Death Of Free Speech as Ireland Makes Blasphemy Illegal

Run_to_da_hills

I only studied this morning and i am shocked by its content. It throws Ireland right back into the dark ages with new legislation that is synonymous with the former Soviet Union.

Irish atheists are horrified by new legislation making blasphemy illegal, and punishable by a 25,000-Euro fine. Christians of all stripes should be, too.

As part of a revision to defamation legislation, the Dail passed legislation creating a new crime of blasphemy. This attack on free speech, debated for several months in Europe, has gone largely unnoticed in the American press.

The text of the legislation is provided at the end of this post.

How does this impact free speech? Just don’t be rude.

Atheists can be prosecuted for saying that God is imaginary. That causes outrage.

Pagans can be prosecuted for saying they left Christianity because God is violent and bloodthirsty, promotes genocide, and permits slavery.

Christians can be prosecuted for saying that Allah is a moon god, or for drawing a picture of Mohammed, or for saying that Islam is a violent religion which breeds terrorists.

Jews can be prosecuted for saying Jesus isn’t the Messiah.
Is it really THAT big a deal?

Ireland’s Blasphemy Bill not only criminalizes free speech, it also gives the police the authority to confiscate anything deemed “blasphemous”. They may enter and search any premises, with force if needed, upon “reasonable suspicion” that such materials are present.

The local Freethinkers society, with its copies of Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
The video store, with copies of The God Who Wasn’t There.
The history teacher, who uses The Dark Side of Christian History to teach her class.
The library, with its collection of books deemed blasphemous.
Even the homeowner who lets the wrong person know he has a copy of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses could find his door broken in by the Thought Police, his bookshelves ransacked, and his books burning in the front yard!
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)



Satirizing religion in any way, shape, or form, if it “causes outrage”, is now a prosecutable offense in Ireland. Saying anything negative about a religion, if it “causes outrage”, can now be prosecuted as a crime. Just like in Muslim countries.

Witness the return of the Dark Ages.

The text of the legislation:

36. Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.

(1) 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. [Amended to €25,000]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

37. Seizure of copies of blasphemous statements.

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorising any member of the Garda Siochana to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Siochana of all copies of the statement to which the offence related that are in the possession of any person, © specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Siochana.

(2) A member of the Garda Siochana may (a) enter and search any premises, (b) seize, remove and detain any copy of a statement to which an offence under section 36 relates found therein or in the possession of any person, in accordance with a warrant under subsection (1).

(3) Upon final judgment being given in proceedings for an offence under section 36, anything seized and removed under subsection (2) shall be disposed of in accordance with such directions as the court may give upon an application by a member of the Garda Siochana in that behalf

Links:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/death-of-free-speech-ireland-makes-blasphemy-illegal.html

Chris Lowe

I agree this is an outrage, but I have doubts it will survive any appeals.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

This part should at least protect some areas such as Marxists (political and academic), Hitchens or Dawkins.

jabbertalky

So it should be all right to do blasphemy as long as you do it in nice literary language. So that would mean Nietzche would not be a blasphemer even if he said God is dead.

PomBear

Lawmakers really had a good opportunity to bring some really change to the loosely bound Defamation Bill but instead came out with that rubbish that nobody asked for. Political Correctness has taken a turn for the worst.

dlofnep

Blasphemy has always been illegal. (Article 40.6.1: http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm)

But I agree, the notion that someone could be fined for up to €25,000 for it is absolutely ridiculous. Insulting something that doesn't exist, and being punished for it is the height of backwards thinking. It's like insulting Father Christmas (AKA Santa) and being fined for it.

jabbertalky

This is the kind of right wing law you'd expect to see the likes of George Bush coming out with.

sceptre

Just so that we all know, the bill in question (the Defamation Bill) hasn't pased through all the Dail stages yet.

It's customary and polite to include attribution when copying and pasting content from elsewhere on the web. It also avoids the plagiarism rap. Preferably with an author listed (to be fair to the author) and a link (for verification and fairness). Please edit these things into the initial post.

Run_to_da_hills

sceptre wrote: »

Just so that we all know, the bill in question (the Defamation Bill) hasn't pased through all the Dail stages yet.

It's customary and polite to include attribution when copying and pasting content from elsewhere on the web. It also avoids the plagiarism rap. Preferably with an author listed (to be fair to the author) and a link (for verification and fairness). Please edit these things into the initial post.

Done.

I mentioned it in AH, those Athiest busses that appeared in the UK last year would be definitally banned in Ireland under thiis legislation because they could be deemed offensive, On the other hand gospel tracts and christian banners could also be banned from the streets because they could be offensive to others.

Chris Lowe

sceptre wrote: »

Just so that we all know, the bill in question (the Defamation Bill) hasn't pased through all the Dail stages yet.

It has gotten past the Seanad (barely see http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0710/breaking23.htm) which is one of the more robust checks and balances in our political system. Realistically barring the President believing that it is unconstitutional it's a dead cert.

ParkRunner

The Defamation Bill would be unconstitutional without such a provision on blasphemy and can you imagine the government holding a referendum now on the blasphemy provision in the Constitution? It is probably what should happen but public reaction would be scathing!

P. Breathnach

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I mentioned it in AH, those Athiest busses that appeared in the UK last year would be definitally banned in Ireland under thiis legislation because they could be deemed offensive, On the other hand gospel tracts and christian banners could also be banned from the streets because they could be offensive to others.

First, there is a constitutional requirement to legislate for blasphemy. Article 40 provides "The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law." Whether or not it should be there is another matter, but the fact is that it is there.

Unless we change the Constitution, then, there needs to be a law. The real issue is to enact a reasonable law. I think the bill is an honest effort to meet the obligation imposed by the constitution. It has a circumscribed definition of blasphemy and also allows useful defences like "a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter".

I think it is unimaginable that the "atheist buses" would be found in breach of the law, or "The Satanic Verses".

Mr.Micro

The irony of this for me is that, should it not be proved that God exists before any such law is enacted? Since the law is supposed to deal with facts not feelings, emotions but hard facts. It seems absolutely ridiculous to legislate for a God that there is absolutely no proof exists. Middle ages or what?

Chris Lowe

P. Breathnach wrote: »

First, there is a constitutional requirement to legislate for blasphemy. Article 40 provides "The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law." Whether or not it should be there is another matter, but the fact is that it is there.

Unless we change the Constitution, then, there needs to be a law. The real issue is to enact a reasonable law. I think the bill is an honest effort to meet the obligation imposed by the constitution. It has a circumscribed definition of blasphemy and also allows useful defences like "a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter".

Precedent (Corway -v- Independent Newspapers) would suggest that as things stood the crime of blasphemy was too ill defined to be an enforceable law. Mr. Corway brought the case over blasphemous cartoons in the Sunday Independent. This case is nearly 10 years old now (will be on 30th July) so if there was no immediate need to change the laws as they stood then why now? What I am saying is that if there was a legitimate need for this law it would have been changed 10 years ago.

When the constitution was written it was assumed that common law would cover blasphemy. It should be noted that the constitutional provision was deemed redundant by a joint committee set up to review the constitution. So in today's Ireland this law is should not exist.

Using international standards a blasphemy law would be a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protecting free speech.

Article 10 – Freedom of expression1

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm

We should be having a referendum to remove this antiquated rubbish from the constitution.

ParkRunner

Chris Lowe wrote: »

Using international standards a blasphemy law would be a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protecting free speech.
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm

We should be having a referendum to remove this antiquated rubbish from the constitution.

The case law has determined that it is acceptable for the purposes of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights for a state to retain a blasphemy law

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/expression/wingrove_uk.html

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/religion/Otto.html

Sully

dlofnep wrote: »

Blasphemy has always been illegal. (Article 40.6.1: http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm)

But I agree, the notion that someone could be fined for up to €25,000 for it is absolutely ridiculous. Insulting something that doesn't exist, and being punished for it is the height of backwards thinking. It's like insulting Father Christmas (AKA Santa) and being fined for it.

Thats a little unfair. There is nothing to prove it does or does not, to be fair. There is a huge followership in Ireland and around the world. While I agree that the law is daft, suggesting that it "doesnt' exist" is a little unfair.

I understand both sides of the arguement, and I respect both sides as long as neither pushes it down mine or others neck.

(Anyway, not the place for a discussion on if it does or does not exist!)

irish_bob

jabbertalky wrote: »

This is the kind of right wing law you'd expect to see the likes of George Bush coming out with.

not that i believe its either a right wing or left wing law but the group who would most likely be up in arms over blasphemy ( muslims ) would nearly always be represented by left wingers

billy the squid

Isnt there a blasphemy law in Greece If you post something on the internet that someone in Greece finds offensive, you could be the subject of an arrest warrant as both ireland and greece have a blasphemy law now.

am I misreading that?

jabbertalky

Irish Bob you are completely wrong, it's the Evangelical Christians in America that want to force creationism on the schools. They think evolution is blasphemy and George Bush backs them 100%.

Chris Lowe

EF wrote: »

The case law has determined that it is acceptable for the purposes of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights for a state to retain a blasphemy law

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/expression/wingrove_uk.html

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/religion/Otto.html

A very selective use of these judgments and their context. The Otto - Preminger decision was to prevent disorder and protect religious exercise (article 9) which the court believed (rightly or wrongly) was under threat, the court believed article 9 outweighed article 10. The UK Government later decided that international case law on the ECHR had become problematic and so liberalised their law in part as a response to the Wingrove case. It is widely held by human rights groups that the ECHR has been misapplied. (see for example Liberty or the CPI) These judgments also predate Recommendation 1805 (http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta07/EREC1805.htm) which held that blasphemy should not be a criminal matter.

In any case this does not change the fact that our own system has recommended changing the constitution to come closer to modernity, not introduce a new law.

irish_bob

jabbertalky wrote: »

Irish Bob you are completely wrong, it's the Evangelical Christians in America that want to force creationism on the schools. They think evolution is blasphemy and George Bush backs them 100%.

and what have a tiny minority of american evangelicals ( who incedently never called for killings over cartoons like some others ) got to do with anything in this country regarding blasphemy

completley irrelevant

Nodin

irish_bob wrote: »

and what have a tiny minority of american evangelicals ( who incedently never called for killings over cartoons like some others ) got to do with anything in this country regarding blasphemy

About as much as the tiny minority of muslims.

Sib

It's a worrying development if this becomes law - I don't think I'll
return to Ireland in that case....

jabbertalky

irish_bob wrote: »

and what have a tiny minority of american evangelicals ( who incedently never called for killings over cartoons like some others ) got to do with anything in this country regarding blasphemy

You don't think the right wingers are connected all over the world? Every time we have a referendum on abortion, where do you think all the money comes from supporting the no side. George Bush and his friends have a lot to answer for.

irish_bob

jabbertalky wrote: »

You don't think the right wingers are connected all over the world? Every time we have a referendum on abortion, where do you think all the money comes from supporting the no side. George Bush and his friends have a lot to answer for.

your like a scatter gun , how do you go from blasphemy laws in ireland to american evangelicals to abortion in the space of a few posts

irish_bob

Nodin wrote: »

About as much as the tiny minority of muslims.

what ????????

TheInquisitor

Anyone know the date when i can not longer say FCUK JESUS, FCUK ALLAH, etc?

Because on that day im going to say FCUK JESUS, FCUK ALLAH etc. I wouldn't ever normally say something as confrontational as i don't care what people think or believe as long as they don't try to force anything on me, but dammit you will not censor what i can say or not say.

I'm broke aswell so whats 25k when you don't have it anyway

irish_bob

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Anyone know the date when i can not longer say FCUK JESUS, FCUK ALLAH, etc?

Because on that day im going to say FCUK JESUS, FCUK ALLAH etc. I wouldn't ever normally say something as confrontational as i don't care what people think or believe as long as they don't try to force anything on me, but dammit you will not censor what i can say or not say.

I'm broke aswell so whats 25k when you don't have it anyway

i like your style

P. Breathnach

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Anyone know the date when i can not longer say FCUK JESUS, FCUK ALLAH, etc?

Because on that day im going to say FCUK JESUS, FCUK ALLAH etc. I wouldn't ever normally say something as confrontational as i don't care what people think or believe as long as they don't try to force anything on me, but dammit you will not censor what i can say or not say.

Brilliant! You post this on a site where you are prevented from using the word you need to complete your blasphemies. If you feel so strongly about censorship, why post here?

TheInquisitor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Brilliant! You post this on a site where you are prevented from using the word you need to complete your blasphemies. If you feel so strongly about censorship, why post here?

The word is a meaningless point of my argument that i used to illustrate my point.

If i go and say i don't believe in god that may offend religious people and i can be prosecuted yet if someone says they do believe in god i may take offense but cannot act because atheism is not a religion? Bit ridiculously one sided

drkpower

TheInquisitor wrote: »

The word is a meaningless point of my argument that i used to illustrate my point.

If i go and say i don't believe in god that may offend religious people and i can be prosecuted yet if someone says they do believe in god i may take offense but cannot act because atheism is not a religion? Bit ridiculously one sided

Saying you don't believe in god is not a blasphemous libel; read the Act.

P. Breathnach

TheInquisitor wrote: »

The word is a meaningless point of my argument that i used to illustrate my point.

It didn't seem meaningless when you first said it.

If i go and say i don't believe in god that may offend religious people and i can be prosecuted yet if someone says they do believe in god i may take offense but cannot act because atheism is not a religion? Bit ridiculously one sided

That's not what the bill provides for. You will be safe declaring yourself an atheist, or advocating atheism, or saying that you think religion is an expression of primitive superstition, or saying or doing many other things that intolerant believers might take offence at.

TheInquisitor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It didn't seem meaningless when you first said it.



That's not what the bill provides for. You will be safe declaring yourself an atheist, or advocating atheism, or saying that you think religion is an expression of primitive superstition, or saying or doing many other things that intolerant believers might take offence at.

Susperstitition or what if i say that i think god is a figment of peoples imagination?

drkpower

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Susperstitition or what if i say that i think god is a figment of peoples imagination?

Why is it that people who are vehemently opposed to this legisaltion to the point of wanting to breach it and incur a €25K fine, have not even read the bloody thing?

The relevant section is only a few paaragraphs and if you google Defamation Bill it links straight to it..... so its not difficult..??

P. Breathnach

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Susperstitition or what if i say that i think god is a figment of peoples imagination?

Well, I think so too, and I don't worry one bit about saying it after the bill has been signed into law.

I would not spit on a crucifix solely to show contempt for Christian belief (mind you, I can't think of a circumstance in which I might do it for any reason other than an improbable accident). That, in my book, is simply a matter of good manners. After the bill becomes law, I might have another reason not to.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Daftendirekt

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While I think it's despicable that this is even being discussed in the Dáil, and a referendum should certainly be held if that's what it takes to get this out of our constitution and out of law, it seems as if the wording of the law makes it practically unenforceable.

I mean:

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

Define 'outrage'? Define 'substantial number of people'?

And throwing the word 'artistic' in there makes it even vaguer. I mean, if I wanted to get a megaphone and parade up and down O'Connell St. shouting 'Fuck the Holy Spirit' I'm sure I'd be able to prove that I had some artistic intent.

What really bugs me about it is this:

(1) 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. [Amended to €25,000]

€25,000?! What the hell? If this is only being proposed because of a constitutional requirement, then why not some meagre penalty, €50 or something like that?

cm2000

Apart from being pretty appalled at the content of this new law I'm struggling to comprehend why it came about. Was there an epidemic of blasphemy that I was unaware of?

sovtek

jabbertalky wrote: »

You don't think the right wingers are connected all over the world? Every time we have a referendum on abortion, where do you think all the money comes from supporting the no side. George Bush and his friends have a lot to answer for.

You're right. They are like McDonald franchises all over the world.

Chris Lowe

Daftendirekt wrote: »

€25,000?! What the hell? If this is only being proposed because of a constitutional requirement, then why not some meagre penalty, €50 or something like that?

Most likely it is to keep it in the High Court (Central Criminal Court) and out of the Circuit Courts.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hobochris

Id love to know who or what is the driving force behind this piece of crap being put into law. And how its is relevant to the current issues the Dail should be dealing with... golden handshake from the Church?

ChocolateSauce

No one, including Dermot Ahern (who according to Senator Ivana Bakic was making blasphemous jokes during the debate), actually thinks there will be a successful case. But it is the principle of the thing, and also the expensive fact that anyone with a chip on their shoulder can demand a prosecution.

Tim Robbins

Someone should try to apply the legislation to Fr. Ted and then this would show how daft it all is.

solice

cm2000 wrote: »

Apart from being pretty appalled at the content of this new law I'm struggling to comprehend why it came about. Was there an epidemic of blasphemy that I was unaware of?

hobochris wrote: »

Id love to know who or what is the driving force behind this piece of crap being put into law. And how its is relevant to the current issues the Dail should be dealing with... golden handshake from the Church?

There is a whisper out there that it was brought up because they wanted to slow down the defamation bill until after the Monica Leach ruiling a few weeks back. The new defamation bill moves responibility of awarding compensation from the jury to the judge and there is no way a judge would have given somebody €1.8 million! She would have to be really innocent to be given that much money...and if she was innocent then Martin cullen would be too....Maybe this post belongs in the Conspiracy Theory section?

Is the Blasphemy addition not a good thing? I believe in the seperation of church and state, now any debate about religion interfering in state matters could be deemed offensive, its a legal minefield! Maybe people wont bother bringing up religion into any debate! Maybe priests wont be allowed preach from the pulpit in the run up to an election?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

solice

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I find it offensive! I look at Brian Cowen, I see a god!

Chris Lowe

The new law will be discussed on the Last Word in a few minutes.

For anyone who didn't catch it here's some quick notes I took
They started with a clip the Jehovah scene from Life of Brian.

Michael Nugent from Atheist Ireland: Medieval legislation in a 21st century republic dangerous as based on outrage.

Senator Ronan Mullan filling gap in constitution based on AGs advice, the law itself is based on offending substantial numbers of members, high bar need to show intent.

Matt Cooper does tree stump count.

Senator Abusive or offensive, changes from offensive to God to offensive to adherents. New defense artistic, cultural, academic etc. exceptions, interesting irony may need to Ian Paisley or radical Imam.

MN reduced fine and defenses added to the original proposal. If enough people are outraged by someones declared athiesm then its prosecutable, difficulty is encouraging and incentivising outrage. Atheists discriminated against - no chance of fair trial, education system mainly run by one religion, presidential and judges oaths discriminatory.

RM No danger, hard to prosecute, stops people from setting out to cause insult, could set up discourse between believers and non believers.

texter how many is sufficient number

RM arrest warrent legislation if two countries recognize blasphemy, dangerous, requirement for review after 5 years

Ends with a clip from Father Ted - Holy Stone scene

After discussion Father Ted would get out of it based on cultural exemption

BlaasForRafa

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Aye, I can't wait to hear them playing Deicide albums in the high court to decide their artistic merit

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

j1smithy

This blasphemy part of the defamation bill is really just a constitutional oddity which was required and is so open ended it is unlikely anyone will ever be prosecuted under it. I mean the onus is on the prosecution that any statements under this law have to be intentionally offensive. It could be argued that the expression of a truely held belief cannot be intentionally offensive.

The more important parts of the bill, which are a multitude times more likely to end in court such as the areas which deal with libel are far more worthy of discussion.

Maybe the inclusion of blasphemy was a clever tactic to divert real debate?

Darragh29

Can someone tell me why this legislation is being introduced now??? It's not like we haven't hugely more important justice issues to worry about for example gangland crime, etc.

Like has someone lobbied for this or what's the story, I'm serious here, why on earth is this being introduced now??? What is motivating the introduction of this legislation I suppose is what I'm trying to ask...