Proposed Blasphemy Law

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is true. The burden of proof will always be on the prosecution to prove that there was no artistic merit.

It's in the wording for me,

It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this
section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would
find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value
in the matter to which the offence relates

ChocolateSauce

Dades wrote: »

The artistic merit thing is a defense, in the same way 'self-defense' is applied in murder cases. Both may be put forward by the defendant to defend against the actual charge which the prosecution must prove.

Point taken- defendants need to defend themselves. I guess I should have gotten to the point and said there never should be a prosecution for blasphemy. I didn't say it because I didn't want to state the obvious again...

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

On the contrary, it's my thinking that in the case of a defense - the burden is on the defendant.

Once the prosecution have proven you have "blasphemed" under Sec 36 (2) - i.e. outrage, intent etc, it is up to you to show that you can avail of the defense under Sec 36 (3).

Ah, right. I assumed that the law would follow the same rules as every other law on the statute books where in a criminal trial the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime and the defendant does not have to prove that he didn't. I must have missed the bit where we moved to North Korea

I agree with ChocolateSauce. It goes against one of foundations of modern justice as we know it.

--amadeus--

Apologies because I haven't read through the whole thread and this may have been covered already, but...

Reading through the Alive! thread someone (joking, I think) said that it should be prosecuted under teh new defamation laws as it was offensive to thier beliefs.

From teh paper the law states:

“Blasphemous matter” is defined as 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 he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

I know that atheists generally bridle at the notion that a lack of belief in god is a religious belief or in any way a religion but could the law be turned around so that anything atheists found offensive (Alive! being a great example) could be tackled? Could this law be turned to our advantage?

[edit] Or is it finally time for our own FSM trials?

Yoda

I find the fact that my RTÉ licence pays an astrologer to guest on some daytime talk shows to be fairly offensive.

The Mad Hatter

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Apologies because I haven't read through the whole thread and this may have been covered already, but...

Reading through the Alive! thread someone (joking, I think) said that it should be prosecuted under teh new defamation laws as it was offensive to thier beliefs.

From teh paper the law states:



I know that atheists generally bridle at the notion that a lack of belief in god is a religious belief or in any way a religion but could the law be turned around so that anything atheists found offensive (Alive! being a great example) could be tackled? Could this law be turned to our advantage?

[edit] Or is it finally time for our own FSM trials?

I think it's probably unwise to make a long-term error like suggesting that atheism is a religion in order to win a short-term victory. It would also be a touch hypocritical, I would think, to use a law that shouldn't exist to silence the voices of other people, even if they are a bunch of idiots.

STBR

Sorry if this was mentioned already, but this does apply to Pastafarianism I'm guessing?

A_SN

In case it hasn't been pointed out yet http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/20/1550224

Zillah

I am far too busy and important to see if this has been posted already: http://bocktherobber.com/2009/07/president-queries-blasphemy-and-criminal-justice-bills

McAleese shows doubts about the legality of the blasphemy law, which is nice. I don't suppose she has any actual power to stop this going through?

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

I am far too busy and important to see if this has been posted already: http://bocktherobber.com/2009/07/president-queries-blasphemy-and-criminal-justice-bills

McAleese shows doubts about the legality of the blasphemy law, which is nice. I don't suppose she has any actual power to stop this going through?

Why do people think McA is considering referring this Bill to the SC on foot of the blasphemy sections......?
It is highly unlikely to be the reason.
The SC practically told the Gov to enact a blasphemy law.
And the Law Reform Commission suggested enacting a law in similar terms to the present one (mind you, they advised a refernedum as Plan A - which would have saved us all a lot of bother).
Remember, blasphemy is already in the Constitution; noyt sure what part of this law would make it unconstitutional.

I would imagine its the defamation parts of the bill that are causing concern.

Zillah

Could be a free speech issue, which is guaranteed by the constitution.

Also, it could be that she finds it reprehensible and wants to see if there's any way to stop it.

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

Could be a free speech issue, which is guaranteed by the constitution.

Also, it could be that she finds it reprehensible and wants to see if there's any way to stop it.

Could be, but the entire Bill deals with free speech or the restriction on it. 9/10ths of the Bill has nothing to do with blasphemy. And the Constitution specifically states that blasphemy is an offence....

She may find it reprehensible; in many ways, though, referring it is a dangerous game - if it is found to be constitutional, it can never ever be challneged again - sometimes it is only in the operation of a piece of legislation that its unconstitutionality can properly be demonstrated.

Dades

drkpower wrote: »

She may find it reprehensible; in many ways, though, referring it is a dangerous game - if it is found to be constitutional, it can never ever be challneged again - sometimes it is only in the operation of a piece of legislation that its unconstitutionality can properly be demonstrated.

Just because something is found to be constitutional doesn't mean it can't be repealed. And, subject to referendum, it can of course be removed from the constitution as well as legislation.

drkpower

Dades wrote: »

Just because something is found to be constitutional doesn't mean it can't be repealed. And, subject to referendum, it can of course be removed from the constitution as well as legislation.

True; but that has nothing to do with the President potentially referring the Bill to the SC.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

jill_valentine

I was kind of hoping he wouldn't find out.

Like being caught vomiting by your parents after a night out.

Darlughda

Hi. am a new ex-lurker turned logged in round these here parts.

I am fascinated to hear you can ex-communicate yourself from the Roman Catholic Church. countmeout.ie sounds like a good idea to me.

My religious beliefs are private, and I enjoy the religious political freedom in Ireland to keep them that way.

I'm bored by endless arguments about proving your faith.

I wonder what that blasphemy law will mean for excercising satire and the freedom to criticize corruption, but also interested to know if there is anyone else delighted to discover you can remove your name from the Vatican Register of Souls!:eek:

Not an organisation I personally want to have anything to do with, nor my name on any of their lists.

Dades

Welcome, Darlughda!

If you have info on the Vatican Register of Souls, this is the thread for it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055615511

lostexpectation

this is atheist ireland's letter to president in reagrd to blasphemy law

* The law is contrary to the guarantees of equality under the law enshrined in Article 40.1 of the Irish Constitution, and of freedom of conscience and religion enshrined in Article 44.2.
* The law is contrary to Article 44.2.3 of the Irish Constitution, which says that the State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.
* The law shifts the burden of proof to the defendant in contravention of Article 38 of the Constitution, and of Schedule 1, Article 6, 2. and 3(a) of the European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003.
* The law does not meet the standard of prevention of imminent public disorder that made the old English blasphemy law compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights.
* The definitions in the law are too vague to allow citizens to regulate their conduct, and it could make it unlawful for a religious citizen to inform his co-religionists about a statement he believes to be blasphemous.


details...

http://blasphemy.ie/2009/07/21/is-the-blasphemy-law-unconstitutional/

eightyfish

Blasphemy provisions clash with Constitution, Irish Times Wednesday, July 22.

lostexpectation

President Mary McAleese has signed the Defamation Bill and Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill into law.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0723/crime.html

lest the president actually ever does something

Coriolanus

Yeah, very disappointed in her. Not least over the blasphemy issue, the whole Criminal Justice bill needed closer scrutiny imo.

drkpower

Guys; you should be thanking her - on both Bills. And thanking her that she didnt take heed of a lot of the populist gnashing of teeth on these issues.

Judges hate interpreting law in a vacumn with no factual context and they are inclined to err on the side of a Bill being constitutional. Of course, they might have found either (or both) Bills unconstitutional; but in the more likely event the Court found the law constitutional, it would forever be constitutional and never open to constitutional challenge, no matter what the circumstances. This way, if a prosecution occurs in either case in the future, which has particular circumstances that make it clear that the law is unconstitutional, then it can be challenged. If she had referred the Bill, it was found to be constitutional, and such a case occurred in the future..... tough, it would never be open to challenge even it were patently obvious, in light of the facts, that the law was unconstitutional.

The Presedential referral is a nuclear button; one that was unwarranted and counter-productive in both these cases.

Dades

drkpower wrote: »

If she had referred the Bill, it was found to be constitutional, and such a case occurred in the future..... tough, it would never be open to challenge even it were patently obvious, in light of the facts, that the law was unconstitutional.

So in effect you're happy that the bill hasn't been referred to the courts to check it's constitutionality so that it can be referred at some undetermined future date instead? I don't quite follow your logic.

If you're fearful that it would be found constitutional now, surely it follows it would be found constitutional down the line? Same result - different date.

And like I mentioned before, just because something is constitutional doesn't mean the law can't be removed from the books at any date, or take away from the court's job of applying the law as they read it.

drkpower

Dades wrote: »

So in effect you're happy that the bill hasn't been referred to the courts to check it's constitutionality so that it can be referred at some undetermined future date instead? I don't quite follow your logic.

If you're fearful that it would be found constitutional now, surely it follows it would be found constitutional down the line? Same result - different date.

And like I mentioned before, just because something is constitutional doesn't mean the law can't be removed from the books at any date, or take away from the court's job of applying the law as they read it.

The point is that if the Bill was determined to be constitutional by the SC on foot of an Article 26 Referral by the President, it can never ever ever be challenged again by any court in the land no matter who has been convicted under it and no matter what the particular circumstances.. So declaring it constitutional in this manner does take away any future court's ability to even consider its constitutionality ehen considering it. Even if a future SC all think it is the most unconstitutionallaw they ever saw, they cannot even consider its constitutionaility; them's the Rules....

And no; just because it may be found constitutional now does not mean it would be found constitutional down the line - judges are always reluctant to declare a law unconstitutional on the basis of hypotheticals - it is only when real facts come to light, that an Act is shown clearly to be unconstitutional.

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

If you're fearful that it would be found constitutional now, surely it follows it would be found constitutional down the line? Same result - different date.

Not necessarily. Looking at the law theoretically, there might be something they didn't consider. In a real situation it might become obvious to all that it's unconstitutional but if it's referred later and they didn't think of that particular eventuality before, it wouldn't matter at that stage, the law would still stand.

Stupid but apparently the way it works

OK-Cancel-Apply

I've been reading about this and still can't find the answers I'm looking for - could someone here perhaps dumb it down a bit for those who don't want to read pages and pages of text?

What exactly does this mean for the man on the street? Surely people can't be prosecuted for speaking ill of God in public? Sorry if this seems like a stupid question.

Times like this make me want to fook off out of this moronic country. Blasphemy law. One thing is certain: I'm definitely leaving the church now. What next-- law against 'witches'?

Doctor DooM

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I've been reading about this and still can't find the answers I'm looking for - could someone here perhaps dumb it down a bit for those who don't want to read pages and pages of text?

What exactly does this mean for the man on the street? Surely people can't be prosecuted for speaking ill of God in public? Sorry if this seems like a stupid question.

Times like this make me want to fook off out of this moronic country. Blasphemy law. One thing is certain: I'm definitely leaving the church now. What next-- law against 'witches'?

In the defence of all things religousular, I have talked to several devout Christian friends who disagree immensely with this law. Make sure you aim your (well justified) anger in the right direction!

AtomicHorror

So... any protests or other shenanigans planned now that our moronic government has gotten their way? I'm ashamed to say I've not been keeping a close enough eye on this one, and now I really regret that.

Orion

Anyone know when Atheist Ireland are going to publish their blasphemous statement now that the Act has been signed?