Crime of blasphemous libel proposed for Defamation Bil

Hookey

Darragh29 wrote: »

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

No, but if you wrote it down, you could be . Actually in that case you wouldn't be because you haven't libelled the religion, which is what "blasphemous libel" is all about; its supposed to be an anti-hate crime thing but it also destroys free speech. My personal view is that all religions are fair game for my bile and it really pisses me off when people think I should automatically respect a religious view simply because its religious; like its any more valid than say, a political view.

Darragh29

Hookey wrote: »

No, but if you wrote it down, you could be . Actually in that case you wouldn't be because you haven't libelled the religion, which is what "blasphemous libel" is all about; its supposed to be an anti-hate crime thing but it also destroys free speech. My personal view is that all religions are fair game for my bile and it really pisses me off when people think I should automatically respect a religious view simply because its religious; like its any more valid than say, a political view.

So if I'm standing at a road and a lad comes tearing down the road in a car and puts the car into a lamp post and I say, "Jasus fuppin Christ", and someone happens to be standing beside me takes offence to me saying that, I could be charged with this new law???

Actually I see your point, this would be blasphemous "slander", but who is this proposed law actually aimed at, people who write down things that could be considered to be "blasphemously libel"...

Who in all seriousness would fall into this catagory??? Sure doesn't the bible have some references to other religions being inferior???

To be honest, I think the place for this thread is over there in Christianity forum, there are a few nuts over there who would do this thread to death good and proper!

thebman

We all know this is ridiculous, the real question is how did it even get this far?

Shows us how incompetent our elected officials really are in this country.

edanto

Any punishment for blasphemy should be between the person and a god, it's certainly not the place of our mortal courts to rule on such things.

If anyone would like to express their opinions directly to the minister for Justice, I would suggest his personal email is probably best for these things - dermot {at} dermotahern.ie

Sparks

thebman wrote: »

We all know this is ridiculous, the real question is how did it even get this far?

And why? Is this a legislative troll to get outrage flowing against an easily discarded target to defer outrage from something less easily addressable?

the_syco

Darragh29 wrote: »

To be honest, I think the place for this thread is over there in Christianity forum, there are a few nuts over there who would do this thread to death good and proper!

Well, no. Two reasons: 1)I'm banned from there 2)They'd think it was a great idea.

I must get a "Jesus is a c*nt" tshirts before this goes through.

Sparks

the_syco wrote: »

I must get a "Jesus is a c*nt" tshirts before this goes through.

Naw, need something cleverer than that.

edanto

Sparks wrote: »

And why? Is this a legislative troll to get outrage flowing against an easily discarded target to defer outrage from something less easily addressable?

I doubt the government is that well co-ordinated!! If I had to guess, I would say the legislation is designed to prevent something like this being seen in Ireland, as it caused uproar in the UK.

G_R

i have to be honest i never actually read the constitution before (prob the same as most people). According to wikipedia and im assuming its correct it says that we have freedom of speech but we cant use freedom of speech to undermine morality or the state's authority

i dont know so correct me if i'm wrong but isnt there some EU Directive/Law that guarentees freedom of expresion??

if so then surely it conflicts with the Constitution because im guessing that when the EU say freedom of expression they dont mean towards anyone except the church and the government. And as it says in the Irish Const., European law has supremacy over Irish law.

and aside from the legal arguement, its total bull anyway. Ireland is a secular society, ie. state should have nothing to do with religion.

personally i think that their should be a referendum the next time people are voting (hopefully sooner rather that later) on changing it from:

the right to free speech except when it when its against X Y and Z
to
the right to free speech, period

i mean jesus christ like for god's sake (woops):D

r14

dannym08 wrote: »

i have to be honest i never actually read the constitution before (prob the same as most people). According to wikipedia and im assuming its correct it says that we have freedom of speech but we cant use freedom of speech to undermine morality or the state's authority

i dont know so correct me if i'm wrong but isnt there some EU Directive/Law that guarentees freedom of expresion??

if so then surely it conflicts with the Constitution because im guessing that when the EU say freedom of expression they dont mean towards anyone except the church and the government. And as it says in the Irish Const., European law has supremacy over Irish law.

and aside from the legal arguement, its total bull anyway. Ireland is a secular society, ie. state should have nothing to do with religion.

personally i think that their should be a referendum the next time people are voting (hopefully sooner rather that later) on changing it from:

the right to free speech except when it when its against X Y and Z
to
the right to free speech, period

i mean jesus christ like for god's sake (woops):D

You're thinking of the ECHR which guarantees freedom of expression. The ECHR is separate to the EU and is not supreme over the Irish constitution.

tbh I think the only reason they're doing this is to avoid a referendum to remove blasphemy from the constitution. The Government are on pretty shaky ground not having the law because the constitution provides that there shall be a law, thus there is a constitutional imperative to enact the law. So they're being pressured into either enacting the law or amending the constitution.

A referendum costs c 5 million and will lead to a huge amount of right wing religious people ripping into the government and (judging from Lisbon) will prob be rejected so this is the safer (albeit more ridiculous) route.

btw freedom of expression can always be limited even under the ECHR. Limitations can be imposed for public order (IRA) and morality (blasphemy). Personally I think religious people should just grow up and accept that if they give homosexuals/fornicators/blasphemers stick then they should take it too.

Also re the secular state have a look at the constitution and look at the amount of times God and the Trinity are mentioned. Really shows what a right wing catholic country we are.

G_R

r14 wrote: »

You're thinking of the ECHR which guarantees freedom of expression. The ECHR is separate to the EU and is not supreme over the Irish constitution.

tanx for clearing that up, my mistake

r14 wrote: »

Personally I think religious people should just grow up and accept that if they give homosexuals/fornicators/blasphemers stick then they should take it too.

+1

r14 wrote: »

Also re the secular state have a look at the constitution and look at the amount of times God and the Trinity are mentioned. Really shows what a right wing catholic country we are.

unfortunately i cant argue with u, its there alot alright

Jim_Are_Great

wes wrote: »

I think the seperation of church and state in this country has never happened completey. There are still links between the 2.

We don't actually have a legally-mandated separation of church and state like the States. See?

Also, "Blasphemous Libel" doesn't mean libel published about a religion, if the draft text is anything to go by. It just means publication/utterance of blasphemous matter. Doesn't make it any less stupid a law, mind.

The Raven.

There is a very interesting article in the Irish Times yesterday (Thursday 30th April), by Carol Coulter, entitled For God's sake, why have blasphemous libel?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0430/1224245681506.html

Coulter points out that:

These provisions came unannounced in a proposed amendment to the Defamation Bill, which was before the Oireachtas Committee on Justice yesterday (but was not discussed).

It is truly amazing how this outrageous proposal suddenly appeared, and is getting so little media attention. I didn’t see it mentioned on RTE or Aertel, except for a brief article in their on-line news. It is also shocking how the Labour party seem to have accepted it at least in principle. Unless I am mistaken, there was nothing either in the Oireactas report.

What about other religious groupings and faiths? The proposed amendment makes the degree of outrage among adherents of any religion, in response to things said or written about them, a defining factor in determining whether an offence has been committed. We have seen elsewhere in Europe large-scale expressions of outrage by members of the Muslim community in response to films, books and cartoons. Books such as Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses and films and cartoons, such as those published by a Danish newspaper and which offended some Muslims, would almost certainly be criminalised in Ireland by the present proposal.

Before anyone utters the R word, I would suggest that these instances be considered calmly and rationally, in light of this newly proposed legislation. I have a feeling that this legislation may be a case of pandering to the whims of certain elements of Irelands new multi-cultural society.

This is in marked contrast to the state of the law at present. The Constitution qualifies the right to freedom of speech, making it subject to “public order or morality or the authority of the State”, and says the publication of “blasphemous, seditious or indecent material” is punishable. The 1961 Defamation Act prescribed penalties but did not define the offence or any prosecutions.

In 1991, the Law Reform Commission concluded there was no place for an offence of blasphemous libel “in a society which respects freedom of speech”. “The argument in its favour that the publication of blasphemy causes injury to feelings appeared to us to be a tenuous basis on which to restrict freedom of speech,” it said. “The argument that freedom to insult religion would threaten the stability of society by impairing the harmony between groups seemed highly questionable in the absence of any prosecutions.”

There was only one case taken under this law: Corway -v- Independent Newspapers 1999, where Corway complained about a cartoon, which he claimed ‘was an insult to the Catholic faith.’ The Supreme Court upheld a High Court ruling that ‘there was no legislation defining blasphemy and describing the offence of blasphemous libel.’

There the matter rested until the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of Seán Ardagh, reported last year, recommending the deletion of references to sedition and blasphemy in the Constitution. While there appears to be no appetite for an amendment to do so, there equally has been no conspicuous clamour to legislate to fill the void identified by the Supreme Court.

I suppose that would have meant a referendum, and Ardagh got no support. The TDs would have had the Lisbon referendum on their minds at the time.

Meanwhile, in the UK, where our blasphemy law has its origins, the law prohibiting blasphemy was repealed in July last year. The present proposal comes in an international context where a campaign seeking to outlaw the “defamation of religion” has been waged for some years, spearheaded by a number of Muslim countries in the United Nations and supported by the Vatican.

Last December, there was a vote on a resolution on “combating defamation of religion” at the UN, which was adopted by 86 votes to 53, with 42 abstentions. The resolution was tabled by Egypt on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Ireland, in common with all other EU countries, voted against.

However, at the Durban Review conference in Geneva last week (reviewing a 2001 UN conference on racism) references to “defamation of religion” were removed from the final document. At the same meeting, the human rights organisation Article 19 launched the Camden Principles, defending freedom of expression combined with the right to equality. They were drawn up with a high-level group of UN officials, representatives from other intergovernmental organisations, NGOs and academic experts.

Explaining Ireland’s vote at the December UN meeting, in response to a question from Green TD Ciarán Cuffe in the Dáil last month, Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin said: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.”

He went on to distinguish between this and discrimination based on religious belief and incitement to hatred, pointing out that Ireland supported a UN resolution on “Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief.” Has our policy on the defamation of religion changed since last December and, if so, why?

That is the million-dollar question! WHY?? The Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern should be forced to tell the people of Ireland why he is proposing this incongruous and repressive legislation, which flies in the face of their freedom of expression. The Labour spokesman on justice Pat Rabbitte should also be asked to provide clarification on his party’s stance on this proposal.

ART6

The bit I don't understand is why religion has been singled out using the term "blasphemy" that might offend a number of people. If someone writes that the Irish are all a gang of drunken bog paddies, a lot of people including me are likely to be very offended. If someone writes that women are an inferior species then even more people are going to be seriously offended. So what's so special about religion that it needs this protection? Is it possible that it has anything to do with the increasingly hysterical radical Islam?

Goonerette

What a truly sickening, sinister and regressive proposal by the Government.

The Raven. wrote: »

I have a feeling that this legislation may be a case of pandering to the whims of certain elements of Irelands new multi-cultural society.

I have the same feeling. I know this is pure speculation, especially given Ireland's "no" vote on the UN anti-blasphemy resolution. However, bending over backwards for the sake of tolerance and multiculturalism will only bring on more unreasonable demands from certain religious elements. Deference will get us nowhere unless we of course want Sharia courts such as the ones they now have in Britain.

Yoda

ART6 wrote: »

So what's so special about religion that it needs this protection?

Magic?

lostexpectation

dermot ahern said a referndum would be costly and unwarrented distraction, wow, he really does respect constitutional law, since when were referendums ever to be judged on cost ? and not at a far more serious level.

lostexpectation

ART6 wrote: »

The bit I don't understand is why religion has been singled out using the term "blasphemy" that might offend a number of people. If someone writes that the Irish are all a gang of drunken bog paddies, a lot of people including me are likely to be very offended. If someone writes that women are an inferior species then even more people are going to be seriously offended. So what's so special about religion that it needs this protection? Is it possible that it has anything to do with the increasingly hysterical radical Islam?

there are other laws for those issues art6, and forgods sake will people recognise that biggest religious threat to ireland has been Catholicism and will be for along time to come.

r14

lostexpectation wrote: »

dermot ahern said a referndum would be costly and unwarrented distraction, wow, he really does respect constitutional law, since when were referendums ever to be judged on cost ? and not at a far more serious level.

I agree. What this really needs is a referendum to remove the crime of blasphemy from the Constitution. I really don't think there is anything particularly sinister or pandering behind this. It is simply that if someone decided to challenge the lack of a blasphemy law at the moment they would win, so the Government have to act.

Dermot Ahern explains it pretty well in the Times today: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0501/1224245748066.html

The key point here is that successive attorneys general have advised the various ministers for justice, in the context of the reform of defamation law and the repeal of the 1961 Act, that article 40.6.1.i of the Constitution imposes an obligation to implement the constitutional offence of blasphemy.

Solution: remove the crime of blasphemy form the Constitution or legislate to give it some actual form. They chose the latter option - probably don't fancy having to run three referendum campaigns in a year (including Lisbon II).

The lesson to learn from this is that we should amend the constitution to remove the requirement for a referendum every time we amend. It's an outdated example of direct democracy that doesn't work in modern times.

Nodin

ART6 wrote: »

Is it possible that it has anything to do with the increasingly hysterical radical Islam?

Not unless Dev was thinking of that in 1937, no.

Goonerette wrote:

I know this is pure speculation

Excellent.

Goonerette wrote:

However, bending over backwards for the sake of tolerance and multiculturalism will only bring on more unreasonable demands from certain religious elements

...."certain elements" meaning muslims. Theres been none of any weight in this country. Nor is there a large population of them here.

Goonerette wrote:

unless we of course want Sharia courts such as the ones they now have in Britain.

Theres a precedent over there for it. From your own article -

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

(my bold)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

As far as I understand it, theres no reason there can't be a Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Hindu or whatever arbitration under the 1996 act. None can override British law. Personally I think its a bad idea, but it certainly didn't originate from muslims.

cavedave

Unlike other libel laws this one seems to make no exception for if what your saying is actually true.

“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.”

Many religious people are outraged by the theory of evolution. If a doctor was to say something like "we should be careful how we distribute tamiflu because otherwise H1N1 may evolve to make it ineffective" This would be offensive to many people of religion. The doctor saying it would know this so she could not deny intent. Should public health advise really be blasphemous?

Scientific theories that appear to be blasphemous include that the earth is not center of the universe. E pur si muove!. That the moon does not generate its own light. and most of cosmology.

Gambler

Fair bit of discussion going on about this in Atheism & Agnosticism forum, there was a press release from Dermot Ahern in the times today:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0501/1224245748066.html

To be fair to him he does have a point that choosing to make certain parts of the constitution irrelevant with petty punishments is a dangerous precedent to set.

However I also feel that the fact that blasphemy is enshrined in the constitution is no excuse. When something in the constitution is so obviously disconnected from modern life then it needs to be removed, not ignored.

Sparks

Gambler wrote: »

To be fair to him he does have a point that choosing to make certain parts of the constitution irrelevant with petty punishments is a dangerous precedent to set.

I take it noone's told him we've already made articles of the constitution 'aspirational' allready then? (High court ruling regarding how Ireland would adhere to international law, ruling made prior to the Iraq invasion when an awkward chap was suing the government for allowing USAF overflight permissions in contravention of Article 19, IIRC).

Load of hogwash in other words. If there's a problem with the constitution, fix the constitution. And unless we just created AG infallibility, I'll happily disagree with the idea that we have any duty to treat the anomaly surrounding blasphemy in the constitution by creating a new law; because if it was a duty, why didn't we address it somewhere in the last seventy-odd years?

carlop

I'm amazed how little coverage this has received. I'm busy studying at the moment so I haven't been following the news too closely, but I thought this would have been discussed enough to catch my attention. Instead I just happened to come across today by chance on boards.

It looks like the government have decided if we're going to have a backwards economy, we may as well have some backwards legislation.

Jim_Are_Great

r14 wrote: »

if someone decided to challenge the lack of a blasphemy law at the moment they would win, so the Government have to act.

Not true at all. In the Sheehan case, the Supreme Court held that the state was liable only for misfeasance, not nonfeasance. This, along with the separation of powers, and the locus standi difficulties, would render the hypothetical challenge of which you speak almost certainly doomed to failure.

r14

Jim_Are_Great wrote: »

Not true at all. In the Sheehan case, the Supreme Court held that the state was liable only for misfeasance, not nonfeasance. This, along with the separation of powers, and the locus standi difficulties, would render the hypothetical challenge of which you speak almost certainly doomed to failure.

True but Sheehan dealt with the failure of a Minister to pass the SI bringing a law into force when the Oireachtas had given him absolute discretion on this matter.

Art 40.6.1.i does not give any discretion as to enacting the law.

Locus standi has been progressively relaxed over the years for all except serial litigators (I'm thinking of Isaac Wunder orders). The fact that Corway got it to court shows that locus standi would not be an issue.

Separation of powers is a fair point and well taken but it wouldn't stop someone taking them to court and the government having to engage in a legal battle over the right to blaspheme which would not go down well with many.

Bottom line - rather than fighting the good fight and removing it from the constitution they are legislating for it. My point is just that I don't think there is any sinister right wing, free speech denying motivation behind it. I think its simply for practicality's sake.

Jim_Are_Great

r14 wrote: »

Art 40.6.1.i does not give any discretion as to enacting the law.

It also doesn't create a mandate for the judiciary to penalise another organ for non-creation of law.

r14 wrote: »

Locus standi has been progressively relaxed over the years for all except serial litigators (I'm thinking of Isaac Wunder orders). The fact that Corway got it to court shows that locus standi would not be an issue.

Sure, it's been relaxed, but I think you're missing my point, and it certainly isn't true to say that standing is no longer an issure. The Crotty and Grogan relaxations broadened the purview of standing; a move from specific application to general application. It was never done away with. Corway got to court because the individual claimed to have been affected by blasphemy. (btw, a private action for blasphemy such as Corway is exactly what this bill aims to replace). What you're talking about (as far as I understood it) is a case being taken against the government for the non-implementation of the constitutional blasphemy provision. How anyone could create believable standing for that is beyond me.

r14 wrote: »

Separation of powers is a fair point and well taken but it wouldn't stop someone taking them to court and the government having to engage in a legal battle over the right to blaspheme which would not go down well with many.

Maybe. But if someone took the government to court over a legal point that facetious, I doubt the government would lose that much sympathy, particularly in the blasphemy-apathetic environment before this measure was proposed. Also, even if that is not the case, it's an issue of constitutional and legal freedom, and the government's PR concerns should be kept out of it.

r14 wrote: »

Bottom line - rather than fighting the good fight and removing it from the constitution they are legislating for it. My point is just that I don't think there is any sinister right wing, free speech denying motivation behind it. I think its simply for practicality's sake.

Really? Why the sudden concern for practicality? Practicality was unimportant from 1937 until now? It doesn't take a lot of insight to see that it's a diversionary tactic. This was leaked simultaneously with the damning ESRI report. Coincidence?

getcover

This is obviously D. Ahern's first salvo in his bid to be Taoiseach. He has looked at how Cowen, Coughlan, Lenihan have made utter fools of themselves over the economy, and reckoned that an utterly irrelevant matter than will achieve absolutely nothing besides acres of nonsense and hot air will show him up to be the only pol in FF with real leadership material. Dermot has his finger on the pulse of what REALLY matters...

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not quite. That was the censor.

The issue here is that blasphemy is banned under the constitution, but no law was ever enacted to define it. So 70 years later, they decide to do so.

ALL religions are covered here, so if you have a go at the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you will find yourself 100 grand lighter. Criticise Scienology? Jail.

What a waste of time, effort and money and shows up the right wing reactionary elements within FF.

Technically the Koran will be banned as it argues against Jesus as the messiah. So the law will odds on be struck down on the basis its cleary in violation of freedom of religion.

Another reason to vote out Zanu FF

imokyrok

carlop wrote: »

I'm amazed how little coverage this has received. I'm busy studying at the moment so I haven't been following the news too closely, but I thought this would have been discussed enough to catch my attention. Instead I just happened to come across today by chance on boards.

It looks like the government have decided if we're going to have a backwards economy, we may as well have some backwards legislation.

I've noticed that our media haven't given this half as much attention as I would expect. There's much comment in media and blogs all around the world on how astonished they are at a modern democracy taking such a retrograde step and very little here. I'm very suspicious. Someone suggested that the media have a quid pro quo arrangement to make sure this defamation bill doesn't make life too difficult for them. Indeed the civil law division of the Dept of Justice told me that this has all been in the public domain since 2007 and she didn't understand why people were only objecting now when it's nearly too late. I certainly didn't hear about it in 2007 and haven't found any links to articles on it that predate this week.

It's getting a lot of attention on p.ie if anyone is intersested:
http://www.politics.ie/justice/64231-new-crime-blasphemous-libel-proposed-defamation-bill-goodbye-free-speech.html