Blasphemous "Art"

Lamentabli sane

Hi All

Does Irish law allow people to display religiously offensive and blasphemous "art" on their business premises? As in shops, restaurants ect

Any pointers to legislation at national/EU level would be much appreciated.

L1011

Possibly not, for now. I would expect the blasphemy clause of the constitution to be easily removed at a referendum and with it, the law. Defamation Act 2009 is the primary legislation here. Don't believe there is any EU law of any importance.

Work with a genuine artistic value is not affected by the legislation. That would be an interesting and complicated thing to decide upon!

edit: Should add that I suspect you'll find it impossible to get any form of interest from AGS etc. What is blasphemous to one person may not be to another; some religious imagery for one religion can be to another and the legislation covers all religions. The legislation appears to have been brought in for personal religious reasons by the minister at the time and nothing else - the excuse given that a minister couldn't not legislate for something in the constitution was completely at odds with the same government ignoring the X case judgement and two failed attempts to overturn it.

Peregrinus

In the entire history of the state, nobody has ever been prosecuted for blasphemy on account of any artwork displayed (or on account of anything, in fact), so I think you're probably fairly safe in that regard.

Depending on the nature of the artwork and the precise characteristics which are thought to give offence, there might be a risk of a prosecution under the obscenity legislation. It's an offence under Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994 s. 7 to "distribute or display any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned". A successful prosecution would have to show intent or recklessness with regarding to provoking a breach of the peace, though. I don't know of any prosecutions which have been brought.

Lamentabli sane

Would Otto Preminger v Austria be applicable, from an ECHR perspective?

Samuel T. Cogley

R v Lemon if that's of any interest/use.

L1011

Lamentabli sane wrote: »

Would Otto Preminger v Austria be applicable, from an ECHR perspective?

I don't see how, as that was someone objecting to the application of Austrian law. It does not impose such legislation.

We have legislation which has effectively never been used and realistically never will be used. There is a stated intention to have a referendum to remove the concept from the constitution and polling suggests it'd pass by a landslide.

Lamentabli sane

So there is literally no remedy to stop pretty public blasphemy? It seems like the days of Lord Scarman are no more, where there was some deterrent for those who "cause grave offence to the religious feelings of some of their fellow citizens"(R v Lemon, thanks STC).

L1011

Lamentabli sane wrote: »

So there is literally no remedy to stop pretty public blasphemy and offence? It seems like the days of Lord Scarman are no more, where there was some deterrent for those who "cause grave offence to the religious feelings of some of their fellow citizens or are such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read them" (R v Lemon, thanks STC).

You could attempt to convince AGS/DPP to pursue a prosecution under the existing legislation. It would likely lead to a campaign to have the referendum even earlier, though. And yes, those days are gone.

Victor

L1011 wrote: »

You could attempt to convince AGS/DPP to pursue a prosecution under the existing legislation. It would likely lead to a campaign to have the referendum even earlier, though. And yes, those days are gone.

Doesn't such a prosecution need the consent of the Attorney General?

L1011

Victor wrote: »

Doesn't such a prosecution need the consent of the Attorney General?

I have no idea. That makes the unlikeliness unlikelier.

coylemj

L1011 wrote: »

I would expect the blasphemy clause of the constitution to be easily removed at a referendum ...

Hasn't the Supreme Court already ruled that the blasphemy clause in the Constitution is effectively meaningless?

L1011 wrote: »

... and with it, the law.

Which law are you referring to?

L1011

coylemj wrote: »

Hasn't the Supreme Court already ruled that the blasphemy clause in the Constitution is effectively meaningless?

Not that I'm aware of. Possibly.

coylemj wrote: »

Which law are you referring to?

Defamation Act 2009. Dermot Ahern's flight of fancy when the country was going down the tubes and we hadn't Dail time for anything important.

Peregrinus

Lamentabli sane wrote: »

So there is literally no remedy to stop pretty public blasphemy? It seems like the days of Lord Scarman are no more, where there was some deterrent for those who "cause grave offence to the religious feelings of some of their fellow citizens"(R v Lemon, thanks STC).

R -v- Lemon was long ago and in another country, Lametabli (and, besides, the wench is dead). It's an English case which involved a 1977 prosecution for the offence of blasphemous libel. But the Supreme Court has ruled that blasphemous libel hasn't been an offence in Ireland since 1937. Lemon is not a precedent that would be considered persuasive or relevant in the Irish courts.

As for whether there's a "remedy to stop pretty public blasphemy", in theory there's Defamation Act 2009 s.36. But that section is pretty much designed to be inoperable. It's a device to get the Supreme Court of the back of the Government/the Oireachtas until such time as there's the political will to hold a referendum to remove the constitutional requirement for a blasphemy law.