Blasphemy Law comes into effect Jan 1st 2010

Free Speech IE

As of today, the blasphemy legislation, enshrined in the Defamation Act 2009, comes into effect. The section dealing with blasphemous libel states:

36.—(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 €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.
(4) In this section “religion” does not include an organisation or
cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

Atheist Ireland have published 25 blasphemous quotes in honour of this momentous event. They can be found here:
http://blasphemy.ie/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes/

As the blasphemy.ie website appears to be crashing regularly due to the level of traffic at the moment (no doubt due to the reporting by CNN and the BBC), I am publishing the full list of blasphemous quotes here:

Atheist Ireland Publishes 25 Blasphemous Quotations
on Commencement of New Irish Blasphemy Law

1 January 2010


From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion.

This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic States led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.

In this context we now publish a list of 25 blasphemous quotations, which are abusive and insulting in relation to matters held sacred by various religions, and which have previously been published by or uttered by or attributed to Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, James Kirkup, Monty Python, Rev Ian Paisley, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Frank Zappa, Salman Rushdie, Bjork, Amanda Donohoe, George Carlin, Paul Woodfull, Jerry Springer the Opera, Tim Minchin, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict XVI, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, Ian O’Doherty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Dermot Ahern.

Despite these quotations being abusive and insulting in relation to matters held sacred by various religions, we unreservedly support the right of these people to have published or uttered them, and we unreservedly support the right of any Irish citizen to make comparable statements about matters held sacred by any religion without fear of being criminalised, and without having to prove to a court that a reasonable person would find any particular value in the statement.

We ask Fianna Fail and the Green Party to repeal their anachronistic blasphemy law, as part of the revision of the Defamation Act that is included within the Act. We ask them to hold a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution. We also ask all TDs and Senators to support a referendum to remove references to God from the Irish Constitution, including the clauses that prevent atheists from being appointed as President or as a Judge without swearing a religious oath asking God to direct them in their work.


25 Blasphemous Quotations Published by Atheist Ireland on 1 January 2010


1. Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God, in Matthew 26:64: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” According to the Christian Bible, the Jewish chief priests and elders and council deemed this statement by Jesus to be blasphemous, and they sentenced Jesus to death for saying it.

2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.

3. Muhammad, quoted in Hadith of Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 8 Hadith 427: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” This quote is attributed to Muhammad on his death-bed as a warning to Muslims not to copy this practice of the Jews and Christians. It is one of several passages in the Koran and in Hadith that can give a scriptural foundation to Islamic anti-Semitism, including the assertion in Sura 5:60 that Allah cursed Jews and turned some of them into apes and swine.

4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name – The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies... But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy — he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty... What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.

5. Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag, 1963: “Get in line in that processional, step into that small confessional. There, the guy who's got religion'll tell you if your sin's original. If it is, try playing it safer, drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!”

6. Randy Newman, God’s Song, 1972: “And the Lord said: I burn down your cities – how blind you must be. I take from you your children, and you say how blessed are we. You all must be crazy to put your faith in me. That’s why I love mankind.”

7. James Kirkup, The Love That Dares to Speak its Name, 1976: “While they prepared the tomb I kept guard over him. His mother and the Magdalen had gone to fetch clean linen to shroud his nakedness. I was alone with him... I laid my lips around the tip of that great cock, the instrument of our salvation, our eternal joy. The shaft, still throbbed, anointed with death's final ejaculation.” This extract is from a poem that led to the last successful blasphemy prosecution in Britain, when Denis Lemon was given a suspended prison sentence after he published it in the now-defunct magazine Gay News. In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution. In 2008, the British Parliament abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.

8. Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath, in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, 1979: “Look, I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”

9. Rev Ian Paisley MEP to the Pope in the European Parliament, 1988: “I denounce you as the Antichrist.” Paisley’s website describes the Antichrist as being “a liar, the true son of the father of lies, the original liar from the beginning... he will imitate Christ, a diabolical imitation, Satan transformed into an angel of light, which will deceive the world.”

10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”

11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”

12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas – uncertainty, progress, change – into crimes.” In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie because of blasphemous passages in Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.

13. Bjork, 1995: “I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say **** the Buddhists.”

14. Amanda Donohoe on her role in the Ken Russell movie Lair of the White Worm, 1995: “Spitting on Christ was a great deal of fun. I can’t embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages, and that persecution still goes on today all over the world.”

15. George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bull**** story. Holy ****!”

16. Paul Woodfull as Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, 2000: “He said me ma’s a virgin and sure no one disagreed, Cause they knew a lad who walks on water’s handy with his feet... Jaysus oh Jaysus, as cool as bleedin’ ice, With all the scrubbers in Israel he could not be enticed, Jaysus oh Jaysus, it’s funny you never rode, Cause it’s you I do be shoutin’ for each time I shoot me load.”

17. Jesus Christ, in Jerry Springer The Opera, 2003: “Actually, I'm a bit gay.” In 2005, the Christian Institute tried to bring a prosecution against the BBC for screening Jerry Springer the Opera, but the UK courts refused to issue a summons.

18. Tim Minchin, Ten-foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins, 2005: “So you’re gonna live in paradise, With a ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins, So you’re gonna sacrifice your life, For a shot at the greener grass, And when the Lord comes down with his shiny rod of judgment, He’s gonna kick my heathen ass.”

19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression."

20. Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, 2006: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” This statement has already led to both outrage and condemnation of the outrage. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world’s largest Muslim body, said it was a “character assassination of the prophet Muhammad”. The Malaysian Prime Minister said that "the Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created.” Pakistan’s foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence”. The European Commission said that “reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable.”

21. Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, 2007: “There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require... It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing—absolutely nothing—in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.”

22. PZ Myers, on his desecration of a Roman Catholic communion host, 2008: “You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university... However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”

23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”

24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent... we call it God... I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.

25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.

Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “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.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.



For those of you who enjoy free speech - get your chequebooks out.

Happy New Year!

eldin

.

Spiritoftheseventies

Another way to clog up our courts while the criminals go about their business.

silverharp

Absolute waste of taxpayer money. Sign me up for a day of action where we all haul ourselves down to the police station to confess our crimes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

iainmacl

and how about exposing them to images of the corpse of a man tortured to death hung on the walls of classrooms across the country. They talk about computer games de-sensitising people to violence, what about that image shown to them from birth and the Bible's catalogue of genocide, rape, murder and abuse? But then what would I know....?

gerry28

is scientology protected or can we still laugh at tom cruise and the rest of them

Dr. Loon

Making free speech illegal? Super. Well done government.

aurelius79

I don't believe this is anything more than an attempt by government to silence accusations of fraud and corruption within government and private institutions (banks etc.).

I found this particular section to be somewhat distressing:

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be
liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding \3,000, or
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to
both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding
\50,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5
years, or to both.


So a possible 50k fine and 5 years in jail for calling Bertie Ahern a two-face, lying crook with no real "evidence". Anyone else get the feeling we are in the middle of the formation of the Fourth Reich?

silverharp

aurelius79 wrote: »

So a possible 50k fine and 5 years in jail for calling Bertie Ahern a two-face, lying crook with no real "evidence". Anyone else get the feeling we are in the middle of the formation of the Fourth Reich?

it is a blasphemy law not a libel law or general free speech law, or am I missing something?

aurelius79

silverharp wrote: »

it is a blasphemy law not a libel law or general free speech law, or am I missing something?

It's not a blasphemy law. The very first part of it deals with defamation, which includes libel and slander. Read the damn thing, Part 2 deals specifically with defamation, slander, libel, etc. Blasphemy isn't even mentioned until Part 5.

It's called the Defamation Act, not the Blasphemy Act.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a3109.pdf

Mad Finn

Jesus was a bastard.

Is that offensive? Repugnant to the majority Christian community? Or now, blasphemous punishable by a heavy fine or imprisonment.

But if you think about it, that's what every sincere, devout and/or tolerant Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or indeed any non Christian believes by default.

None of these people believe Jesus Christ was the immaculately conceived Son of God. So who do they think was his father?

The most obvious suspect is of course Joseph, Mary's betrothed at the time of conception and later her husband. But the Bible is quite clear on this specific point: Joseph knew he was NOT the father.

The first Chapter of Matthew's Gospel describes how Mary falls pregnant and Joseph is dissuaded from dumping her as was his intention by the appearance of an angel who tells him the pregnancy was caused by the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.
25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.


So all these infidels are going around thinking our saviour was a bastard. And if they dare to utter the implications of their own sincere beliefs, they are clearly guilty of blasphemy.

Lock 'em all up.

bmaxi

I have never understood why God went down the Mary and Joseph road. I thought He had the "making people out of dust" thing, off to a fine art.
Does this make me a blasphemer?

aurelius79

Let's just look at some of the language of this Act.

6.—(1) The tort of libel and the tort of slander—
(a) shall cease to be so described, and
(b) shall, instead, be collectively described, and are referred
to in this Act, as the “tort of defamation”.

(2) The tort of defamation consists of the publication, by any
means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or
more than one person (other than the first-mentioned person), and
“defamation” shall be construed accordingly.

(3) A defamatory statement concerns a person if it could reasonably
be understood as referring to him or her.

“statement” includes—
(a) a statement made orally or in writing,
(b) visual images, sounds, gestures and any other method of
signifying meaning,
(c) a statement—
(i) broadcast on the radio or television, or
(ii) published on the internet, and
(d) an electronic communication;

(5) The tort of defamation is actionable without proof of special
damage.

12.—The provisions of this Act apply to a body corporate as they
apply to a natural person, and a body corporate may bring a defamation
action under this Act in respect of a statement concerning it
that it claims is defamatory whether or not it has incurred or is likely
to incur financial loss as a result of the publication of that statement.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aurelius79

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Let's say they do actually manage to convict Mr. Dawkins and his book is deemed to be blasphemous. What then?


37.—(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 Sı´ocha´na 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 Sı´ocha´na of all copies of the statement to which
the offence related that are in the possession of any
person,


So the Gardai can now enter and search any premises or home if they have "reasonable suspicion" that the owner or occupier possesses a copy of Mr. Dawkins book on the premises. Fahrenheit 451 anyone?

Pygmalion

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To be honest, a "reasonable person" could see political value in the quotes being published as protest even if they were just made up on the spot, though that may not hold up.
I would also imagine that publishing a bunch of well-known quotes from atheists wouldn't count as intending to cause "outrage", though maybe that is their goal.

Anyway I can't see this being enforced too heavily or anything, the reason blasphemy is an offence is not that the Dáil is full of crazy fundamentalists, it's because the constitution states the need for a law against it IIRC.
The ideal solution would of course be to have a referendum on it, but unless that happens the law against it must stand, regardless of how stupid and backwards it is.
I'd rather have a stupid and backwards law than the idea that we can just ignore parts of the constitution when it suits us.

sceptre

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This.

There's no problem with a separate thread on the defamation issues (if any) but this thread was obviously started to specifically consider the blasphemy issues (the hint is in the thread title).

ei.sdraob

is there a list of TDs or parties

who proposed and voted this into law?

Teutorix

Could this be taken to the EU courts? It seems like it infringes on rights to free thought/speech.
I really expect this to be amended sooner or later due to the general reaction from the people.
Also could a minor be prosecuted for blasphemy under this act?

raindog.promo

If (for example) you happen to drop something and exclaim "Jesus Christ!" is that considered blasphemy? I may have to move to another country

Zillah

Teutorix wrote: »

Could this be taken to the EU courts?

I would be very surprised if it couldn't. If anyone with any degree of savvy is prosecuted on this they will have a dozen organisations to do with human rights, free speech and secularism throwing money/lawyers at them, stirring up a media shit storm and basically dragging this ridiculous government through an international gauntlet of disdain.

For that very reason I would be shocked if they were ever stupid enough to prosecute someone for this, and I almost hope they try so that they can be shown up as the fools they are.

Zillah

ei.sdraob wrote: »

is there a list of TDs or parties

who proposed and voted this into law?

As far as I understand it, this is Dermot Ahern's baby.

baalthor

gerry28 wrote: »

is scientology protected or can we still laugh at tom cruise and the rest of them

I think they might have had them in mind with this section of the act:

(4) In this section “religion” does not include an organisation or
cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

So you can still call Scientology a load of shite . But be careful about what you call individual scientologists or Tom Cruise as we still have libel laws.

I'm not sure how you blapheme againsts Scientology anyway - do they even have a god or supreme being? or is that actually Tom Cruise's role?

eldin

Zillah wrote: »

As far as I understand it, this is Dermot Ahern's baby.

It'd be nice to stick posters of the mohammed bomber cartoons up around his area tbh

Teutorix

baalthor wrote: »

I think they might have had them in mind with this section of the act:

So you can still call Scientology a load of shite . But be careful about what you call individual scientologists or Tom Cruise as we still have libel laws.

I'm not sure how you blapheme againsts Scientology anyway - do they even have a god or supreme being? or is that actually Tom Cruise's role?

Yes the libel laws would prevent the individuals being called "insert rude term"

And im not entirely up on the Scientology lore, but they worship Xenu afaik

sceptre

Guys, as you're doubtless aware, this is a discussion forum. Merely "contributing" to the thread by doing nothing more than listing a single one-liner example of what you consider to be blasphemous is contributing nothing to the discussion. Accordingly I've deleted those contributions. Feel free to discuss the issues but those one-liners are a waste of electrons better suited to the blogs I advise the wannabe comedian blasphemers to start.

/mod

EI111

silverharp wrote: »

a day of action where we all haul ourselves down to the police station to confess our crimes.

That would be very good

View

Teutorix wrote: »

Could this be taken to the EU courts? It seems like it infringes on rights to free thought/speech.
I really expect this to be amended sooner or later due to the general reaction from the people.
Also could a minor be prosecuted for blasphemy under this act?

It probably could be taken to the ECHR. That though is a Council of Europe body, not an EU body. The EU's court is the ECJ.

As the law is a domestic law and not related to EU Regulations or Directives, the ECJ would have no interest in (or legal basis for) getting involved.

No idea about the minor. I would imagine the answer is Yes.

stuartfanning

It's being challenged!

http://blog.atheist.ie/?p=101

http://blasphemy.ie/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes/

PoleStar

What is worrying about this is that in times of recession, with the troubles in the North, tsunamis, housing crisis, flooding etc, that there are actually people sitting down somewhere being paid to think of and come up with stuff like this.

No wonder we are broke.

Also, now that "thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain" is law, how long will it be before the rest of the 10 commandments are brought in as Law.

I wonder, will the bring in some tasty old testament punishments for people, stonings etc.

Maybe we should all wear togas, grown our hair and beards long and start really acting like we are living in the dark ages.

lostexpectation

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

which is why the published 25 of them ,there just examples
its a defence.. not an out,

(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

it will be quit difficult to get a case court or prosecuted but people are going to try one way or another and thats still a problem.

the law is unnecessary.

Pygmalion

lostexpectation wrote: »

the law is unnecessary.

The constitution requires a law against publishing blasphemy.
The law is stupid, but 100% necessary until/unless a referendum is held.

lostexpectation

Pygmalion wrote: »

The constitution requires a law against publishing blasphemy.
The law is stupid, but 100% necessary until/unless a referendum is held.

we went without it for years. hardly 100% necessary

ei.sdraob

"People who need government to enforce their religion must not have much faith in the power of its message." - unknown

:cool:

BlaasForRafa

lostexpectation wrote: »

it will be quit difficult to get a case court or prosecuted but people are going to try one way or another and thats still a problem..

Indeed, some eejit will have a go and try this out.

I wonder how it will relate to music, lots of thrash, black and death metal would be on the blasphemous side

"You go to the church, you kiss the cross
You will be saved at any cost
You have your own reality
Christianity
You spend your life just kissing ass
A trait that's grown as time has passed
You think the world will end today
You praise the Lord, it's all you say

Jesus saves, listen to you pray
You think you'll see the pearly gates
When death takes you away

For all respect you cannot lust
In an invisible man you place your trust
Indirect dependency
Eternal attempt at amnesty
He will decide who lives and dies
Depopulate Satanas rise
You will be an accessory
Irreverence and blasphemy

Jesus saves, no need to pray
The gates of pearl have turned to gold
It seems you've lost your way

Jesus saves, no words of praise
No promised land to take you to
There is no other way "

Colpriz

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Indeed, some eejit will have a go and try this out.

I wonder how it will relate to music, lots of thrash, black and death metal would be on the blasphemous side

"You go to the church, you kiss the cross
You will be saved at any cost
You have your own reality
Christianity
You spend your life just kissing ass
A trait that's grown as time has passed
You think the world will end today
You praise the Lord, it's all you say

Jesus saves, listen to you pray
You think you'll see the pearly gates
When death takes you away

For all respect you cannot lust
In an invisible man you place your trust
Indirect dependency
Eternal attempt at amnesty
He will decide who lives and dies
Depopulate Satanas rise
You will be an accessory
Irreverence and blasphemy

Jesus saves, no need to pray
The gates of pearl have turned to gold
It seems you've lost your way

Jesus saves, no words of praise
No promised land to take you to
There is no other way "

Slayer are so 80's..

sceptre

If you read the actual law you'll notice an exemption for creations with artistic merit. And no, with my moderator hat on that's in no way an in towards discussing whether Slayer or your own favourite grouping of yowl-merchants have artistic merit. Under the law they do.

Not that I'm that bothered but if you're not familiar with what's actually been made illegal under the new legislation, I'd suggest reading a little about it. Just being blasphemous isn't enough. The new law has requirements. Even if you just read the relevant section of this article, you'll be reasonably equipped to discuss it. For convenience, the relevant section is:

Under the new law, anyone who says, publishes or otherwise makes public comments that are found to be grossly abusive or insulting to matters that are held sacred by any religion are guilty of blasphemy if such material causes offence or outrage to a "substantial" number of people who follow the religion.

and adding it to this from this article:

Those found guilty of breaking the blasphemy law may try to defend themselves by proving that a reasonable person would find literary, artistic, political, scientific or academic value in what they said or published, the law says.

Put the two together and that's your cliff notes. It'd be totally cool if any future contributors to the thread were aware of the above.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Pushtrak

Pygmalion wrote: »

The constitution doesn't require a law against publishing blasphemy.
The law is stupid, but 0% necessary for all of time.

Altered just a tad.

Colpriz

Colpriz wrote: »

Slayer are so 80's..

Received a warning for this comment, hypocrisy reigns. Surely its all about freedom of speech. How ironic would it be if under a democracy you cannot express yrself?

Slayer are 80's thrash. Deicide, darkthrone, immolation & burzum all promote the same take on putting down christianity. Surely we need a balanced society?

bmaxi

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed, difficult to define "grossly" and impossible to quantify "substantial" and where would those adherents live, in Ireland, Worldwide?

lostexpectation

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

any ideas?

sceptre

Colpriz wrote: »

Received a warning for this comment, hypocrisy reigns. Surely its all about freedom of speech. How ironic would it be if under a democracy you cannot express yrself?

Slayer are 80's thrash. Deicide, darkthrone, immolation & burzum all promote the same take on putting down christianity. Surely we need a balanced society?

As you may be unaware, it's a policy across the entirety of the boards.ie site that moderator decisions aren't questioned/discussed/criticised on the thread in which they were made. This isn't a newthing, actually it's been the way things have been done for the past decade.

The dispute resolution procedure (as highlighted by a recent user-dismissable sitewide announcement which you may have missed) is here. Feel free to follow it if you feel you have been wronged. The moderator of the first instance would be me. Send me a PM if you wish to discuss it (not an on-thread discussion, which will be deleted for reasons explained in the site FAQ). I'm all ears.

However, your musical views are irrelevant to this thread and will remain so. There is an entire music category for you to discuss whatever you like or don't like to listen to. Feel free to use it for that.

Yes, this is a moderator post. Please regard it as such.

sceptre

bmaxi wrote: »

Indeed, difficult to define "grossly" and impossible to quantify "substantial" and where would those adherents live, in Ireland, Worldwide?

Broadly speaking, they have to live in Ireland. While we can legislate with extra-territorial effect under existing legislation and constitutional provisions, the offended essentially wouldn't have locus standi to be offended under our laws/this law if they were in foreign parts.

We're far more of a multicultural and multiorigin society in Ireland these days - you can find an adherent of pretty much any religion in this jurisdiction if you look hard enough.

BroomBurner

So they have, in effect, created a law that nullifies itself.

Also, on the paragraph mentioning organisations that use "oppresive psychological manipulation" (phrasing could be wrong) includes the Catholic Church then. Having been brought up a Catholic, this is what I, and my class in school and no doubt coutless others, were subjected to.

To me, this legislation was brought about more for its articles on defamation, and not on blasphemy.

eldin

lostexpectation wrote: »

any ideas?

http://images.google.ie/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=Kurt+Westergaard+cartoons&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi&gbv=1&ei=Bn0_S_b-KNfTjAenvu2ADg

lostexpectation

eldin wrote: »

http://images.google.ie/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=Kurt+Westergaard+cartoons&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi&gbv=1&ei=Bn0_S_b-KNfTjAenvu2ADg

how about we challenge the religious conservatives that run this state huh?

sceptre

lostexpectation wrote: »

how about we challenge the religious conservatives that run this state huh?

It's interesting that eldin brings up (for a second time) the Kurt Westergaard affair without having anyone highlight the significance of it either time.

It's rare in the past decade or two for something to anger a group of religious people as much as his series of cartoons. The last time I can think of before that was when Viking Penguin published The Satanic Verses. Even Mary Whitehouse's efforts in the 1970s against the likes of Denis Lemon and Gay News (and remember, Whitehouse v Lemon was a private prosecution for blasphemy) didn't bring anywhere near the amount of outrage that either Salman Rushdie or Kurt Westergaard did.

The prospect of a Rushdie prosecution failed mainly because a House of Lords select committee stated that the UK laws on blasphemy applied only to Judeo-Christianity. There is no such restriction in the new Irish law.

My opinion is that it's very difficult to outrage a sufficient number of Christians in Ireland (or England and Wales[1], where incidentally anti-blasphemy legislation was finally being completely abolished in 2008 while we were framing new anti-blasphemy laws).

If Monty Python's Life of Brian can't do it well enough (bearing in mind that the movie was banned in Ireland), if The Last Temptation of Christ wasn't enough to get us a prosecution in the UK (despite those fantasies of Jesus that paled in comparison to those of the Jesus of Gay News and the depiction of Jesus as having a nice happy life with Mary Magdalene later), if Jerry Springer: The Opera isn't quite enough to do it in the UK (though specifically there as stage productions and broadcasts were exempt, as they would be here in this case due to the artistic exemption) despite 63,000 complaints to the BBC after their broadcast, then what actually can cause a prosecution on the basis of annoying the Christians? I'd say virtually nothing.

Incidentally, here's a link to the poem (The Love that dares to speak its name) at the centre of the Whitehouse v Lemon case in 1976. There's a chance that your grandmother might be a bit miffed about it if she's a churchgoer. Personally, as I've mentioned before on these boards, I begin to laugh at line 6 as it's not a very good poem. I have sincere doubts that even this is enough for a reliable breach of the new anti-blasphemy laws.

Put short, the odds are extremely high that for a prosecution someone's going to have to insult the Koran. Severely. As the Christians are just too used to it in the past few decades. It's bloody hard to annoy enough of them these days.


[1] It hasn't been abolished in Scotland, where the Crown Office thought about a prosecution for Jerry Springer: The Opera before realising that they'd be laughed at.

Daroxtar

OK, If i were to set up the Church of Gump whereby i would worship Forrest Gump and take moral direction from the movie and i convinced 2 other people to join my Church of Gump then someone came along and said to us "What are you worshiping him for? Sure he's a fkn retard" we would have a situation where a vast proportion of the adherants of a religion were grossly offended by a statement about the object of our worship. Could we take a case against the person who made the statement?

The Church of Gump is a non profit organisation and does not have any oppressive manipulative practises.