New blasphemy law.

A quiet one

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-law

I notice from a number of commentators that this matter has not featured in the Irish press, or at least, not even "a word" in the papers mentioned by them, and so I'm wondering why is that.

What is it about this that the Irish press consider unworthy of coverage, or, if you like, what is it that the author of this piece is glossing over that would have extinguished any interest in it from the start?

GerardKeating

A quiet one wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-law

I notice from a number of commentators that this matter has not featured in the Irish press, or at least, not even "a word" in the papers mentioned by them, and so I'm wondering why is that.

What is it about this that the Irish press consider unworthy of coverage, or, if you like, what is it that the author of this piece is glossing over that would have extinguished any interest in it from the start?

It got some coverage when the law was passed, but only a little the past few days since it came into force, maybe they are afraid that commenting on it would be considered blasphemous ???

The Agogo

It's time Europe stopped bending over to this type of political pressure from immigrant populations.

If I moved to another country, I wouldn't have the severe audacity to impinge MY culture on theirs. This is a disgrceful act by Dermot Ahern.

A quiet one

GerardKeating wrote: »

It got some coverage when the law was passed, but only a little the past few days since it came into force, maybe they are afraid that commenting on it would be considered blasphemous ???

I woke up with a dreadful thought;

In posting the link (& therefore the sublink contained within the article) have I put this board into a position of liability?

jdivision

Think there's pieces on it in some of the papers today.

not bakunin

The Agogo wrote: »

It's time Europe stopped bending over to this type of political pressure from immigrant populations.

If I moved to another country, I wouldn't have the severe audacity to impinge MY culture on theirs. This is a disgrceful act by Dermot Ahern.

I'm not quite sure that I understand what you're refering to here. The new Act deals primarily with defamation, which is something seen in every culture. The more controversial aspect of the Act, involving blasphemy, was enacted in order to fill a constitutional void present since 1999 (I think). I personally see the thinking behind this particular section to be regressive, but it is clear from section 36 (3) that any real attempt at "breaking the law" with regard to blaspemy is rendered null and void by the provision: "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." Most forms of blasphemy fall into this broad category. If you look at the 25 Blasphemous quotes published by Atheist Ireland on their website, you will find that all have the above values to some degree, and could not result in successful prosecution.

As for the Act not recieving enough press attention, maybe it wasn't interesting enough? Perhaps the journalists saw that the blasphemy part was unlikely to have any significant impact, and decided not to be sensationalist. I found the article from the Irish Times lawyer in Saturday's Times (Opinion and Analysis pages) to be quite informative and interesting though.

callig

I agree with the previous poster.

A quiet one wrote: »

I notice from a number of commentators that this matter has not featured in the Irish press, or at least, not even "a word" in the papers mentioned by them, and so I'm wondering why is that.

What is it about this that the Irish press consider unworthy of coverage,

Ahern sums it up.

There is no element of surprise here as some of the less informed commentators might have you believe.

...

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

That article specifically states that the publication of blasphemous matter “is an offence which should be punishable in accordance with law”. Those who argue that, where the Constitution has ordained an offence, a minister should simply ignore it to suit his ideological positions, seem to me to be arguing for a clear constitutional provision to be wilfully ignored. This would be to undermine the Constitution and its protection. Needless to say, I have no intention of so doing.

...

there is a legal obligation to ensure that article 40.6.1.i is operable. If that article is not to be removed from the Constitution by referendum then it is necessary to ensure that it is operable. To do otherwise would imply an a la carte approach to the Constitution and its precepts and principles.

...

Finally, while the Constitution requires an offence of blasphemy it also, like the position in many other countries, expressly protects freedom of expression. My reform legislation will have to be construed in that context. No innocent conduct will be captured.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0501/1224245748066.html

A quiet one

Thanks for the replies; They have been very helpful.