ahern-defends-new-blasphemy-law-1724069.html

Of course theres no onus on the ass to make it a particularily grevious offence, or to add on such a huge fine. Considering that one can destroy a listed building with far less consequences, its rather ridiclous. The smart thing to do, short of removing that section from the constituion, would be to make it so vague and the penalty so light that even in the unlikely event it was enforced nothing serious could come of it. But, that would be the smart thing to do.



Judging by the recent hullabaloo at Tescos, they don't have a monopoly.

The smart thing to do would be to have a referendum. As a letter writer to the Irish Times said today "We must be a very poor country indeed if we cannot afford freedom of speech."

Even if the fine was reduced to 10 cent and the "crime" was defined in such a way as to make it impossible to bring to court, I would oppose the legislation.

Blasphemy should never be a crime either in theory or in practice.

Free Speech IE

I was absolutely gobsmacked when Ahern came out with his proposal re the blasphemous libel legislation. I am currently involved in trying to bring together like-minded people to fight the proposal. A group of us are hosting a public meeting in Waterford this Thursday, 21st May. Further meetings across the country are to follow. If anybody from the legal profession is interested in speaking at the Waterford event, please get in touch. The details are as follows:

BLASPHEMY IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME

PUBLIC MEETING

VENUE: THE TOWER HOTEL, WATERFORD CITY
DATE: THURSDAY 21st MAY
TIME: 8 -10pm


A public meeting will be held in The Tower Hotel, Waterford City, to oppose the Government’s proposed revival of the blasphemy laws.

The meeting was planned on a new Irish website - http://blasphemy.ie - which also includes examples of material that could become illegal if the new law is passed.

The Waterford meeting is the first 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 I Keano

Barry Grant, Waterford resident and writer/videomaker.

Other speakers to be confirmed.


Local politicians will be invited, including Deputy Brendan Kenneally, Chairman of the Select Joint Committee for Justice, as will Deputy Brian O'Shea, also a member of said committee.

“Most Irish people, regardless of their religious beliefs, do not want this law to be passed” said Barry Grant. “This meeting will give Waterford people an opportunity to voice their opinions.”

Further information:

blasphemyireland@gmail.com

Campaign website: http://blasphemy.ie

PDN

Free Speech IE wrote: »

I was absolutely gobsmacked when Ahern came out with his proposal re the blasphemous libel legislation. I am currently involved in trying to bring together like-minded people to fight the proposal. A group of us are hosting a public meeting in Waterford this Thursday, 21st May. Further meetings across the country are to follow. If anybody from the legal profession is interested in speaking at the Waterford event, please get in touch. The details are as follows:

BLASPHEMY IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME

PUBLIC MEETING

VENUE: THE TOWER HOTEL, WATERFORD CITY
DATE: THURSDAY 21st MAY
TIME: 8 -10pm


A public meeting will be held in The Tower Hotel, Waterford City, to oppose the Government’s proposed revival of the blasphemy laws.

The meeting was planned on a new Irish website - http://blasphemy.ie - which also includes examples of material that could become illegal if the new law is passed.

The Waterford meeting is the first 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 I Keano

Barry Grant, Waterford resident and writer/videomaker.

Other speakers to be confirmed.


Local politicians will be invited, including Deputy Brendan Kenneally, Chairman of the Select Joint Committee for Justice, as will Deputy Brian O'Shea, also a member of said committee.

“Most Irish people, regardless of their religious beliefs, do not want this law to be passed” said Barry Grant. “This meeting will give Waterford people an opportunity to voice their opinions.”

Further information:

blasphemyireland@gmail.com

Campaign website: http://blasphemy.ie

I, like many Christians, am totally opposed to the proposed blasphemy law. However, the title of your meeting 'Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime' and a lot of the stuff on your website seem purposely designed to alienate people like me.

I don't think blasphemy is funny or clever, but I am opposed to it being made illegal. There are plenty of other things that I find distatesful or immoral, but on principle I think the State (or the Church) has no business enforcing Christian morality upon non-Christians.

It's unfortunate that you appear unable to seek common cause with people like me and instead you set up a website that celebrates Dawkins' petty vindictive tirades against religion and crap such as 'Jerry Springer the Opera'.

While it might give you pleasure to take an opportunity to stick two fingers up at religion, resisting that temptation might have created a broader-based coalition incorporating Christian leaders & community leaders. I hope that this massive misstep does not backfire on you and open the door for Ahern's folly to become law.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

PDN wrote: »

I, like many Christians, am totally opposed to the proposed blasphemy law. However, the title of your meeting 'Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime' and a lot of the stuff on your website seem purposely designed to alienate people like me.

I don't think blasphemy is funny or clever, but I am opposed to it being made illegal. There are plenty of other things that I find distatesful or immoral, but on principle I think the State (or the Church) has no business enforcing Christian morality upon non-Christians.

It's unfortunate that you appear unable to seek common cause with people like me and instead you set up a website that celebrates Dawkins' petty vindictive tirades against religion and crap such as 'Jerry Springer the Opera'.

While it might give you pleasure to take an opportunity to stick two fingers up at religion, resisting that temptation might have created a broader-based coalition incorporating Christian leaders & community leaders. I hope that this massive misstep does not backfire on you and open the door for Ahern's folly to become law.

While, as a fairly strong-minded atheist, I would totally disagree with PDN's opinions towards blasphemy, and agree with yours towards it, I do agree looking at the blog that it could be somewhat alienating to Christians who disagree with the law, as well as maybe a few 'moderate' atheists who prefer to appear cuddly.

While obviously it's your choice whether to suppress some of your stronger opinions for the purposes of pragmatism at the expense of showing your true emotions, it is perhaps something that should be borne in mind?

Personally, if it were my blog I would keep it much as you've kept yours, but then, contrary to more sensible people I rarely care about hiding my contentious ideological positions in front of others regardless of outcome...

Free Speech IE

PDN wrote: »

I, like many Christians, am totally opposed to the proposed blasphemy law. However, the title of your meeting 'Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime' and a lot of the stuff on your website seem purposely designed to alienate people like me.

I don't think blasphemy is funny or clever, but I am opposed to it being made illegal. There are plenty of other things that I find distatesful or immoral, but on principle I think the State (or the Church) has no business enforcing Christian morality upon non-Christians.

It's unfortunate that you appear unable to seek common cause with people like me and instead you set up a website that celebrates Dawkins' petty vindictive tirades against religion and crap such as 'Jerry Springer the Opera'.

While it might give you pleasure to take an opportunity to stick two fingers up at religion, resisting that temptation might have created a broader-based coalition incorporating Christian leaders & community leaders. I hope that this massive misstep does not backfire on you and open the door for Ahern's folly to become law.

I, personally, have no interest in gratuitous attempts to cause offence among religious people (although how that can be pre-empted or quantified is a major part of my problem with this legislation). The site is not mine, it is run by Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland, so I can only give my opinion on its content. I feel that Michael is merely trying to give examples of what may be covered by the proposed legislation. I feel that this is valid in terms of opening up a debate and crystallizing the concept for people. I would agree with you wholeheartedly that the Jerry Springer Opera was 'crap', but I still aspire to live in a society where individuals are free to make their 'crap' operas without fear of prosecution.

When you say that you don't think blasphemy is funny or clever - I feel that you are referring to intentional blasphemy there (please correct me if I am wrong). Minister Ahern wants there to be proof of 'intent' in the proposed legislation - but how do we prove that? A Christian would actually be unintentionally blaspheming against Islam by claiming that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Who gets to decide whether the intent was there on not after a 'substantial number of adherents of that religion' have complained - the DPP? And what is a 'substantial number'? Is it 10%, 20%, 50%? If a person were to blaspheme agaist the Sikh guru or their holy book and 400 people protested, that would be roughly 50% of the Sikh population of Ireland - a very substantial number.

I will certainly be seeking to create a 'broader-based coalition incorporating Christian leaders & community leaders'. Alienation of religious believers who are opposed to the legislation was the first concern I voiced when I came onboard with this campaign as this will be a 'dead duck' if it becomes an Athiest-only issue or an Athiest v Religious issue. I was delighted to hear Fr Brian Darcy come out against the proposed legislation on Spirit Moves last Sunday. He laughed when he looked back at his assertion that the Life of Brian was blasphemous, at the time of its release. Of course, it was, and is, blasphemous but is also incredibly funny. He also pointed out that it made fun of the some of the dogma of the various churches more so than it did of Jesus Christ. By the way,Michael Nugent will be a guest on the show this Sunday.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree in regards to 'Blasphemy is a victimless crime'. I think this sums it up perfectly. If God - the only true victim - is offended, he is well positioned to take action.