ccven recommend to remove blasphemy add prohibition on incitement to religious hatred

expectationlost

CONVENTION ON THE CONSTITUTION PUBLISHES REPORT ON REMOVAL OF THE OFFENCE OF BLASPHEMY FROM CONSTITUTION
https://www.constitution.ie/NewsDetails.aspx?nid=c3da154f-3e87-e311-877e-005056a32ee4

the report https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=b96d3466-4987-e311-877e-005056a32ee4

https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=b37871b4-3d87-e311-877e-005056a32ee4 press release

CONVENTION ON THE CONSTITUTION PUBLISHES REPORT ON
REMOVAL OF THE OFFENCE OF BLASPHEMY FROM
CONSTITUTION
SIXTH REPORT OF THE CONVENTION FORMALLY LAID BEFORE
HOUSES OF OIREACHTAS
Monday, 27 January 2014:


The Convention of the Constitution has today Monday, 27th of January published its report on the removal of the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution. The report recommends that the offence of blasphemy is removed and replaced with a new general provision to include a prohibition on incitement to religious hatred. The
report also recommends creating a new set of detailed legislative provisions to include incitement to hatred on a statutory footing.
The recommendations of the report, which has been formally submitted to the Houses of the Oireachtas, will be considered by the Government who have undertaken to respond within four months.
The Convention of the Constitution considered the removal of the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution in November 2013. Members of the Convention heard presentations by academics and legal experts on the blasphemy provision, covering its origins and historical context, its development over the years, what it was intended to do and how it operated in Ireland and how it relates to the existing legislation, specifically the Defamation Act 2009.
Members also heard evidence from various interest groups on either side of the issue including Atheist Ireland, the Humanist Association, the Irish Council of Civil Liberties, and the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland.
The report can be downloaded at www.constitution.ie
Speaking today the Chairman of the Convention of the Constitution Mr. Tom Arnold said, “Today’s report is the sixth report that the Convention has laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the members of the Convention for the commitment they showed to the discussion and I look forward to the response of the Government within 4 months”.

the report https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=b96d3466-4987-e311-877e-005056a32ee4

expectationlost

discussion in politics forum on the process http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057062366&page=6

Turtwig

One step forward. Ten steps backwards.

Akrasia

If there is a referendum, hopefully they would have the decency to have the removal of blasphemy as a separate ballot to the insertion of a clause on incitement to religious hatred.
If only

Brian Shanahan

Why do we need a clause for incitement to religious hatred?

We already have incitement to hatred, unless the whole of the state is actively flouting that law it is enough.

porsche959

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

We already have incitement to hatred, unless the whole of the state is actively flouting that law it is enough.

Well, arguably, the state has been in blatant breach of the requirement to safeguard the welfare of the children equally since inception, not least in regard to allowing and failing to monitor abuses by Catholic orders.

Peregrinus

Akrasia wrote: »

If there is a referendum, hopefully they would have the decency to have the removal of blasphemy as a separate ballot to the insertion of a clause on incitement to religious hatred.
If only

I haven't read the whole thing, but from the quote in the OP the proposal is

(a) to delete the constitutional provision requiring that blasphemy be an offence, and

(b) that "incitement to religious hatred" should be a statutory offence, i.e. not a constititional requirement, but an ordinary part of the criminal law, legislated by the Oireachtas, like almost every other offence. This wouldn't require a second referendum.

As to whether "incitement to religious hatred" should be an offence in Ireland, there's no denying that we do have a historic problem in this department, and the Republic can hardly advocate emand legislation promoting parity of esteem for differing religious traditions in Norn Irn if it has no such legislation itself.

The Prohibition of Incitment to Hatred Act 1989 already make is an offence of words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation." I don't know why the Convention doesn't think that this is good enough.

Anyone?

Hotblack Desiato

porsche959 wrote: »

Well, arguably, the state has been in blatant breach of the requirement to safeguard the welfare of the children equally since inception, not least in regard to allowing and failing to monitor abuses by Catholic orders.

Why would they, that line doesn't appear anywhere in our Constitution or laws.

Michael Nugent

There are two serious flaws in this report.

Firstly, the report makes public for the first time that the most substantial proposal made by one of its own experts “received broad support from across the tables”, yet it was not even included on the options that the Convention members were asked to vote for. This proposal had previously been made by the 1996 Constitution Review Group chaired by TK Whitaker, and Atheist ireland also suggested it to the Convention.

The Convention report states: “In terms of amending Article 40.6 of the Constitution, the suggested amendment put forward by Eoin O’Dell received broad support from across the tables. Others suggested replacing the blasphemy clause with a new prohibition on incitement to hatred provision.” What Eoin O’Dell proposed was the replacement of Article 40.6.1 in its entirety with a new provision based broadly on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, other international freedom of expression guarantees, and the language of Article 40.6.1(i). He proposed a suggested wording, which is included in the report.

Given that this expert proposal (an approach which was also suggested by Atheist Ireland) “received broad support from across the tables” at the Convention, why was it not included among the options that the Convention members were asked to vote on? Why instead were they given only the options of (a) removing the offence altogether, or (b) replacing it with a new general provision to include incitement to religious hatred? Because this significant and credible and positive option was not included on the ballot paper, we simply do not know how that “broad support from across the tables” would have translated into votes in a more complete ballot.

Secondly, the report recommends creating a new set of detailed legislative provisions to include incitement to religious hatred on a statutory footing. But the Convention did not vote to recommend this. Here is what happened. The Convention was given two related questions about statutory laws, the second of which depended on the answer to the first.

Question 3 was “Should there be a legislative provision for the offence of blasphemy?” This proposal was narrowly defeated. So the Convention voted that there should be no legislative provision for the offence of blasphemy. Question 4, as a follow-up to this, was “In the event that the Convention favours legislative provision, it should be: (a) the existing legislative blasphemy provision; (b) a new set of detailed legislative provisions to include incitement to religious hatred; (c) undecided/no opinion.” In this vote, 82% voted for option (b).

So the Convention voted that there should be no legislative provision for the offence of blasphemy. The reference to incitement to hatred laws came in a hypothetical secondary question, which was “In the event that the Convention favours legislative provision, what should it be?” But the Convention had already voted not to favour legislative provision, so the hypothetical follow-up vote “in the event that…” had thus become irrelevant and the result of this vote should not be included in the report as a recommendation.

expectationlost

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Secondly, the report recommends creating a new set of detailed legislative provisions to include incitement to religious hatred on a statutory footing. But the Convention did not vote to recommend this. Here is what happened. The Convention was given two related questions about statutory laws, the second of which depended on the answer to the first.

Question 3 was “Should there be a legislative provision for the offence of blasphemy?” This proposal was narrowly defeated. So the Convention voted that there should be no legislative provision for the offence of blasphemy. Question 4, as a follow-up to this, was “In the event that the Convention favours legislative provision, it should be: (a) the existing legislative blasphemy provision; (b) a new set of detailed legislative provisions to include incitement to religious hatred; (c) undecided/no opinion.” In this vote, 82% voted for option (b).

So the Convention voted that there should be no legislative provision for the offence of blasphemy. The reference to incitement to hatred laws came in a hypothetical secondary question, which was “In the event that the Convention favours legislative provision, what should it be?” But the Convention had already voted not to favour legislative provision, so the hypothetical follow-up vote “in the event that…” had thus become irrelevant and the result of this vote should not be included in the report as a recommendation.

do you not need to start with question one and see how each questions follows up this is the results page https://twitter.com/JaneSuit/status/396979286185623552/photo/1

the second questions gets 53% which they use to justify asking the third question and fourth question

Michael Nugent

expectationlost wrote: »

have you sent that to the convention have you ever got any serious responses to your complaints about the convention?

I've written to them today asking them the above two questions.

expectationlost

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I've written to them today asking them the above two questions.

sorry i just rewrote my reply after looking at the results page

nope im still confused that page doesn't make it clear its just legislation not in the constitution

its good practice to include the questions/ballot in your report, asked convention member to get a copy just to make it clearer

Michael Nugent

expectationlost wrote: »

sorry i just rewrote my reply after looking at the results page

The first two questions/votes are about what should be in the Constitution. The result of Question 1 influences whether Question 2 is relevant.

The second two questions/votes are about what should be in statutory laws passed by the Oireachtas. The result of Question 3 influences whether Question 4 is relevant.

But Question 3 does not follow on from Q2. If it did, it would have started with something like "In the event that the Convention favours a Constitutional ban on blasphemy, should that be supported by a legislative provision?"

The way that it is actually phrased seems designed to facilitate the option of members voting (on Q1/2) against having a constitutional ban on blasphemy, while also voting (on Q3/4) to nevertheless have a statutory law against blasphemy.

.

expectationlost

ah slowly getting my head round it

The report recommends that the offence of blasphemy is removed and replaced
with a new general provision to include a prohibition on incitement to religious hatred. The
report also recommends creating a new set of detailed legislative provisions to include
incitement to [religious] hatred on a statutory footing.

they proposing two types of incitement to religious hatred changes one to replace blasphemy in the constitution and secondly they took question four as vote in favour of putting it in legislation too but it shouldn't do because people didn't vote in favour of legislating for it in question 3 (by 1%)

Michael Nugent

expectationlost wrote: »

the second questions gets 53% which they use to justify asking the third question and fourth question

The whole format is very problematic. Arguably, they shouldn't be asking Question 3 at all because it is not a Constitutional issue.

However, whatever justification they have for asking Question 3, they need justification (which they didn't get) from the response to Question 3 in order to ask Question 4.

Michael Nugent

expectationlost wrote: »

they proposing two types of incitement to religious hatred changes one to replace blasphemy in the constitution and secondly they took question four as vote in favour of putting it in legislation too but it shouldn't do because people didn't vote in favour of legislating for it in question 3 (by 1%)

Yes, that is also my understanding of what they have done.

SpaceTime

Hang on a minute!

Is the Constitutional Convention extending itself beyond its remit by recommending legislation?

I would have assumed its role began and ended at the constitution and and constitutional matters.

So, it should have been a question as to whether to keep or remove that provision in the constitution, not anything about legislation which would be a matter for their Oireachtas, not the constitution.

Any referendum would just keep, delete or modify the wording of the constitution it wouldn't have anything to do with statutory legislation.

So, I'm a little confused as to why a group that's supposedly dealing exclusively with matters constitutional is now proposing legislation !?

expectationlost

SpaceTime wrote: »

Hang on a minute!

Is the Constitutional Convention extending itself beyond its remit by recommending legislation?

it has done so in other areas from what I recall, (can't strictly take these issues in isolation.)

I would have assumed its role began and ended at the constitution and and constitutional matters.

So, it should have been a question as to whether to keep or remove that provision in the constitution, not anything about legislation which would be a matter for their Oireachtas, not the constitution.

Any referendum would just keep, delete or modify the wording of the constitution it wouldn't have anything to do with statutory legislation.

So, I'm a little confused as to why a group that's supposedly dealing exclusively with matters constitutional is now proposing legislation !?

i think they added those to convince people to vote for removal and one might have to review legislation based on changes to the constitution.

https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=b96d3466-4987-e311-877e-005056a32ee4 page 22 of the convention report shows existing legislation including

Part 5 of the Defamation Act 2009
Section 36 (Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter)
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/sec0036.html#sec36

which resulted from Dermot Aherns decisions to legislate for blasphemy

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/sec0036.html#sec36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

SpaceTime

I've been in two minds about the Constitutional Convention.

In one way it's a nice idea to bring in random people, but in another way, I'd prefer it to have been a cross party committee of people who were actually elected.

Or, maybe even an elected constitutional convention. It was THAT important that we could have had a simultaneous election alongside the last referendum or something.

Nominations to some kind of electable panel would have been interesting.

...

At least though with any proposed legislation there's an option to heavily lobby to at least attempt to ensure it's not some kind of over the top stuff again. Although, this state has a pretty poor track record in this regard.

I don't like the idea of a society that's afraid of ideas and feels the need to legislate against their expression.

Peregrinus

SpaceTime wrote: »

Hang on a minute!

Is the Constitutional Convention extending itself beyond its remit by recommending legislation?

I would have assumed its role began and ended at the constitution and and constitutional matters . . . So, I'm a little confused as to why a group that's supposedly dealing exclusively with matters constitutional is now proposing legislation !?

I don't think the two questions can be entirely disconnected.

On one view, the Constitution is just one particular form of legislation - you have your constitution, your Acts of the Oireachtas, your Statutory Instruments. And it makes little sense to consider whether (or how) a particular matter ought to be addressed in the Constitution in isolation from the question of how it might be addressed in other legislative provisions. I think it's fair enough to consider whether a particular topic ought to be removed from the constitution on the basis that the proper place to address it is in some other form of legislation.

Brown Bomber

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Why do we need a clause for incitement to religious hatred?

We already have incitement to hatred, unless the whole of the state is actively flouting that law it is enough.

Why not have it? It it provides an extra layer of protection to vulnerable people from discrimination and violence what is the problem? Do you believe we have a right to hate speech?

Knasher

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why not have it? It it provides an extra layer of protection to vulnerable people from discrimination and violence what is the problem? Do you believe we have a right to hate speech?

Because it is already explicitly mentioned under the existing Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act.

SpaceTime

What I find even odder about it is that there hasn't really been any great clamour from any of the churches looking for this kind of legislation at all!

Even the Catholic Church seems to have no particular view on it at all. They certainly haven't publicly pushed any strong view in favour of it.

That's kind of what has me wondering where the driving force behind the blasphemy legislation came from in the first place?

I can understand where the original constitutional text came from i.e. the Catholic Church and possibly other churches in the 1920s/30s, but that was reflective of a very different era.

Brown Bomber

Knasher wrote: »

Because it is already explicitly mentioned under the existing Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act.

Which is 20 odd years old. I take your point but I don't see the issue with this evolving to make it more relevant for today and having a religious-specific incitement to hatred act, especially as there are a lot more vulnerable religious minorities among us now.

Knasher

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which is 20 odd years old. I take your point but I don't see the issue with this evolving to make it more relevant for today and having a religious-specific incitement to hatred act, especially as there are a lot more vulnerable religious minorities among us now.

Can you give an example of something that you feel needs to be covered under this new law that wouldn't be covered under the existing one?

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which is 20 odd years old. I take your point but I don't see the issue with this evolving to make it more relevant for today and having a religious-specific incitement to hatred act, especially as there are a lot more vulnerable religious minorities among us now.

The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act already explicitly bans incitement to hatred on account of race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation.

Why should we need a new law that isolates one of these alread-banned categories of incitement to hatred, and bans it again?

Peregrinus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act already explicitly bans incitement to hatred on account of race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation.

Why should we need a new law that isolates one of these alread-banned categories of incitement to hatred, and bans it again?

Now, we do not permit incitement to religious hatred at all.

But, then, we will not permit incitement to religious hatred at all, at all.

Brian Shanahan

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why not have it? It it provides an extra layer of protection to vulnerable people from discrimination and violence what is the problem? Do you believe we have a right to hate speech?

Because a) it is an attempt to protect the powerful against the powerless, a needless thing, b) incitement to hatred already covers any possible problems, and c) all religious violence is inter-religious, and therefore any sort of pandering to a religion (as this act would do) would only discriminate against other religions.

Banbh

The report of the Constitutional Convention will sit on the shelf beside the reform of the Seanad and the rest.
The whole thing was a woolly exercise in feel-good public relations. Imagine defining 'religious hatred.' That one alone would keep the courts busy for decades.

PopePalpatine

Would calling the Iona Moaners "homophobic" count as "incitement to religious hatred"? :pac:

Brown Bomber

Knasher wrote: »

Can you give an example of something that you feel needs to be covered under this new law that wouldn't be covered under the existing one?

I accept your point. Answering your question in the way that I would prefer to would involve a commitment that I am not currently prepared to give.

My point is that criminalising incitement to religious hatred is of itself a positive thing.

Brown Bomber

SpaceTime wrote: »

I

I don't like the idea of a society that's afraid of ideas and feels the need to legislate against their expression.

Ok, but where do you stand on hate speech?

For example, take this statement.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In fact, terrorism is justified and encouraged in Islam.[/FONT]

Is this incitement to religious hatred?

I'm an impressionable and ignorant fool, there has just been an Islamic terrorist attack in my country. I'm mad as hell, I read this quote and I get even madder and smash the face in of the next veiled woman I see because "terrorism is justified and encouraged in Islam".

Banbh

I'm an impressionable and ignorant fool

Everyone is responsible for their actions. Being a fool or impressionable is no defence.

Religious hatred is too vague a term. Does it mean hatred of a religion, the members of a religion, the views and practises of a religion or is it just a blanket prohibition to prevent religious leaders from having their diktats held up to ciriticism and ridicule?

Brown Bomber

Banbh wrote: »

Everyone is responsible for their actions. Being a fool or impressionable is no defence.

Religious hatred is too vague a term. Does it mean hatred of a religion, the members of a religion, the views and practises of a religion or is it just a blanket prohibition to prevent religious leaders from having their diktats held up to ciriticism and ridicule?

Take this as an example.

"terrorism is justified and encouraged in Islam." This covers all of "hatred of a religion, the members of a religion, the views and practises of a religion"right?

Can you see how it could lead to discrimination and violenceagainst innocent Muslims by non-Muslims?

Isn't this something worth criminalising?

Banbh

Someone walking home at night can 'lead' to violence but they are not the 'cause' of it.

Saying nasty things, even without justification, against a person or their beliefs or their organisation cannot be outlawed on the grounds that the person might turn violent.

Can me saying that Manchester United supporters are mindless morons lead to discrimination and violence against innocent Man U supporters? Of course not.

Religions just want special protection because they know their house of cards cannot survive ridicule and criticism.

Brown Bomber

Banbh wrote: »

Someone walking home at night can 'lead' to violence but they are not the 'cause' of it.

Saying nasty things, even without justification, against a person or their beliefs or their organisation cannot be outlawed on the grounds that the person might turn violent.

Can me saying that Manchester United supporters are mindless morons lead to discrimination and violence against innocent Man U supporters? Of course not.

Religions just want special protection because they know their house of cards cannot survive ridicule and criticism.

I think you are dismisssing a very real problem. Spreading hatred can lead to innocent people dying.

New Research leads focus on anti-Muslim hate crime


A new report launched today 28 January reveals the trends behind underreported violence against Muslims in London.


It illuminates how contexts of fear and prejudice against Muslims are providing a basis for violence against Muslim communities.

This is the first step in a ten year research project led by the European Muslim Research Centre at the University of Exeter that will investigate Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crime in towns and cities across Europe.

Dr Jonathan Githens-Mazer and Dr Robert Lambert MBE, of the University of Exeter co-authored ‘Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: a London Case Study’ the first study from the new European Muslim Research Centre. This report is being launched today in partnership with Muslim community groups to provide research for and about Muslims in Europe. The authors call for anti-Muslim hate crimes to be taken more seriously by government, media and the police.

The report finds that Muslim Londoners face a threat of violence and intimidation from three groups. Firstly from a small violent extremist nationalist milieu that has broadly the same political analysis as the British National Party (BNP). Secondly from London gangs who have no allegiance with or affinity to the BNP. Thirdly from a small number of Londoners and visitors to London who appear to be acting on prejudices gained via negative media portrayals of Muslims as terrorists and security threats.

The report illustrates how perpetrators of hate-crimes against Muslims are invariably motivated by a negative view of Muslims acquired from mainstream or extremist nationalist media reports or commentaries.

These spread stereotypes and fears that stigmatise, alienate and isolate Muslims as threats to safety, security and social cohesion. As political commentator and journalist Peter Oborne, says in a foreword to the report that British Muslims now perform an ‘unenviable outcast role’ previously played by ‘Germans, Roman Catholics, Jews and West Indians’.

Dr Githens-Mazer of the University of Exeter, co- author of the report said, “Anti-Muslim hate crimes in London have caused death and serious injuries and have generally inflicted suffering, fear and distress just like racist hate crimes aimed at other minorities in the capital. However, the motivation for anti-Muslim hate crimes is not as well understood by government, media or the police as racist hate crimes.”
https://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_53723_en.html

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think you are dismisssing a very real problem. Spreading hatred can lead to innocent people dying.

However were we to enforce a risk free environment nobody would be allowed say anything. Some of your past comments on Jews certainly wouldn't pass muster.

Hotblack Desiato

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Take this as an example.

"terrorism is justified and encouraged in Islam." This covers all of "hatred of a religion, the members of a religion, the views and practises of a religion"right?

Can you see how it could lead to discrimination and violenceagainst innocent Muslims by non-Muslims?

Isn't this something worth criminalising?

Or, for example, 'homosexuality is intrinsically disordered' ?

It shouldn't be illegal for bigots to say what they really think, how would we know they were bigots otherwise?

Dave!

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Take this as an example.

"terrorism is justified and encouraged in Islam." This covers all of "hatred of a religion, the members of a religion, the views and practises of a religion"right?

Can you see how it could lead to discrimination and violenceagainst innocent Muslims by non-Muslims?

Isn't this something worth criminalising?

Isn't it something worth discussing?