01/01/2010 Blasphmey Law in Effect.

axer

The problem in the first place is that you have to mount a defence which is ridiculus whether it is ever used or not. A law like this would influence people in some way or form (even if it is a very small influence) against religious protest due to its existence. This would not be the case if they had at least reduced the fine to like one euro.

If they did not intend this law to be used or be there as a threat then they would not have such a large maximum fine as a penalty.

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fairness in any case the defendant has to mount a defence. Anyone who just lets the prosecution say whatever they want and deliberately withholds information that could exonerate him is going to be convicted.

Well technically you could be acquitted without saying a word but , of course, practically, you would usually be well advised to defend yourself.

But there is a difference between defending yourself and specificaly invoking one of the legislatively provided 'defences' which must be specifically invoked before they can be considered.

axer

Galvasean wrote: »

Telling people to 'stop worrying and enjoy life' does not dtrike me as a phrase that was intended to cause outrage.

How about we the sign is put as "There is no god" and leave it at that? Or what if I said "god is an evil bastard who let people sexually tourture young innocent children".

Am I in trouble now?

drkpower

hiorta wrote: »

Isn't it the case that 'offence' can only be taken and not given?
If someone intended to offend or verbally insult me and I was not going to allow it, then I would not be 'offended'.

I suppose.
But of course this crime requires 'outrage' (which presumably is far worse than 'offence') and requires both that it is actually caused in the victim and that the perpetrator actually intends to so cause it.

drkpower

axer wrote: »

How about we the sign is put as "There is no god" and leave it at that?

Am I in trouble now?

No; read the law.

axer

drkpower wrote: »

No; read the law.

I have read it. It is very vague.

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 Euro 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.

Turtwig

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.

Couldn't it be argued that any religion came under this?:pac:

drkpower

axer wrote: »

I have read it. It is very vague.

It is very clear in some ways (there are 4 key ingredients- 1. publication; 2. abusive/insulting actually causing outrage 3. substantial nimber 4. intention to outrage - and a number of specific defences) and vague in others (what does 'outrage' precisely mean; is substantial an absolute measure or relative to the religons numbers?) but what we can say is that saying 'there is no God' is not going to cause 'outrage' and is hardly intended to cause such outrage. It will have to be a little more significant than that.

axer

drkpower wrote: »

It is very clear in some ways - there are 4 key ingredients-

drkpower wrote: »

1. publication;

Or uttering

drkpower wrote: »

2. abusive/insulting actually causing outrage.

The deity is held sacred to religious folk thus me putting adverts on buses etc informing people that there is no god or that if there is a god then he is evil could be insulting to many but how am I to know this beforehand but yet I have a right to put signs up saying these things especially when some religious group can put up adverts in pearce station with "Repent or you will spend eternity in hell" or something to that effect. Whether I believe that there is a god or not this sign is trying to frighten me into going back to religion.

drkpower wrote: »

3. substantial number

This is very vague

drkpower wrote: »

4. intention to outrage - and a number of specific defences

Very specific defences but one needs to still prove that he/she falls into one of those defences thus someone may or may not vaguely fit into one of those defences. Take my example above, I don't know how I could be guarenteed to successfully argue literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in my advertisement. I doubt it is literary, artistic, scientific or academic. Maybe I could argue political but that is not a sure bet thus I have to be careful what I say. This is wrong.

Daftendirekt

Malty_T wrote: »

Couldn't it be argued that any religion came under this?:pac:

I don't see why not.

I'd love to see someone mount a defence against a blasphemy charge on the grounds that the Catholic Church (or whatever) is not actually a religion.

axer

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I'd love to see someone mount a defence against a blasphemy charge on the grounds that the Catholic Church (or whatever) is not actually a religion, since it employs 'oppressive psychological manipulation'.

I believe they already have religious status which would mean that at the time of the incident they were effectively a religion in the eyes of the law.

Daftendirekt

axer wrote: »

The deity is held sacred to religious folk thus me putting adverts on buses etc informing people that there is no god or that if there is a god then he is evil could be insulting to many but how am I to know this beforehand but yet I have a right to put signs up saying these things especially when some religious group can put up adverts in pearce station with "Repent or you will spend eternity in hell" or something to that effect. Whether I believe that there is a god or not this sign is trying to frighten me into going back to religion.

This might be stretching it, but supposing you plastered 'There is no God' or 'God is an evil bastard' signs all over the place, couldn't you simply claim you intended to educate people, rather than cause outrage?

axer

Daftendirekt wrote: »

This might be stretching it, but supposing you plastered 'There is no God' or 'God is an evil bastard' signs all over the place, couldn't you simply claim you intended to educate people, rather than cause outrage?

But that is the problem. I dont know how a judge who was sworn in on a bible might see it. If it was only a one euro fine then it would not really be a threat but a possible fine of 25000 euro would bankrupt me thus shut me up.

Turtwig

The biggest problem I have with this law is that some Islamist states might try and use us as an example. Does anyone know though if other European states have similar blasphemy laws - I know Denmark does.

Daftendirekt

axer wrote: »

But that is the problem. I dont know how a judge who was sworn in on a bible might see it. If it was only a one euro fine then it would not really be a threat but a possible fine of 25000 euro would bankrupt me thus shut me up.

Surely, given one of the requirements is the intent to cause outrage, they'd need to be able to prove that you intended to cause outrage before you could be convicted?

I agree about the penalty being too high though. If the law was only drawn up to address a technicality, then why does the penalty need to be so harsh?

Daftendirekt

Malty_T wrote: »

The biggest problem I have with this law is that some Islamist states might try and use us as an example. Does anyone know though if other European states have similar blasphemy laws - I know Denmark does.

A quick Google turned this up.

Apparently some do, but they're never invoked.

Edit: Apart from in Poland apparently.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

If they really want to be daring, then they should challenge the blasphemy law by cracking jokes about Mohammed, then post the video on youtube. Now, that would be edgy!

Given that a chap armed with an axe arrived at a Danish house last at six last Saturday morning to deal with a guy who did just this, you'll no doubt forgive most people for choosing to stay alive so they can produce any speech at all, let alone the free kind.

In the meantime, we'll just have to survive with Jesus and Mo:

http://www.jesusandmo.net

Which -- as I know from first-hand experience -- is banned in at least Saudi, UAE and Iran, lest the blood of the finest monotheists be curdled to the point of picking up an axe to chop up human beings.

drkpower

axer wrote: »

The deity is held sacred to religious folk thus me putting adverts on buses etc informing people that there is no god or that if there is a god then he is evil could be insulting to many but how am I to know this beforehand but yet I have a right to put signs up saying these things especially when some religious group can put up adverts in pearce station with "Repent or you will spend eternity in hell" or something to that effect. Whether I believe that there is a god or not this sign is trying to frighten me into going back to religion.

It has to be insulting to the point of causing outrage; that is a different animal altogether.

Causing/intending outrage is not an ingredient of any irish offence i am aware of, but even looking at the dictionary definition, it is reasonable to suggest that it will take more than banal criticism/insult to religon.

You can suggest a million things that may possibly/theoretically result in a prosecution/conviction and I suppose, until we see how the Gardai/DPP/judges operate and interpret the legislation, we wont know for sure. Just like how theoretically if I knock against you on the street, I can theoretically be charged with assault, but in reality, that will never happen.

lostexpectation

Dades wrote: »

My own view is, that unless you go out of your way to repeatedly, obscenely and publicly slander someone's deity with a view to getting yourself charged you can put on whatever show you like.

Don't mistake the idea that our principles of free speech have been attacked with any realistic actual threat on our free speech, imo.

the threat is real and actual.

Xluna

Poland, an overwhelmingly Catholic country, has a legal provision against publicly offending a person's religious feelings, with up to two years in prison.

Religion offends my rational and humanist feelings.:mad:

Dades

lostexpectation wrote: »

the threat is real and actual.

Suffice to say, you feel threatened and I do not.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dades

What annoys me about the blasphemy laws is that their very existence is the only thing oppressing people.

Can anyone come up with an example of a public statement, display, protest from the last 10 years, that, if made today, would be likely to invoke the state into action? (Forget "Atheist bus slogans" - I mean something that actually might come under the terms of the Act.)

hiorta

We could all find something that could cause us offence if we tried: religion, politics, advertising, clothes, music, sport, etc, etc.

Or, we could think like adults and develop tolerance for different opinions and not allow ourselves to become 'offended', especially as an excuse for getting our own way.

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

What annoys me about the blasphemy laws is that their very existence is the only thing oppressing people.

Can anyone come up with an example of a public statement, display, protest from the last 10 years, that, if made today, would be likely to invoke the state into action? (Forget "Atheist bus slogans" - I mean something that actually might come under the terms of the Act.)

I can't think of anything, this law was enacted with the deliberate intention that it would never be used. The only real effect of the law is to make people think twice about saying anything bad about religion. They're almost certainly not going to be punished for it but it puts doubt in their mind and what's worse, it gives justification to people who try to silence them or discredit them if they do speak up.

MrPudding

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I can't think of anything, this law was enacted with the deliberate intention that it would never be used. The only real effect of the law is to make people think twice about saying anything bad about religion. They're almost certainly not going to be punished for it but it puts doubt in their mind and what's worse, it gives justification to people who try to silence them or discredit them if they do speak up.

The bit in bold is the very reason why I don't like it. I know no one will be prosecuted, but if it makes people scared to question or risk offending someone's religious sensitivity then it is wrong.

MrP

pH

Dades wrote: »

What annoys me about the blasphemy laws is that their very existence is the only thing oppressing people.

It's similar to all these "atheists can't be elected" statutes still in force in many US states, yes they're unenforceable, but still, they're there, as a smug self-satisfied reminder of how some narrow minded bigots would like the country to be.

Can anyone come up with an example of a public statement, display, protest from the last 10 years, that, if made today, would be likely to invoke the state into action? (Forget "Atheist bus slogans" - I mean something that actually might come under the terms of the Act.)

You think the things I posted here are 100% safe?

How positive are you that something similar to the Jerry Springer Opera could be put on in Dublin? What about a showing of Fitna?

The bit I find most pernicious about it is "thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion" which seems to encourage mass "behead those who insult Islam" demonstrations and protests in order to cause a blasphemy prosecution to take place. Sure you may argue that the prosecution service won't act, but they *can't* act until this outrage has happened, thereby positively encouraging the religious to take offence.

Dades

pH wrote: »

It's similar to all these "atheists can't be elected" statutes still in force in many US states, yes they're unenforceable, but still, they're there, as a smug self-satisfied reminder of how some narrow minded bigots would like the country to be.

Agreed! This is different to thinking you can't speak up though.

You think the things I posted here are 100% safe?

How positive are you that something similar to the Jerry Springer Opera could be put on in Dublin? What about a showing of Fitna?

Those are the best examples of potentially blasphemous material I've seen (none Irish though). :pac:

I do think the state would happily entertain the artistic merit defense to all of them to avoid dealing with them. There would also need to be a huge lobby to get a charge brought - which would have to continue to push long after the material was gone.

South Park just tries too hard to be controversial, for me.

MrPudding

The other thing i was wondering, if someone takes an action against a person how much is the blasphemer going to be out of pocket. Even assuming the case does not go as far as court I would presume the defendant will have some legal bill.

MrP

Dades

MrPudding wrote: »

The other thing i was wondering, if someone takes an action against a person how much is the blasphemer going to be out of pocket. Even assuming the case does not go as far as court I would presume the defendant will have some legal bill.

MrP

A member of the public can't take an action - it has to be initiated by the DPP.

So you will never have the situation where 'offendees' are dragging people through the court system.