Crime of blasphemous libel proposed for Defamation Bil

Quentinkrisp

As the new kid i'll just say that i completely agree with Sparks, r12 and dannym08. you've got it bang on the money there lads, because scrapping such an outdated piece of ambiguous illiberal rubbish would be way too radical for the likes of fianna fail! Ambiguity, ignorance and cowardliness are ****ing up this country so badly right now

sceptre

imokyrok wrote: »

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.

I didn't hear about in 2007 either and I tend to keep a rough eye on these things. I tend to regard the key word in what you were told as "nearly" though.

edanto

You're right. Look, it's late at night, I'm about to go to bed and honestly I don't have much time or influence to put into this, but I would like to change it. What can we do? I've sent an email, I've talked to about 20 people about this and obviously posting on boards is another way of trying to get ideas out there - particularly when there are a lot of people here that seem to have great ideas about how to fix up this mess.

sceptre - you've been around here a while, seen a lot of threads and you know what I'm talking about. Honestly - what can we do?!

The Raven.

sceptre wrote: »

I didn't hear about in 2007 either and I tend to keep a rough eye on these things.

Apparently, the ‘main churches’ in Ireland were not informed either. I am not suggesting that they should be specifically consulted, or that they should have any say in the matter. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. However, as the main crux of this new legislation centres on religious moral supremacy, it has the undesirable potential to reunite the two.

The Irish Times Legal Affairs Editor Carol Coulter wrote another article yesterday:

Churches not consulted about blasphemy law proposal

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0501/1224245756970.html

THE MAIN churches were not consulted about the proposal to define the offence of blasphemous libel in the Defamation Act, The Irish Times has learned.

Spokesmen for the Catholic bishops, the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin and for the imam of the Islamic mosque in Clonskeagh said that the proposal had not been discussed with them. They said they needed to consider it before commenting further.

Interesting that the ‘main churches’ of Ireland are listed here as Catholic, Protestant and Islamic :rolleyes:!!

Asked to comment on the definition contained in the proposed amendment, Martin Long of the Catholic Communications Office said that the bishops had not been consulted about it, and needed to study it. He added that non-legal mechanisms like the codes of practice of the Broadcasting Complaints Authority, the Advertising Standards Authority and the Press Ombudsman had been used by the communications office to raise issues that caused offence.

A spokesman for Archbishop John Neill of Dublin also said that the proposal had come as a surprise, and that the church would have to study it.

Ali Selim, spokesman for the imam of the mosque in the Islamic Cultural Centre in Clonskeagh, said that they would welcome any policy or law to maintain or strengthen respect for religion or faith, but they were not aware of these specific proposals.

So who was informed then? I never heard anything about it before this proposed legislation. I have searched, but so far I have found nothing. I don’t believe it has been ‘publicly flagged previously’, as stated by Ahern. This is typical of Fianna Fail: Keep it quiet until the last minute, and then land it on us as a fait accompli.

Meanwhile, it has emerged that the Holy See, at a United Nations meeting in Geneva, pledged its support for the international Covenant on Civil, Cultural and Political Rights as the best protection for religious freedom, as an alternative to prohibiting the “defamation of religions”.

Even the Holy See thinks it is a bad idea. Wait! The Vatican, for many years ‘supported’ the outlawing of ‘defamation of religion’, according to Thursday’s article :rolleyes:!!

At a meeting of the Human Rights Council on All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination last September, Msgr Silvano Marie Tomasi, the Holy See’s permanent observer at the UN, said: “This delegation . . . fully supports the reaffirmation, by the Human Rights Council, of the right to freedom of religion, conscience, belief and religious practice . . . It concurs also with the advice of the special rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, offered to this council, to refocus its reflection away from the vague sociological concept of ‘defamation of religions’ to the juridical norm of non-incitement to national, racial or religious hatred, and to the rights well summed up in the International Covenant on Civil, Cultural and Political Rights.”

I believe that there should be a referendum to remove the offending section from the Constitution, but what if we get a plethora of craw-thumping religious zealots out in force, voting as the ‘moral majority’? It is frightening see what comes out of the woodwork at election times :eek::eek::eek:!!!

r14

The Raven. wrote: »

I believe that there should be a referendum to remove the offending section from the Constitution, but what if we get a plethora of craw-thumping religious zealots out in force, voting as the ‘moral majority’? It is frightening see what comes out of the woodwork at election times :eek::eek::eek:!!!

I reckon it's just that Lisbon has given them a bad taste as regards referenda. As for what we can do, well there are elections in a month. Just make it clear when you see any local/european candidates that you want a referendum on this. Get on to your local TDs and try to get them to ask questions in the Dail about whyno referendum. Apart from that maybe a petition could be organised (on boards or on facebook???)

It's ridiculous that they've decided to go this way but if people make it clear how important it is maybe the opposition can be convinced to make more of this. I think a referendum on this would easily pass.

Caoimhín

I hereby promise that if this legislation is passed, i will make it my business to be the first to be prosecuted.

BroomBurner

r14 wrote: »

I reckon it's just that Lisbon has given them a bad taste as regards referenda. As for what we can do, well there are elections in a month. Just make it clear when you see any local/european candidates that you want a referendum on this. Get on to your local TDs and try to get them to ask questions in the Dail about whyno referendum. Apart from that maybe a petition could be organised (on boards or on facebook???)

It's ridiculous that they've decided to go this way but if people make it clear how important it is maybe the opposition can be convinced to make more of this. I think a referendum on this would easily pass.

I'm tired of hearing the word Lisbon as a reason why the government won't run a referendum. They tried to pass legislation that the people of the country didn't want.

They should now try to revoke a part of the Constitution and see if it's what people want. If they get a 'yes', then do it.

Urghghhh! Sorry, R14, I'm not directing my annoyance at you directly, just that if the government were using Lisbon for not running another referendum, it would be a pathetic excuse for laziness. It would also imply that the government will never run another referendum, ever, ever, ever, until they get Lisbon passed or something. What are we, in playschool?

thebigcheese22

Does anyone think that this is a device by Fianna Fail to deflect attention away from their disastrous handling of the economy? I'm very suspicious at the timing of this, just before the local elections. Maybe its pandering to the gray vote to support FF, I just don't know!

Anyway I'm completely outraged by this proposed legislation. I don't see how the Committee has done a complete U turn from recommending amending the Constitution to bringing in a new law, there must have been substantial influence from a lobbyist. I recommend everyone here writing to their nearest FF TD, as well as the Minister himself, hopefully enough of them will make them realise what a retrograde piece of law this will be. Tbh I'm disappointed with my own party Labour for not opposing this more, as we have a strong secular ethos. Hopefully they will oppose it more forcefully in the coming weeks.

There was a very good Examiner article about it yesterday if ya can get your hands on it.

johnnyskeleton

dannym08 wrote: »

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

Even the Americans have some restraint on free speech. I think completely unfettered free speech leads to dangerous things, such as racial hatred, increased support for paramilitaries and damage to reputation.

As regards blasphemy, it has always been an offence in Ireland at common law, but the Supreme Court found in Corway v Independent Newspapers that it was too vague an offence for an actual prosecution to arise.

The new bill, from the sounds of it, is equally vague and in all seriousness I doubt that there will: a) be many prosecutions or b) be any convictions. So all the government will achieve is to scare people with the threat of a criminal offence.

johnnyskeleton

Caoimhín wrote: »

I hereby promise that if this legislation is passed, i will make it my business to be the first to be prosecuted.

There will be a queue of lawyers lining up to defend you too.

johnnyskeleton

cavedave wrote: »

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

The "Libel" part takes care of that, as justification is a defence to libel. There also has to be an intent to blaspheme, which is very hard to prove.

IMO, a much better way of doing this would have been to create offences of inciting religious hatred, which would not include any reasonable criticism of any religion and would only be focussed on people who are making deliberate attacks on religions.

Caoimhín

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The "Libel" part takes care of that, as justification is a defence to libel. There also has to be an intent to blaspheme, which is very hard to prove.

Im thinking about walking down O Connell street with a placard saying Fcuk god, Fcuk budda, Fcuk Allah, Mohammad was a pedophile.

It is all BULLSHOITE.

That should do it.

dvpower

Caoimhín wrote: »

Im thinking about walking down O Connell street with a placard saying Fcuk god, Fcuk budda, Fcuk Allah, Mohammad was a pedophile.

It is all BULLSHOITE.

That should do it.

I guess this would already be illegal (Incitement to hatred, maybe). If so, this would further undermine the case for a new law.

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?

Well I know that at least one person I'm talking with knows more about this than the small controversy raging about the NAMA proposals!

AARRRGH

Caoimhín wrote: »

I hereby promise that if this legislation is passed, i will make it my business to be the first to be prosecuted.

Jesus.ie is still available.

I'm considering registering it and putting a picture of a big, diseased cock on it.

edanto

UUUGGGHH

lostexpectation

http://www.catholic.ie/ ftw

The Raven.

The Green Party wants a referendum on the proposed new blasphemy law. This should be interesting.

Greens in blasphemy challenge

A Green TD has said his party will request that a referendum on blasphemy be held before the justice minister pushes through new legislation to make it a crime.

Ciaran Cuffe said yesterday he believed many people would find the prospect of a law against blasphemy “old-fashioned”, and that the Greens would be asking Dermot Ahern to consider having a referendum on the issue.

……….

“I’d like to see a debate about this, and I think we should consider a referendum to give people the chance to have their say,” Cuffe said.

“A lot of people might think blasphemy is a fairly old-fashioned idea. The issue [of a referendum] will be raised with the minister.”

A spokesman for the Greens said: “The party will be dealing with this matter in discussion with government colleagues.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6211741.ece

Then a dark cloud descends over this bit:

But sources close to Ahern yesterday played down the likelihood of a referendum. “The last people who tried to remove a reference to God from the constitution were the Progressive Democrats, and look what happened to them,” he said. “It’s a well-known fact that that is dangerous political ground.”

The highlighted [Ahern?] quote, here sounds like a veiled threat to the Greens. Is he now trying to imply that the PDs lost the election, and their party is demolished, because they tried to remove ‘God’ from the constitution? This is news to me! Does he mean that Fianna Fail could be on ‘dangerous political ground’, or is he trying to bully the Greens into thinking that they could meet with the same fate as the PDs if they push for a referendum?

Nostradamus

LoveDucati2 wrote: »

FFS Religon is not real.

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

Yeah! Like Global Warming...

Nostradamus

The Raven. wrote: »

The highlighted [Ahern?] quote, here sounds like a veiled threat to the Greens. Is he now trying to imply that the PDs lost the election, and their party is demolished, because they tried to remove ‘God’ from the constitution? This is news to me!

Reminds me of their excuse that people voted against the Lisbon Treaty because the Government did not brainwash enough of the population into blindly accepting it.

DeVore

Amazing that they can push this legislation through so quickly and still cant clarify the laws on defamation on the internet.

oh, yeah, those laws keep sites from serving as platforms for political dissent which the blasphemy laws serve the Aherns mates in Opus Dei.

DeV.

Nostradamus

DeVore wrote: »

oh, yeah, those laws keep sites from serving as platforms for political dissent which the blasphemy laws serve the Aherns mates in Opus Dei.

Jesuits actually. Opus Dei are not big time players.

The Raven.

Nostradamus wrote: »

Jesuits actually. Opus Dei are not big time players.

I wouldn't bet on that. The ODs are by nature more of a covert operation !!

lostexpectation

if having referendum was put to some sort procedural vote in the dail which way would ciaran cuffe vote.

edanto

DeVore wrote: »

Amazing that they can push this legislation through so quickly and still cant clarify the laws on defamation on the internet.

oh, yeah, those laws keep sites from serving as platforms for political dissent which the blasphemy laws serve the Aherns mates in Opus Dei.

DeV.

That first bit is odd I would have thought that this blasphemy thing was part of a new defamation bill and that would update the internet legislation.

Given the view of the internet as a publishing medium (tangent: arguably the one with the potential to be the most democratic, and hence threatening to vested interests)... do you think that there might be any implications of this new legislation for our Humanities or Aeth & Agn forums?

This is clearly a diversion

The Raven.

Emer O’Kelly has written an incisive article, in Sunday’s Indo, in reference to the ‘implications of Dermot Ahern's proposed offence of 'blasphemous libel''.

To criminalise blasphemy would just be outrageous

This week, we are fulfilling one of our Constitutional duties, and will continue to do so until May 10. Under Article 44 of the Constitution, the "State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion". The current national tour of the bodily remains of St Therese of Lisieux, with the remains due to be returned to France on May 10, could be said to fulfil that duty, with Garda escort and public processions scheduled in every town the relics are brought to.

In 2001, the last time the relics were brought to Ireland, and with a busy working schedule severely disrupted when various towns across the country were made impassable to traffic by the faithful, I inadvertently referred at a meeting to the event as "the bishop and his holy skeleton". It caused grave offence to some of the Catholics present. Others of them thought it was funny.

It was not, however, blasphemous, since one can't blaspheme against a saint, only against the godhead.

Go on. Have a read.

Well, if people want to engage in that sort of thing, it’s up to them, but the ‘Garda escort’ and traffic disruptions are pushing it a bit far. Cynical comments are bound to ensue.

…last year, the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution sensibly recommended amending Article 40 to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, replacing them with something along the lines of the relevant article in the European Convention on human rights.

In 1999, a judgment of the Supreme Court stated that it was "impossible" to say of what the offence of blasphemy consists. It was handed down in a case in which a man objected to the publication in the Sunday Independent of a cartoon which depicted a rather fat Catholic priest offering the host and chalice to a trio consisting of Ruairi Quinn, John Bruton and Proinsias De Rossa. They were then the party leaders in a coalition government which had sponsored the Divorce Referendum, and in the cartoon they were turning away from the offered host and chalice. The complainant charged that the cartoon constituted a major insult to the Catholic faith.

In faith, 10 years later, it all sounds rather mild when compared, for instance, with the international ruckus over the cartoons in Scandinavia depicting the prophet Mohammed which roused Islam to some murderous fury. But one citizen thought strongly enough to go to the Supreme Court over a slightly silly cartoon. And he lost.

That, you see, is what the separation of Church and State is about. Legally, you can't define blasphemy; religiously you can. So it comes down once again to whether you believe that religion should define our laws. It also, of course, comes down to how tolerant you are of those who disagree with you. For some people, even flippancy about religion is blasphemous, and deserving of whipping at the cart's tail.

But Dermot Ahern, the Minister for Justice and a usually sensible man (although he recently said that the terms of the Budget were "aspirations", so maybe overwork and pressure are affecting his marbles), is proposing a new crime of "blasphemous libel" in an amendment to the Defamation Bill and it hinges on the word "gross".

The Minister wants to define blasphemy as matter "that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion ... (and) ... intended to cause ... outrage".

The ‘usually sensible man’ :rolleyes: is certainly making no sense this time. Religion should on no account be allowed to determine our laws. The very notion that Irish citizens should be at the mercy of the idiotic whims of any religious fanatic, who decides to take offence at anyone who disagrees with their beliefs, is totally unacceptable. How does Dermot Ahern think he is going to prove whether a comment is 'intended to cause outrage'? Is he a mind reader? A referendum 'to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy' in the Constitution is the only sane option.

The list of people condemning this nonsense is growing by the day. Kevin Myers is keeping very quiet. He must be writing a masterpiece. I’m really looking forward to that one!

BroomBurner

According to the Guardian, there is a campaign starting by Atheists in Ireland to call for a referendum to remove God from the Constitution of Ireland. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/03/atheist-ireland-blasphemy-legislation

Whether or not you are an Atheist, if you believe that Ireland should be a secular society, then get involved.

I would love there to be a referendum to disassociate the running of the country from religion. Religion and fatih should be a private matter, not one to hold over people through out-dated and narrow-minded laws.

dingbat

BroomBurner wrote: »

According to the Guardian, there is a campaign starting by Atheists in Ireland to call for a referendum to remove God from the Constitution of Ireland. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/03/atheist-ireland-blasphemy-legislation

Whether or not you are an Atheist, if you believe that Ireland should be a secular society, then get involved.

I would love there to be a referendum to disassociate the running of the country from religion. Religion and fatih should be a private matter, not one to hold over people through out-dated and narrow-minded laws.

A campaign such as this would actually play into the hands of those that would insert legislation such as this misguided blasphemous libel rubbish. The debate right now is clear cut - most commentators agree that we don't want to be a fundamentalist country who bans silly things. However, the question which could come from campaigns such as that which you raised, is something akin to "do we want Ireland to be a godless society", which would fail.

lostexpectation

we have to deal with all these mentions of god in the constitution at some point why not now. we havn't dealth with it since 72/73, if we fail to remove them all we can come back to it in ten years.