Crime of blasphemous libel proposed for Defamation Bil

the_syco

A NEW crime of blasphemous libel is to be proposed by the Minister for Justice in an amendment to the Defamation Bill, which will be discussed by the Oireachtas committee on justice today

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern proposes to insert a new section into the Defamation Bill, stating: “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 €100,000.”

And here was me thinking that church and state were seperate. Seemingly not. I wonder what will now happen to you if you wear a t-shirt saying "Jesus is a c***", when "c***" ryhmes with "month"? Is this one step towards a bible belt? I acknowlegde that this law looks like it's for all religons, but I can see a lot of stuff getting banned as it's "blasphemous" :mad:

wes

the_syco wrote: »

And here was me thinking that church and state were seperate.

Doesn't the Catholic church like control most of our schools? I think the seperation of church and state in this country has never happened completey. There are still links between the 2.

donaghs

wes wrote: »

Doesn't the Catholic church like control most of our schools? I think the seperation of church and state in this country has never happened completey. There are still links between the 2.

Blasphemy is nonsense. The amount of ways that various religions can claim offense would make it unworkable. It only works if applied to one religion, and that's hardly fair. The very existence of certain religions and sects is blasphemous in itself to others, so its all quite silly really.

The main reason the Catholic Church still controls most schools is that it would take a lot of effort and money by the government to bring them into State control. And this isn't going to happen any time soon. It suits the government to pass on this responsibilty.

wes

donaghs wrote: »

The main reason the Catholic Church still controls most schools is that it would take a lot of effort and money by the government to bring them into State control. And this isn't going to happen any time soon. It suits the government to pass on this responsibilty.

Its still means there is a link between the church and state, even if it is done out of sheer laziness.

El_MUERkO

hilarious stuff, hopefully people will rebel against it and the government will be embarrassed into scrapping it

I'm going to guess this'll be a no-no then

Sparks

Given that the non-religious are the second or third largest segment of the population when you look at religious demographics, are atheists going to be able to sue the state for broadcasting the angelus or schools for teaching religion under this new act?


And how long until 'Jedi' becomes an officially recognised religion here as well?

Raiser

Why can't people just keep their imaginary friends to their own fcuking selves?

LoveDucati2

Raiser wrote: »

Why can't people just keep their imaginary friends to their own fcuking selves?

FFS Religon is not real.

How can you make a law to protect a fictional delusion.

Orchard Rebel

The definition of blasphemy has always been so subjective that it is difficult to see how the State can come up with one to encompass a multi-ethnic multi-faith society.

If they do and it means I can no longer call Opus Dei a bunch of right-wing idiots, I'll be a bit disappointed though....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Professor_Fink

LoveDucati2 wrote: »

FFS Religon is not real.

How can you make a law to protect a fictional delusion.

No, religion is very real. It's deities that are fictional, not religions (with the possible exceptions of Jedis and Pastafarians).

Sleepy

Isn't it great that our government has the time to waste on such nonsense now that they've cleaned up our banks, tackled the bloated public service, found the money to pay for cervical cancer vaccines, re-built our delapidated schools and developed world class infrastructure?

Oh wait a second...

Sparks

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In accordance with which law? There wasn't a law to implement the blasphemous statement until this, so far as I know.

irish_bob

one can only suspect that this proposal coincides with the increase in this countrys muslim population

yet more fianna fail populism

Nodin

irish_bob wrote: »

one can only suspect that this proposal coincides with the increase in this countrys muslim population

One can do otherwise quite easily. Theres insufficient numbers of muslims here to be worth courting, even if they were pushed one way or another.

Sparks

irish_bob wrote: »

one can only suspect

Perfectly correct. One certainly can't prove it. Or even reasonably believe it, to be honest.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It offers the legal basis to do so - that's not the same thing as making it 'acceptable'.
Of course, it also gave us the legal basis to rule Northern Ireland, to give the Roman Catholic Church a 'special relationship' with the State, to prohibit divorce, to prohibit exit from the state by citizens (ie. women leaving for the purposes of obtaining an abortion), and a fair few other things that most right-thinking people don't find acceptable today.

JonathanAnon

This is such a non issue at the moment, I cannot believe that the government is wasting time with it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

tba

seriously? wtf? I'd really love to kick all these backward bastards in the baby makers.

The Raven.

I must say that I am absolutely shocked by this proposal :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:!!!!!

This is a gravely backward step. I don't know what this nutcase is thinking of. Where did this spring from? As if we haven't enough problems without this lunacy!

Last year the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of Fianna Fáil TD Seán Ardagh, recommended amending this Article to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafting the Article along the lines of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0429/1224245599892.html

So what happened there? I wasn't following that one.

How did it get from that to this?

Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may issue a warrant authorising the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary using reasonable force, a premises where the member of the force has reasonable grounds for believing there are copies of the blasphemous statements in order to seize them.

It just gets even more ridiculous :eek:!

Labour spokesman on justice Pat Rabbitte is proposing an amendment to this section which would reduce the maximum fine to €1,000 and exclude from the definition of blasphemy any matter that had any literary, artistic, social or academic merit.

Oh, thanks, Pat. That's very thoughtful of you :rolleyes:!!

Remind me. This is 2009, isn't it?

CtrlSource

Grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented

Yoda

The Raven. wrote: »

Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may issue a warrant authorising the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary using reasonable force, a premises where the member of the force has reasonable grounds for believing there are copies of the blasphemous statements in order to seize them.

It just gets even more ridiculous :eek:!

This is not "ridiculous". It's frightening.

100gSoma

absolutely STUNNED! what a backward thinking vile bunch of a-holes running this country. :eek::eek::eek:

Blangis

Is this new crime going to be blasphemy, or blasphemous libel?

Surely there is some concept of truth of falsehood inherent in libel. i.e. a statement is a libel if it can be proven to be untrue or unfounded, and is not a libel if it can be proven to be true.

So how is this supposed to be established with regard to blasphemy?

So if someone says that Jesus was not a God, he was just a carpenter who started a cult, for example, then who is going to be able to prove or disprove that?

drunkmonkey

I'm looking forward to the day the Rastafarians challenge parts of the criminal justice bill as being blasphemous to their religion...it shoud make for an intresting case...

r0nanf

I've mentioned this before, but does it strike you as odd that something that would be so difficult to legislate for would be rearing its head now? This fits in with a pattern of "leaked reports" and relatively minor issues that keep on appearing every few days, serving no major purpose bar to deflect attention away from the major issues. Its no different from an Orange Alert.

I am completely against giving any religion legislative protection btw, but surely this should be deemed irrelevant considering the predicament we find ourselves in??

Dr Galen

this is pretty crazy. yet another nanny state law from the government.

how can this even be proven in court?


are we going to have the Bible entered into evidence in courts now? doesn't libel action have to be taken by the person being libelled in the first place? so this then is a new category of offence, as obviously JC ain't coming down from a cloud on high to make an appearance in the 4 courts....

at a time when gangsters are going mental in Limerick, and Gardai need direction and support from the DoJ we have this nonsense.

Hookey

Who's defining "blasphemy"? Since the definition of blasphemy is closely tied to whichever religion you follow, and freedom of religious expression is enshrined in the European Human Rights Act, I could be accused of "blasphemous libel" from all kinds of directions. I'm also pretty sure that Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Hitchens would be getting their collars felt if they crossed the Irish Sea.

Notwithstanding the insanity of blasphemy laws in this day and age, I don't think the eejit who came up with the idea has realised the implications; such laws could just as easily be used against the catholic authorities in this country as by them.

As an atheist I'm screwed anyway

Darragh29

What is all this about??? If I say to someone, "Jesus Christ you're some w*nker", could I be charged with this blasphemous libel legislation??? Seriously, I'm