Louis Theroux Scientology falls foul of blashpemy laws

Orion

http://www.joe.ie/movies-tv/louis-therouxs-scientology-movie-might-not-released-irish-cinemas-due-blasphemy-laws/561654

It's looking increasingly likely that Louis Theroux's My Scientology Movie will not be getting a release in Ireland due to blasphemy laws.

Graham Spurling, the owner of Movies@Dundrum, Movies@Swords, Movies@Gorey and SGC Dungarvan, informed us that as things stand, distributors aren't willing to screen the film because Ireland's blasphemy laws do not not offer them any protection from potential litigation.

I'd be curious - seeing as this has artistic and academic value - is this actually about blasphemy or the tendency of scientology to go to court to defend their cult against criticism.

I genuinely hope that someone does release it and that they do go to court. It might help define what a religion actually is - and this crap certainly isn't. Germany don't recognise it and I would hope our courts would follow their precedent.

Either way it's just another reason to get this crap removed from our laws.

pedrofcuk

irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/section/36/enacted/en/html#sec36

(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.

Orion

But never been challenged so I actually hope they do.

recedite

pedrofcuk wrote: »

irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/section/36/enacted/en/html#sec36

OK, so acording to our blasphemy law, a cult employs oppressive psychological manipulation, and makes a profit, whereas a religion does not. Hmmm...
I think the threat of being burned alive in the hellfires of eternal damnation should qualify as the former.

As for profit, well that is a slippery concept. An organisation that ploughs all its operating profits back into its own activities can be said not to make an overall "profit". Big corporations like Shell and Apple operate on this basis; not declaring any substantial profit in any particular taxable jurisdiction. Always charging intellectual and licencing fees from one subsidiary to the other, which eat away nearly all the "profit" generated locally.

As long as the Vatican and/or Scientology HQ do not draw profit from the org. into the private account of any private shareholder, they have not technically "made a profit".

I still prefer the old way of telling a religion from a cult. In both cases, the founder knows its all a scam, but in a cult at least one member is aware of the scam because the founder is still alive.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

I still prefer the old way of telling a religion from a cult. In both cases, the founder knows its all a scam, but in a cult at least one member is aware of the scam because the founder is still alive.

But L.Ron is dead, does that make Scientology any less of a cult? I read 'Blown for Good' a couple of years back and Scientology seems about as cultish as cults get from where I'm sitting.

silverharp

do they not have the fall back that the state censor has approved the movie?

recedite

smacl wrote: »

But L.Ron is dead, does that make Scientology any less of a cult?

IMO its a religion. I haven't read that book, but I read Dianetics and Barefaced Messiah years ago. There's only so much Scientology Lit. I can take.

In 1993 the Revenue service in the USA declared it to be a religion. Also several EU countries.
The UK declared it "not a religion" but subsequently gave it charitable status, which I would regard as equivalent to a successful appeal by Scientology of the original ruling. A sort of climbdown that saved face, while giving both sides more or less what they wanted.

So before implementing the blasphemy law, Ireland would first have to fight this legal battle and declare it "not a religion".
I think the cinemas are safe enough
But by refusing to show the movie, they are doing something useful; ie highlighting the (theoretical) censorship and stupidity of the blasphemy law.

Orion

recedite wrote: »

IMO its a religion. I haven't read that book, but I read Dianetics and Barefaced Messiah years ago. There's only so much Scientology Lit. I can take.

In 1993 the Revenue service in the USA declared it to be a religion. Also several EU countries.
The UK declared it "not a religion" but subsequently gave it charitable status, which I would regard as equivalent to a successful appeal by Scientology of the original ruling. A sort of climbdown that saved face, while giving both sides more or less what they wanted.

Let's not use the USA as a standard. I could declare myself to be a messiah and claim my own religion for tax purposes in the US. Germany has specifically denied it religion status. As have the UK, Canada, Finland, Belgium - among other countries - who deny it charitable status as a religion. 10 years ago that applied in Ireland too - not sure of the current status.

recedite wrote: »

So before implementing the blasphemy law, Ireland would first have to fight this legal battle and declare it "not a religion".
I think the cinemas are safe enough
But by refusing to show the movie, they are doing something useful; ie highlighting the (theoretical) censorship and stupidity of the blasphemy law.

Agreed. Theroux is a respected journalist and for his film to be unavailable due to the threat of litigation under our blasphemy laws will hopefully highlight how ridiculous it is.

silverharp

Orion wrote: »

Agreed. Theroux is a respected journalist and for his film to be unavailable due to the threat of litigation under our blasphemy laws will hopefully highlight how ridiculous it is.

its a good publicity stunt for sure. On the basis of how the actual law works though its not like some group could take a civil case against a cinema chain. the state would have to take a prosecution and would need the minister's agreement. There is no way that any minister would sign off on this particular case, it would be career suicide.

magicbastarder

silverharp wrote: »

do they not have the fall back that the state censor has approved the movie?

what's the brief of that office though? possibly just in relation to deciding on the level of sex and violence, and choosing a suitable minimum age.
i would assume they are silent on issues such as libel, defamation, blasphemy, etc.; can you imagine their legal bill if they had to decide on such things?

Harry Browne

Orion wrote: »

I genuinely hope that someone does release it and that they do go to court. It might help define what a religion actually is - and this crap certainly isn't. Germany don't recognise it and I would hope our courts would follow their precedent.

Will you fund their legal fees?

Great bunch of lads, the Germans - lets copy everything they have done.

endagibson

Orion wrote: »

I genuinely hope that someone does release it and that they do go to court.

Would it not be simpler to download it?

silverharp

magicbastarder wrote: »

what's the brief of that office though? possibly just in relation to deciding on the level of sex and violence, and choosing a suitable minimum age.
i would assume they are silent on issues such as libel, defamation, blasphemy, etc.; can you imagine their legal bill if they had to decide on such things?

they banned The Life of Brian back in the day on religious grounds so they clearly have toned things down

Milly33

Muppets I was wondering why it is taken so long. I am mad to see it. So is it just in Ireland that they are not releasing it..

matrim

Is this more along the lines of RTE giving in to John Waters / The Iona Institute during the marriage referendum? The cinema would probably win the case but could be caught up in an expensive legal battle for years that would probably cost them more than they would make from the movie.

Pherekydes

Harry Browne wrote: »

Will you fund their legal fees?

Great bunch of lads, the Germans - lets copy everything they have done.

Everything? Who wants to copy everything?

Ash.J.Williams

sources so far are joe.ie and entertainment Ireland?

Riesen_Meal

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

sources so far are joe.ie and entertainment Ireland?

The Twitter of the head of a few movies@ cinemas confirmed it but didn't say Scientology was the reason....

I want to see it also but will just wait for a download I'm sure...

Cabaal

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

sources so far are joe.ie and entertainment Ireland?

Also The Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/louis-theroux-my-scientology-movie-release-date-tom-cruise-ireland-blasphemy-laws-controversies-a7330271.html

Only broke yesterday, should see it on other dead tree news sources as times moves on

qrx

Cinemas are unwilling to show it out of fear that they may face litigation under the blasphemy laws. That is not to say that the movie has been banned due to our blasphemy laws.

I'm not arguing right or wrong, just merely pointing out the poor journalism. something all too common these days. Big sensational headlines and poor, badly researched content is prevalent these days.

StupidLikeAFox

Cabaal wrote: »

Also The Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/louis-theroux-my-scientology-movie-release-date-tom-cruise-ireland-blasphemy-laws-controversies-a7330271.html

Only broke yesterday, should see it on other dead tree news sources as times moves on

It all seems to be stemming from a single tweet where a guy asked "is this to do with our blasphemy laws?"

magicbastarder

that same guys is cited as a source, with further info in the original article:
"Graham Spurling, the owner of Movies@Dundrum, Movies@Swords, Movies@Gorey and SGC Dungarvan, informed us that as things stand, distributors aren't willing to screen the film because Ireland's blasphemy laws do not offer them any protection from potential litigation.

Spurling informs us that he hoped to do the LIVE Q&A event on Oct 10 but legislation has placed these plans in serious jeopardy."

if the above is to be believed, the tweet is not the only source of info.

Ash.J.Williams

this is outrageous!

although I expect it to be shown in the ifi and smithfield

Sleeper12

Orion wrote:

I genuinely hope that someone does release it and that they do go to court. It might help define what a religion actually is - and this crap certainly isn't. Germany don't recognise it and I would hope our courts would follow their precedent.

It'll be on sky movies in a year or so. We'll get to see it then.
Life of Brian was banned in Ireland for around 20 years or so. Hard to believe now

Orion

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It'll be on sky movies in a year or so. We'll get to see it then.

I'll get to see it long before Sky have it but that's entirely not the point. Why shouldn't it get a cinematic release?

Cabaal

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It'll be on sky movies in a year or so. We'll get to see it then.
Life of Brian was banned in Ireland for around 20 years or so. Hard to believe now

It doesn't matter if sky show it in 2 months time, we should have no such restriction in Ireland

You could get to see it right now if you got a flight from Ireland to a place showing it, but it doesn't deal with the fact that we have backwards legislation that has no place in a modern society

Riesen_Meal

Cabaal wrote: »

but it doesn't deal with the fact that we have backwards legislation that has no place in a modern society

A legislation ponied up in 2009 of all things...

Will it be a private prosecution brought? Or will the state press charges despite Scientology not being recognised as a religion here? I wonder.

Dravokivich

It all smells of Erring on the side of caution.

There was a big deal of it's cinematic release in Ireland on online media last week, now they are pulling back on it.

The costs to defend against defamation proceedings would be much higher than any potential fine for blasphemy.

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

Will it be a private prosecution brought? Or will the state press charges despite Scientology not being recognised as a religion here? I wonder.

private

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

private

By whom?

Orion

Cabaal wrote: »

You could get to see it right now if you got a flight from Ireland to a place showing it, but it doesn't deal with the fact that we have backwards legislation that has no place in a modern society

Sounds exactly like the abortion situation

Orion

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

private

It's criminal - so public.

Orion

Orion wrote: »

It's criminal - so public.

Can private prosecutions not be brought in Ireland as they can in the UK?
Anyway if it is the state would it not fall under artistic exemption? Along with the whole not-being-a-religion thing?

Orion

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can private prosecutions not be brought in Ireland as they can in the UK?
Anyway if it is the state would it not fall under artistic exemption? Along with the whole not-being-a-religion thing?

To the first question I don't think so. The dpp takes the action.
Second question. Yes it would. But it appears cinemas and distributors won't take the risk.

Ash.J.Williams

the state won't take any action. It's some useless serial objector will

Cabaal

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

the state won't take any action. It's some useless serial objector will

There's always the chance of a fringe religious person taking a case, you\'ve only to look at the marriage equality ref to know that

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/electrician-and-gardener-bring-bids-challenging-result-of-marriage-referendum-to-high-court-31278539.html

The chap from Kilkenny previously refused to believe the state had the ability to allow his wife to divorce him.....sigh

Orion

Orion wrote: »

To the first question I don't think so. The dpp takes the action.
Second question. Yes it would. But it appears cinemas and distributors won't take the risk.

As I said, how can they be done for blasphemy when it's not recognised as a religion here?

The standard defamation laws are the tool that would be used to block this film.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said, how can they be done for blasphemy when it's not recognised as a religion here?

There is no list of recognised religions, so if Scientology says it is a religion, then that must be the default position unless it is officially declared otherwise.

On the question of whether they are a religion, we have lining out...

In Favour (in the blue corner)
Me.
Scientologists.
The USA.
Australia.
Portugal.
Spain.
Slovenia.
Sweden.
Hungary.
Croatia.
Kyrgystan!!

Against (in the red corner)
The Pope
Most other religions and/or cults.
Germany.
The UK.
Canada.
Finland.
Belgium.
New Zealand.

No comment (the referee)
Ireland
(and a couple of others)

robindch

Orion wrote: »

I genuinely hope that someone does release it and that they do go to court.

Perish the thought that Mr Spurling might be dangling for a court case in order to gain notiriety

silverharp

Cabaal wrote: »

There's always the chance of a fringe religious person taking a case, you\'ve only to look at the marriage equality ref to know that

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/electrician-and-gardener-bring-bids-challenging-result-of-marriage-referendum-to-high-court-31278539.html

The chap from Kilkenny previously refused to believe the state had the ability to allow his wife to divorce him.....sigh

to the best of my knowledge though isnt there some ministerial say so to allow such a case go ahead?

Ash.J.Williams

non story and great publicity

recedite

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

great publicity

True. What are the odds that the cinemas will "relent" at the eleventh hour, and open the floodgates to the queuing horde of indignants?

recedite

BTW, I like the spelling of blashpemy in the thread title.
I vote that it not be amended

ligerdub

How many documentaries get cinematic releases in Ireland? I can't think of many, especially from Louis Theroux, he is a TV guy, not a cinema guy.

Honestly, how many people would go to the cinema to see this? My guess is that it's a hard sell for the distributors and couldn't be arsed getting it in.

magicbastarder

and in support of that argument:
http://www.thejournal.ie/louis-theroux-scientology-blasphemy-ireland-2996221-Sep2016/?utm_source=twitter_self

Orion

recedite wrote: »

BTW, I like the spelling of blashpemy in the thread title.
I vote that it not be amended

dammit - I blame my fat fingers! And I second that vote :pac:

Orion

Cabaal wrote: »

There's always the chance of a fringe religious person taking a case, you\'ve only to look at the marriage equality ref to know that

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/electrician-and-gardener-bring-bids-challenging-result-of-marriage-referendum-to-high-court-31278539.html

Not the same. He challenged the result of a referendum. This is a criminal law so only the DPP can take the case. It's extremely unlikely that such a case would be taken but that's not the point - it could be which is ridiculous.

Orion

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said, how can they be done for blasphemy when it's not recognised as a religion here?

The standard defamation laws are the tool that would be used to block this film.

Defamation would be a civil case not criminal (blasphemy would be criminal). But you can't defame a "church" only a person (including a legal person which is a company). Theroux's film is not about the Irish Dianetic clusterwank so they have no case for defamation.

Orion

magicbastarder wrote: »

and in support of that argument:
http://www.thejournal.ie/louis-theroux-scientology-blasphemy-ireland-2996221-Sep2016/?utm_source=twitter_self

Dr Neville Cox of Trinity College, a specialist in the Defamation Act, has said categorically that “there is no blasphemy case here”.
Cox said that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) would never bring such a case and that no judge in the land would go near it.

Well the last part of that is complete bollox. A judge doesn't get to choose what cases he/she hears. The DPP may never bring a case but if he did then whatever judge was up in the rotation would go near it - no choice in the matter. Typical of The Journal version of "journalism".