Blasphemy Law

MagicMarker

Hey guys, just a quick one! Does anyone know of any court cases involving the blasphemy law at all?

drkpower

Id imagine you couldnt help but hear about it if there was a case taken.

Dave!

AFAIK there haven't been any cases yet. Atheist Ireland were trying to provoke a test case a while ago by publishing a bunch of blasphemous quotes and things. I don't think anything came of it though.

drkpower

Dave! wrote: »

AFAIK there haven't been any cases yet. Atheist Ireland were trying to provoke a test case a while ago by publishing a bunch of blasphemous quotes and things. I don't think anything came of it though.

If that was the 25 'blasphemous quotes' they published a while back, they really werent trying hard enough. While they were good quotes, they really didnt go nearly far enough to attempt to fulfil the ingredients of the offence (which are inccredibly hard to fulfil). But even if they did, the fact that it was clearly all politically motivated would probably have led to the DPP running a mile away from this one (on the basis that one of the Defences could convincingly be invoked).

MagicMarker

Hmmm, maybe you guys can help me then.

The blasphemy law doesn't apply to ''cults'' or ''organisations'', however the defamation act doesn't actually define what a religion is.

Section 36 of Defamation 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 really, how does one define a religion? If I set up a ''community'' and gain, let's say, 10,000 members who must follow a strict moral code etc, and then someone publicly burns the community's ''holy book'' and calls it a cult. Then would that be considered blasphemy?

nozzferrahhtoo

As far as I know the quotes published by Atheist Ireland were never intended to break the law or to invite a test court case or anything of the sort. This is why some might feel they were not trying very hard to get a case taken against them.

The quotes were instead a list of quotes that the Committee of Atheist Ireland felt are now technically illegal under the new law and were intended as examples of quotes that Atheist Ireland say they "unreservedly support the right of these people to have published or uttered them".

The idea was to highlight examples of the kind of things that may be capable of inviting prosecution should someone utter them and then should someone wish to test a case.

The law as it currently stands is so vague, so hard to prosecute, and so meaningless that I think AI felt it was a worthwhile exercise to let people know what their understanding of the law was.

However, their guess is as good as mine because the law is so badly written that it really is guess work what would invite a prosecution.

A member of Atheist Ireland has been elected to a prominent position in Allied Atheist International.

When asked about the law this week Conor said that he feels the intention still is to have a referendum on the Blasphemy law, but they have tied the date up with some other issues which will be voted on at the same time regarding a pretty uncontroversial change to the structure of the courts system and one on the rights of children. It is the latter that is causing the problems and hold ups.

He feels the childrens' rights issue is inching towards resolution and then the Cabinet could agree to hold the 3 referenda together and send them off to the Referendum Commission to have the actual questions drafted.

More details on this and other reasons there has been a hold up are being discussed on the Atheist Ireland Forum.

drkpower

MagicMarker wrote: »

The blasphemy law doesn't apply to ''cults'' or ''organisations'',

Yes it does; just not those whose principal object is making profit or
those that employ oppressive psychological manipulation. Other than that, a 'religon', as you say is undefined, so the guy in the wig will decide what is a religon. There are various canons of interpretation he will use which are far too dull to go into now. But might your 10,000 followers count as a religon? Yes, they might.....:p

MagicMarker wrote: »

If I set up a ''community'' and gain, let's say, 10,000 members who must follow a strict moral code etc, and then someone publicly burns the community's ''holy book'' and calls it a cult. Then would that be considered blasphemy?

- Is burning the book grossly abusive or insulting?
- did it actually cause outrage? Not just upset, insult or disapointment, but outrage? And there must be credible evidence of this?
- Was the 'outrage' experienced by a 'substantial number' of the 10000 of people? Not just a few, or quite a few? And there must be credible evidence of this?
- did the book burner actually intend to cause the outrage? They must intend actual outrage, not just insult or derision or anything else short of intending outrage? And there must be credible evidence of this?

If ALL of the above have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, then yes, blasphemy has been committed. Of course, even then, if areasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the book burning, then everything is hunky dory

The problem with the A.ie quotes is that they really werent even close to breaking this law. So they published 25 entirely legal quotes in attempt to campaign against a law that does not prohibit the publication of these quotes. Publishing these quotes in the manner that they did isnt within an arses roar of being illegal. I share their view that the law is nuts, btw, and I admire their attempts to have it repealed, I just think that the suggestion (and perhaps that is all it is) that the law prevents people from publishing quotes like the 25 they chose, is way off the mark.

magicbastarder

Dave! wrote: »

AFAIK there haven't been any cases yet.

not under the current law - i.e. the one passed last year. there was the conway vs. indo case from fifteen years ago which effectively removed blasphemy as a crime, which the new law was meant to address.

WooPeeA

This law first made me laugh but few seconds later I started to worry. How come it's possible in XXI century Europe?

robindch

WooPeeA wrote: »

I started to worry. How come it's possible in XXI century Europe?

The vital ingredient seems to be a Minister of Justice who thinks it's good to incentivize religious outrage.

WooPeeA

robindch wrote: »

The vital ingredient seems to be a Minister of Justice who thinks it's good to incentivize religious outrage.

Is it the same one that has decided to ban head shops giving the monopoly on drugs back to gangsters which will probably increase violence?

Is his name Mr Disaster or something?

The Mad Hatter

WooPeeA wrote: »

Is it the same one that has decided to ban head shops giving the monopoly on drugs back to gangsters which will probably increase violence?

Is his name Mr Disaster or something?

Near enough: it's Ahern.

Pygmalion

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A member of Atheist Ireland has been elected to a prominent position in Allied Atheist International.

Is this the Allied Atheist Alliance or the United Atheist Alliance? :P

randomchild

robindch wrote: »

The vital ingredient seems to be a Minister of Justice who thinks it's good to incentivize religious outrage.

Actually its because blasphemy is a crime in our constitution under A40.6.1.i, there have been two (that I know of) private prosecutions under this section, in both of which the judge ruled that the legislator's action was needed to enforce this part of the constitution, given its imprecision, thus the act.

robindch

randomchild wrote: »

the judge ruled that the legislator's action was needed to enforce this part of the constitution

Ahern could have specified a fine of one euro on conviction, with all proceeds donated to Atheist Ireland or some such group.

Instead, he specified a fine of 25 grand which goes to the State.

Still, interesting to see that no religious person has yet managed to work themselves up into a state of sufficient anger at somebody else's comments, that they felt the need to go to the police and demand a prosecution.

They may recall that the when the one-man pressure group "Christian Voice" did just that in the UK, the UK's blasphemy law was gone within the year.

magicbastarder

robindch wrote: »

Ahern could have specified a fine of one euro on conviction, with all proceeds donated to Atheist Ireland or some such group.

and he could have easily called a referendum on the issue at a time when the irish people were going to the polls anyway, but chose not to.

johnfás

robindch wrote: »

Ahern could have specified a fine of one euro on conviction, with all proceeds donated to Atheist Ireland or some such group.

Instead, he specified a fine of 25 grand which goes to the State.

Still, interesting to see that no religious person has yet managed to work themselves up into a state of sufficient anger at somebody else's comments, that they felt the need to go to the police and demand a prosecution.

They may recall that the when the one-man pressure group "Christian Voice" did just that in the UK, the UK's blasphemy law was gone within the year.

Perhaps a more useful explanation might be that no such person is particularly bothered.

The reason the blasphemy provisions came into being is because, unlike what alot of people on this websites seem to say, there actually was a law regarding blasphemy previously - it was contained in the Defamation Act of 1961.

The key point is that the 1961 Act contained no definition of blasphemy (a point noted by the Irish judiciary) and therefore was unenforcable. When the Government sought to repeal the 1961 Act in its entirety and introduce new legislation on the same subject, it was the advice of the Attorney General that owing to the Constitutional position it was necessary to include a provision relating to blasphemy in the replacing legislation. It was further advised by the Attorney General of today that the Government has an obligation to make any legislation passed by the Oireachtas justiciable, and for that reason owing to the caselaw, it was necessary to introduce a definition of blasphemous libel.

In regard to the fine of €25,000, the legislation does not specify a fine of €25,000, it specifies a fine not exceeding €25,000. This legislation will never be enforced and even if it were, a fine of €25,000 would never be imposed. The higher fine threshold exists because the offence, if it were ever to come to trial, would be tried on indictment (that is before a jury). The obvious reason for this is because it means it is even less likely that somebody would ever be found guilty of it as compared to the situation which might result before a District judge in a rural area who got out the wrong side of bed that morning - as might be envisaged if the matter were dealt with summarily. It is one of the lowest upper fine thresholds for an offence tried on indictment introduced by the Oireachtas in recent years. In recent years the upper thresholds have tended to be 25k, 50k, or 100k.

Perhaps the reason for your surprise regarding the silence from religious people is that most could not care less what it is you have to say about any subject; that most wish themselves to engage in blasphemy as they likely disagree with the tenets of other religions; that when this does come to a Referendum there will be basically nobody campaigning against the legislation bar a few cranks in the West of Ireland; and that it will pass by a country mile, in many parts thanks to the votes of the considerable number of people who continue to practise their specific religion in this country and, again, have no particular interest in what you have to say and thus have no interest in legislating against your right to say it. This is why the attempt by Atheist Ireland to whip up some sort of frenzy regarding this virtually unenforceable law fell like such a lead balloon following its immediate fanfare.

sonicthebadger*

randomchild wrote: »

Actually its because blasphemy is a crime in our constitution under A40.6.1.i, there have been two (that I know of) private prosecutions under this section, in both of which the judge ruled that the legislator's action was needed to enforce this part of the constitution, given its imprecision, thus the act.

johnfás wrote: »

Perhaps a more useful explanation might be that no such person is particularly bothered.

The reason the blasphemy provisions came into being is because, unlike what alot of people on this websites seem to say, there actually was a law regarding blasphemy previously - it was contained in the Defamation Act of 1961.

Just three posts before yours. People posting here are well aware that there was already a law and that it is there because of the Constitution. Burn that straw man will you please?