Blasphemy law in Ireland

Peregrine

Yup another religion thread in AH, how original right? But no, this is about the Bunreacht na hÉireann and free speech. More specifically Article 40.6.1° i

The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

...

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

Brief history:

As well all know, the Constitution contains many references to the Almighty God and Jesus Christ. The 1937 Constitution itself outlawed blasphemy.

In 1961, the Defamation Act stated this:

“Every person who composes, prints or publishes any blasphemous or obscene libel shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both fine and imprisonment or to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years.”

Obviously this was contradicting freedom of speech and it never actually defined what would be considered "blasphemous libel". Blasphemous libel in common law is blasphemy against the Christian religion. In the 90s, one person actually tried to prosecute the Sunday Independent for blasphemy. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court found that blasphemy was not defined in Irish law and that the common law definition (offending Christianity) is inconsistent with the religious equality provided by the Constitution. So basically, it was a stupid law that can't be enforced.



But no, in 2009 Minister for Justice Demort Ahern passed the Defamation Bill though Dáil Éireann. The fine is now €25,000 and he also defined what blasphemy was.

"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."

"(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."


The FF-Lab coalition promised a referendum on the issue and it is one of the matters the Constitutional Convention is supposed to debate. So we should see a referendum on the issue soon enough.


So my question to you is, what do you think of our current blasphemy law and if there was a referendum, how would you vote?

Personally, I think a person should have the right to absolute free speech and I would vote for this stupid offence to be removed from our constitution. Either that or ban witchcraft too..


TL;DR: Blasphemy is illegal in Ireland Éire, there should be a referendum soon. What do you think?

Fr_Dougal

That would be an ecumenical matter.

BNMC

I think I'll go to bed.

Lumbo

Jesus :rolleyes:

EoghanIRL

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

That would be an ecumenical matter.

Priceless

Phill Ewinn

Won't apply to me. I only blaspheme in the comfort of my own home. Out my own window at passing strangers.

Cody Pomeray

I usually go out of my way to side against the militant atheist opinion, but the blasphemy case went above and beyond what was legally necessary.

It was the personal project of an otherwise rational Minister. He had the chance to follow the initiative of many other modern EU countries, and the Supreme Court, and let it die.

The law was un-necessary and in the words of one European law journal "silly and dangerous". There's just no serious defence for its existence.

On the upside, the way the provision was worded means it is practically impossible to take a successful action.

Peregrine

Okay maybe some people think it's stupid but in 2009, after the bill was passed, Pakistan and the Organisation of Islamic Conference quoted verbatim our defamation of religion law in the UN to press for blasphemy to be an internationally recognised crime.

Unenforceable or not, do you want our Constitution to be quoted by countries to oppose freedom of speech around the world? Pakistan, whose law justifies the death penalty for blasphemy against Islam. It should be removed.

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

That would be an ecumenical matter.

Drink!

Peetrik

I'd say it was probably an interesting little diversion to distract us from how we are being robbed.
Knowing Ireland we'll probably have a referendum on fraping before one on blasphemy, thanks again Fidelma you absolute spoon.

General General

Here's the thing... I always thought that professing that Jesus is the Son of God (I know he said he was the Son of Man, yes..) was blasphemy from the point of view of a Jew... & that Islam was blasphemy from the point of view of a Christian or a Jew... isn't a follower of Bahá'í or of Hinduism, for example, blaspheming if they profess their own views from the viewpoint of one who follows Judaism, Christianity or Islam?

krudler

General General wrote: »

Here's the thing... I always thought that professing that Jesus is the Son of God (I know he said he was the Son of Man, yes..) was blasphemy from the point of view of a Jew... & that Islam was blasphemy from the point of view of a Christian or a Jew... isn't a follower of Bahá'í or of Hinduism, for example, blaspheming if they profess their own views from the viewpoint of one who follows Judaism, Christianity or Islam?

That's why its so utterly pointless, by practising Christianity you're blaspheming other religions, so everybody could sue everyone else, absolute waste of time and money bringing that stupid law about, shows how backwards we still are as a country.

the concept of blasphemy is ridiculous anyway, my imaginary friends are more real than your ones.

All hail atheism, the one true faith etc etc.

Ranty thread is ranty, & OP wants to rant.

IM0

jesus mary and holy st joseph. bite me

Peregrine

General General wrote: »

Here's the thing... I always thought that professing that Jesus is the Son of God (I know he said he was the Son of Man, yes..) was blasphemy from the point of view of a Jew... & that Islam was blasphemy from the point of view of a Christian or a Jew... isn't a follower of Bahá'í or of Hinduism, for example, blaspheming if they profess their own views from the viewpoint of one who follows Judaism, Christianity or Islam?

Exactly, it's a stupid law to have. The constitution also provides religious equality in which case believing in one religion would cause you to blaspheme another. Religious equality also provides equality to those who lack faith in any religion, that would mean you're blaspheming against every religion. It's pointless and I don't think it should be in the Constitution.

Deleted User wrote: »

All hail atheism, the one true faith etc etc.

Ranty thread is ranty, & OP wants to rant.

I tried my best to not sound ranty or make this a religion vs atheism thread. Most of my arguments where about how the law is pointless and how it totally contradicts the religious equality and free speech provisioned by the Constitution. I'm sorry if you think I'm ranting.

Also I believe in rationalism.

SEPT 23 1989

Some of the far right Catholic headbangers still pull the strings in this country

bumper234

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Personally, I think a person should have the right to absolute free speech and I would vote for this stupid offence to be removed from our constitution. Either that or ban witchcraft too..

I agree with you that the so called blasphemy laws are idiotic but i cannot agree with you on the bolded part.

Peregrine

bumper234 wrote: »

I agree with you that the so called blasphemy laws are idiotic but i cannot agree with you on the bolded part.

As long as it's not verbal assault or offending towards a race or something. Religion is something people chose to believe (or not).

I do not believe in inciting violence or hatred against certain people because they believe in a religion but I believe in free speech against all religions, whether they agree or not, if you get me.

Cody Pomeray

General General wrote: »

Here's the thing... I always thought that professing that Jesus is the Son of God (I know he said he was the Son of Man, yes..) was blasphemy from the point of view of a Jew...

krudler wrote: »

That's why its so utterly pointless, by practising Christianity you're blaspheming other religions, so everybody could sue everyone else

Just to point out, the statutory definition of blasphemy differs to the religious definition.

For blasphemy, a number of tests have to be met.
- has to cause gross outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion. If one person or a group of people take offence at an offensive office fridge magnet (for example), it would fail this test.
- It will be a defence if any reasonable person, who is not a follower of this religion finds genuine artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the material, and the case will be dismissed.

So we cannot say that the blasphemy law is wrong because it provides an outlet for curbing reasonable freedom of expression. That would be a false statement.

However, the blasphemy law is a bad law because it potentially provides an outlet for people to take well-disguised vexatious or attention-seeking cases and pull innocent people through the courts. They won't win, but they will get their day in court, and the media spotlight that they desire.

Zillah

Deleted User wrote: »

All hail atheism, the one true faith etc etc.

Ranty thread is ranty, & OP wants to rant.

I'm having trouble articulating how bizarrely inconsistent this post is with the tone of the OP. Blasphemy laws restrict free speech, are inconsistent with a modern republic, and are being quoted by other countries to promote their own religious intolerance in then UN....changes to "baseless pro-atheism rant" in your head?

Would you like to see people go to prison or face hefty fines for saying something offensive about Christianity?

Peregrine

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

However, the blasphemy law is a bad law because it potentially provides an outlet for people to take well-disguised vexatious or attention-seeking cases and pull innocent people through the courts. They won't win, but they will get their day in court, and the media spotlight that they desire.

Exactly, one man named John Corway made sure the Sunday Independent spent many long hours in the High Court then the Supreme Court over a cartoon with a caption when the divorce law came out(Yeah, yeah nobody likes the Sindo but still). It provides chances for people to waste time and money.

Why does the Constitution provide this chance when they're all going to come out not guilty in the end anyway.

tlhslobus

As somebody who has arguably been slightly harmed by our current 2009 blasphemy law, I think the government can and should change that law to something harmless in the Dail, and should NOT hold a referendum, which it is quite likely to lose (as referendums here tend to be a bit of a lottery, especially religious ones), with potentially harmful consequences.

And please don't trust any reassuring opinion polls - they have a rather poor track record on this kind of referendum.

It would not be difficult for the government to satisfy the constitutional requirement that blasphemy be punishable by law by redefining blasphemy as offending a truly good God that truly exists, allowing this to be punished by a fine of up to 10 euro, and requiring a high degree of proof, such as the uncontradicted sworn affidavit of 10 living winners of the Nobel Prize for Physics that the offended deity exists beyond reasonable doubt, is truly good beyond reasonable doubt, and has been offended by the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Blasphemy is supposed to mean offending 'God', so ironically our current law (like most previous blasphemy laws in the English-speaking world), by defining blasphemy as offending believers, seems to be itself idolotrous (and arguably also blasphemous), since it in effect quasi-deifies believers.

Losing a referendum would change the current position from one where the law is an unenforceable but problematic anachronism and international embarassment which can be amended into harmlessness by the Dail, into something that has just been endorsed by the people and will thus quite likely have to be rather rigorously enforced (including amending any parts of the current legislation that arguably make it hard to enforce at present).

Winning a referendum will not prevent the existing law from being retained or re-introduced fairly soon (perhaps under Church and/or EU and/or UN and/or Politically Correct pressure) to outlaw religious offense and/or hatred (just as we already have laws to outlaw expressions of hatred of various groups), but without mentioning the word blasphemy - which is roughly what Gordon Brown's government did in the UK around about the time when Dermot Ahern was giving us our current law in 2009.

Incidentally, I'm not fond of gratuitous religious offense (and hatred still less) - I would hate to see anything I wrote leading to 25 UN workers being murdered in Afghanistan (as happened not too long ago after a US pastor with the same name as one of the Monty Python team exercised his constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression by burning a Koran somewhere in the US). But it is also rather hard to outlaw religious offense without also making it dangerous to say many things that arguably need to be said. Just because you don't intend to cause offence doesn't mean that a jury won't decide you did, especially if you have been criticising the religions or Churches to which the jurors belong. And if you are prosecuted for allegedly offending Christians, but one of the other religious groups you have intentionally or unintentionally allegedly offended happens to be Muslims, a prosecution can have literally deadly consequences for you and/or others such as those murdered UN workers (whether you are acquitted or not), by publicising the previously unnoticed alleged offence against Islam. (And given time and space, I could probably list many other such problems) But our unnecessary religious referendum lottery will make little difference to such issues if we win, and will increase their dangers if we lose, while a harmless law such as suggested above can avoid some of these problems (not all of them, but then nothing can do that).