Crime of blasphemous libel proposed for Defamation Bil

BroomBurner

dingbat wrote: »

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.

There is a difference between being a "godless society" and being a secular society. A single group of people's faith should not have a legal bearing over those that don't agree with that faith. That doesn't mean that the former are being asked to give up their faith. Look at Portugal and France, they seem to get on perfectly fine without one religion woven in to the legislature.

thebman

BroomBurner wrote: »

There is a difference between being a "godless society" and being a secular society. A single group of people's faith should not have a legal bearing over those that don't agree with that faith. That doesn't mean that the former are being asked to give up their faith. Look at Portugal and France, they seem to get on perfectly fine without one religion woven in to the legislature.

The problem is the older generations won't allow it and will actually vote but young people won't. The people that think all young people are up to no good except their grand kids will turn up to make sure the church stays in the constitution. :P

You'd need to know what the churches position would be in advance on it too though. If they told their minions it is fine then they'd allow it.

dingbat

BroomBurner wrote: »

There is a difference between being a "godless society" and being a secular society. A single group of people's faith should not have a legal bearing over those that don't agree with that faith. That doesn't mean that the former are being asked to give up their faith. Look at Portugal and France, they seem to get on perfectly fine without one religion woven in to the legislature.

I'm not telling you what the argument should be, I'm telling you what the argument would be. You have to recognise the practical realities of the situation, like it or not.

MavisDavis

God already has too much bearing over our state. You have to take a religious oath to be a judge for heaven's sake.

FF are friggen crazy to even suggest this. What are they playing at?!

thebman

MavisDavis wrote: »

God already has too much bearing over our state. You have to take a religious oath to be a judge for heaven's sake.

FF are friggen crazy to even suggest this. What are they playing at?!

If you look at the golden handshake for junior ministers, I'd suggest this stupidity was an attempt to draw media attention away from that.

I don't think it will work though. FF are perfectly willing to come across as jackasses to avoid attention on issues they know will enrage the public.

Next time someone says the other parties have no policies or they make idiotic suggestions, I suggest this stupidity be highlighted.

MavisDavis

thebman wrote: »

If you look at the golden handshake for junior ministers, I'd suggest this stupidity was an attempt to draw media attention away from that.

I don't think it will work though. FF are perfectly willing to come across as jackasses to avoid attention on issues they know will enrage the public.

Next time someone says the other parties have no policies or they make idiotic suggestions, I suggest this stupidity be highlighted.

FF are enraging me though. This is a ludicrous thing to even suggest!

ART6

The clause has been in the Constitution since the formation of the state, so why is it now imperative to deal with it? Nothing better to do Dermot?

dingbat

ART6 wrote: »

The clause has been in the Constitution since the formation of the state, so why is it now imperative to deal with it? Nothing better to do Dermot?

Exactly. All the major religions have stated that they did not lobby for this. So we are left with two possibilities... either D. Ahern is a closet fundamentalist who knows his time left in a position of power may be short-lived, or this is a smokescreen. I'll take the latter.

anonymous_joe

Hmmm, one of my friends has recently discovered fundamentalist atheism and is boring the tits off me regularly about organised religion.

Will I be able to have him charged with blasphemy?

(Only semi taking the píss, I'm genuinely curious about this.)

edanto

I guess that would depend whether the courts take the view that atheism is a religion or not, and if he's publishing what he says to you.

ART6

edanto wrote: »

I guess that would depend whether the courts take the view that atheism is a religion or not, and if he's publishing what he says to you.

The law doesn't say that the person committing blasphemous libel has to himself be religious or part of any recognised religion, only that he has to have offended a number of those who are members of such a religion. Therefore, since an atheist is someone without religion, he could be guilty of blasphemous libel but anyone issuing deliberate and offensive statements about atheists cannot. So there:D

The Raven.

As I have already said, the list of people condemning this nonsense is growing. Firstly, here is a rather mild but cynical article from Fintan O’Toole:

Absurdity of blasphemy law revived by Ahern

WE ARE awful eejits really. How could anyone possibly believe that the Department of Justice is seriously planning to revive the crime of blasphemy for the 21st century? …

With one satiric touch he has honoured the memory of Shaw, Yeats and Gregory and reminded us that blasphemy laws exist to protect, not religions, but bigots.

For his next trick, he will mark the Darwin bicentenary by threatening to make creationism compulsory.

Fintan O’Toole

It is true what he says about 'bigots'. They will be the only ones to avail of this 'protection'.

And finally the acute reminder of the more sinister aspects of the bill from Kevin Myers:

Blasphemy law only panders to the deranged instincts of an intolerant immigrant minority

How very thoughtful of Dermot Ahern to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the proclamation of the fatwa on Salman Rushdie for blasphemy by introducing our very own blasphemy laws. …

Dermot Ahern's justification for his dangerously silly proposals is that successive attorneys general have told their ministers for justice that the Constitution obliges the State to have blasphemy laws. Good. So if so many ministers for justice have been able to ignore that advice in the past, why should he now seek to heed it? And worse still, why should he do so by allowing the interpretation of blasphemy -- which is otherwise a piece of string of unknown length -- to be defined by the mob? This merely reduces the courts to being instruments of Barabbas-type justice.

Yet in one sense, the minister's proposals are irrelevant. For Europe already has an informal blasphemy law, which is enforced by Islamic cut-throats, with or without a fatwa.

We all know it. We just don't say it. So I can call the Virgin Mary, who most Irish people believe to be the Mother of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of Mankind, a whore, and no-one will open my carotid. But were I to make any such remark about Mohammed's wives, which is what Rushdie was accused of doing -- and I wouldn't: O believe me, I wouldn't -- then at best, I would be spending the rest of my life under armed guard, or at worst, I would be strumming my harp alongside Theo van Gogh. He was, remember, killed without fatwa, and his murderer, Mohammed Bouyeri, is now an Islamic hero.

That doesn't mean we should corrupt our legal code in order to propitiate Islamicists. Yet all media discussion on this and related topics is dominated by state-subsidised bodies -- the intercultural this, and the multi-ethnic that. The primary function of these quangos is apparently to be gravely insulted whenever their quivering multicultural sensibilities are offended.

And then they can institute legal action to silence -- or even imprison, which was the threat hanging over me last year -- those whose voices they disapprove of. These arms of the State now constitute a cultural Fifth Column, possessing a clear and dangerous agenda. The minister's proposed blasphemy law can thus only pander to the deranged instincts of an absolutist, intolerant immigrant minority, and its politically-correct, pseudo-liberal native allies: Lenin's useful idiots, yet again.

Kevin Myers

I think he has a few valid points here. Who exactly will have the power to determine what constitutes such a vague and primitive concept as ‘blasphemy’? Dermot Ahern is digging us into a dark and dangerous abyss. His shovel should be forcefully removed from him before it is too late to turn back!

wes

Myers seems unable to discuss anything without moaning about immigrants, it truly a talent of his to make almost every problem in this country about immigrants. It would be funny, if it wasn't so sad. So typical nonsense from a one note writer. He really needs to learn to sing a different tune.

lostexpectation

i woner could myers tell us how many muslims were around in Irelnad in 1937 when there were writing the constitution?

thebman

wes wrote: »

Myers seems unable to discuss anything without moaning about immigrants, it truly a talent of his to make almost every problem in this country about immigrants. It would be funny, if it wasn't so sad. So typical nonsense from a one note writer. He really needs to learn to sing a different tune.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brj2UkUPjCI

The Raven.

lostexpectation wrote: »

i woner could myers tell us how many muslims were around in Irelnad in 1937 when there were writing the constitution?

What has that got to do with it? The proposed new blasphemous libel law is present tense. It is now 2009 and there is supposed to be a separation between church and state. The term 'blasphemy' relates to religious beliefs, which should not be part of current legislation.

Kevin Myers writes about lots of things. Why shouldn't he express his views on the immigrant situation in Ireland? How much freedom of speech will be curtailed if this legislation gets passed? It is unwise to turn a blind eye to the deaths and death threats that have occurred in various parts of the world as a result of religious bigotry. It is foolish to stick one's head in the sand and pretend that it isn't happening.

Nodin

The Raven. wrote: »

And finally the acute reminder of the more sinister aspects of the bill from Kevin Myers:

What country is Myers on about there? Because it bears little or no relation to the Irish republic I'm living in. If you want to rant about bigots in public life in this country, they're either Catholic or Protestant, for the most part.

The Raven. wrote: »

Why shouldn't he express his views on the immigrant situation in Ireland?

Because they aren't based on reality for starters.

wes

The Raven. wrote: »

What has that got to do with it? The proposed new blasphemous libel law is present tense. It is now 2009 and there is supposed to be a separation between church and state. The term 'blasphemy' relates to religious beliefs, which should not be part of current legislation.

If Myers could some how show the legislation is the fault of immigrants, then maybe he would have a point, but he can't, he just blame immigrants, as they are an easy target for his ilk.

Its ridiculous to try and blame this on immigrants.

The Raven. wrote: »

Kevin Myers writes about lots of things. Why shouldn't he express his views on the immigrant situation in Ireland? How much freedom of speech will be curtailed if this legislation gets passed? It is unwise to turn a blind eye to the deaths and death threats that have occurred in various parts of the world as a result of religious bigotry. It is foolish to stick one's head in the sand and pretend that it isn't happening.

What does the legislation in question have to do with immigrants? It has nothing to do with them. Myers article is complete and utter nonsense, as it is not the fault of immigrants and he pretty much tries to blame everything on them. Trying to shoe horn the immigration debate into every bloody things, hurts the debate more than anything. The likes of Myers have done more to poison the immigration debate (of course this legislation has nothing to do with that debate, but he still moans on about it) than anyone else, with his nonsense.

As for what happening in the rest of the world. Well, he was completely unable to link it with the legislation. He just starting moaning about the Muslims and the immigrants and tried his damnedest to some how blame the legislation on them, but his article is his typical nonsense and he can't provide any proof to back up his quite frankly absurd claims.

Now, the legislation is a hugely bad idea. Its simply won't work and will probably be a unenforceable mess and if it was enforceable, it would severely curtail free speech. Now, by trying to blame everyone, but you know the actually government who are putting this legislation in place, he tries to make it about his own little pet obsession, which he tries to show horn into everything and anything, and distracts from the real issues and poisons the debate, by making it about immigration, when it has nothing to do with it. The simple fact of the matter, is that everything is not about immigration and the likes of Myers drag down any debate in this country by moaning about there own sad obsessions.

The Raven.

wes wrote: »

Myers seems unable to discuss anything without moaning about immigrants, it truly a talent of his to make almost every problem in this country about immigrants. It would be funny, if it wasn't so sad. So typical nonsense from a one note writer. He really needs to learn to sing a different tune.

It is somewhat immature to use the term ‘moaning’ to describe someone else’s views when one doesn’t happen to agree with them. Kevin Myers is a long time supporter of freedom of speech, and refuses to pander to political correctness. To say that he is a ‘one note writer’ is not only fatuous, but also fallacious.

Nodin wrote: »

What country is Myers on about there? Because it bears little or no relation to the Irish republic I'm living in.

The answer to that is in the article:

Religious "outrage" is an almost unknown phenomenon in our culture: but it is so common on the Islamic street that one often wonders: do Muslims know any other public mood? And whereas I can ask this question today, might it not be blasphemous under Dermot Ahern's new law? For some Muslims might hold that it is grossly abusive or insulting to things they hold sacred, to dispute their right to endless public anger. Kevin Myers

Nodin wrote: »

If you want to rant about bigots in public life in this country, they're either Catholic or Protestant, for the most part.

That may have been true in the past, but there are growing numbers of other religious groups here now. Every religion has its bigots.

The Raven.

wes wrote: »

If Myers could some how show the legislation is the fault of immigrants, then maybe he would have a point, but he can't, he just blame immigrants, as they are an easy target for his ilk.

Its ridiculous to try and blame this on immigrants.

He didn’t.

What does the legislation in question have to do with immigrants? It has nothing to do with them.

The legislation has to do with everybody living in Ireland, immigrants included.

As for what happening in the rest of the world. Well, he was completely unable to link it with the legislation. He just starting moaning about the Muslims and the immigrants and tried his damnedest to some how blame the legislation on them, but his article is his typical nonsense and he can't provide any proof to back up his quite frankly absurd claims.

He is not ‘blaming the legislation on them’. He is stating that the legislation will enable any religious group to claim that their religion has been insulted. As you stated yourself, ‘it would severely curtail free speech.’ The cases cited by Myers outside Ireland are of grave concern to anybody living in Western democracies.

wes

The Raven. wrote: »

It is somewhat immature to use the term ‘moaning’ to describe someone else’s views when one doesn’t happen to agree with them. Kevin Myers is a long time supporter of freedom of speech, and refuses to pander to political correctness. To say that he is a ‘one note writer’ is not only fatuous, but also fallacious.

Nah, he is pretty one note and yeah he does moan, hardly immature to call a spade a spade. I am just accurately describing the man's rant.

Also, I could care less about being PC. What I do care about are facts and Mr. Myers doesn't have any at all. Just another rant and he has no facts to back up a single thing he says. He can be as damn un-pc as he wants, but I see no reason not point his lack of actual facts. Maybe, when Myers provides some I will take him serious until then I stand by what I said.

What I find immature, is a man who tries to blame something on a group of people and yet he presents no facts to back up anything he says. Also, he seems to have a habit of going after the same group again and again and very often without any facts and or just plain nonsense.

wes

The Raven. wrote: »

He didn’t.

Then why bring them up at all? He most certainly was blaming immigrants, albeit in a round about way. Basically, he seems to think the law is being used to "pander" to them. Strangely, he present no evidence to back up this claim, oh wait thats not strange at all, thats just typical Myers.

The Raven. wrote: »

The legislation has to do with everybody living in Ireland, immigrants included.

Sure, in that it will effect everyone, but beyond that it has nothing to do with immigrants and I find it odd, he even mentions them.

The Raven. wrote: »

He is not ‘blaming the legislation on them’. He is stating that the legislation will enable any religious group to claim that their religion has been insulted. As you stated yourself, ‘it would severely curtail free speech.’ The cases cited by Myers outside Ireland are of grave concern to anybody living in Western democracies.

Firstly, he is suggesting that the law is being put in place to "pander' to immigrants. He provides no such proof that the intention of the law is to pander to Myers pet obsession immigrants.

Again, what happens outside Ireland, has nothing to do with the law. There is no linkage between our law and what going on outside the country. He can't link the 2 at all. Honestly, the law seems to a way for Fianna Fail to distracts from there many failures and has little to do with anything else or maybe they have just lost it altogether. I would personally like to know there motivation on the law, but I guess we will have to wait on that one.

Nodin

The Raven. wrote: »

The answer to that is in the article:.

Yes it is indeed -

Myers wrote:

. The minister's proposed blasphemy law can thus only pander to the deranged instincts of an absolutist, intolerant immigrant minority, and its politically-correct, pseudo-liberal native allies: Lenin's useful idiots, yet again.

So we don't have a problem one minute, then its "deranged instincts of an absolutist, intolerant immigrant minority" the next. Talking out of both sides of his mouth when it suits him, it would seem.

The Raven. wrote: »

He didn’t.:.

He speculates that "they" will use it to cause trouble.

The Raven. wrote: »

He is stating that the legislation will enable any religious group.:.

"deranged instincts of an absolutist, intolerant immigrant minority". Tut tut.

The Raven. wrote: »

That may have been true in the past, but there are growing numbers of other religious groups here now. Every religion has its bigots.

Of course they do. As does every group. And when they become a problem, I'll worry about it. However, if you want to worry about a minority at the moment, I'd suggest they'd be more likely found in a boardroom than a mosque.

Free Speech IE

Long-time lurker, first-time poster...

I was absolutely gobsmacked when Ahern came out with his proposal re the blasphemous libel legislation. I am currently involved in trying to bring together like-minded people to fight the proposal. A group of us are hosting a public meeting in Waterford this Thursday, 21st May. Further meetings across the country are to follow. If anybody from the legal profession is interested in speaking at the Waterford event, please get in touch. The details are as follows:

BLASPHEMY IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME

PUBLIC MEETING

VENUE: THE TOWER HOTEL, WATERFORD CITY
DATE: THURSDAY 21st MAY
TIME: 8 -10pm


A public meeting will be held in The Tower Hotel, Waterford City, to oppose the Government’s proposed revival of the blasphemy laws.

The meeting was planned on a new Irish website - http://blasphemy.ie - which also includes examples of material that could become illegal if the new law is passed.

The Waterford meeting is the first of several to be held around the country, organised by Atheist Ireland, an advocacy group for an ethical and secular Ireland.

Speakers will include:

Michael Nugent, chair of Atheist Ireland and co-author of I Keano

Barry Grant, Waterford resident and writer/videomaker.

Other speakers to be confirmed.


Local politicians will be invited, including Deputy Brendan Kenneally, Chairman of the Select Joint Committee for Justice, as will Deputy Brian O'Shea, also a member of said committee.

“Most Irish people, regardless of their religious beliefs, do not want this law to be passed” said Barry Grant. “This meeting will give Waterford people an opportunity to voice their opinions.”

Further information:

blasphemyireland@gmail.com

Campaign website: http://blasphemy.ie

lostexpectation

The Raven. wrote: »

What has that got to do with it? The proposed new blasphemous libel law is present tense. It is now 2009 and there is supposed to be a separation between church and state. The term 'blasphemy' relates to religious beliefs, which should not be part of current legislation.

.

its not a new quite a new law in regard to the constitution, he's changing the law, reducing the punishment to make it implementable.

this was and is a catholic law for a catholic ireland

Quentinkrisp

the fact that something like this is being seriously considered by our politicians makes me feel sick.full stop.
this law will be wide open to abuse from the most bigoted and intolerant sections of organised religion, especially with an extremely vague definition of what actually constitutes blasphemy *shudder* RIP Democracy.

The Raven.

lostexpectation wrote: »

its not a new quite a new law in regard to the constitution, he's changing the law, reducing the punishment to make it implementable.

Yes, I know what is in the Constitution as regards ‘blasphemy’. It cannot be implemented in law without defining the term. It has been there for over seventy years, without causing a problem, except for one failed court case. Why Dermot Ahern has chosen to open Pandora’s lethal box at this point in time is beyond belief! It is debatable whether a €100,000 fine is ‘reducing the punishment’. Not everyone can afford such a fine, and some could possibly face prison for non-payment. Correct me if I am wrong. Anyway, it seems that Mr. Ahern may be doing a U-turn on that.

It is not the so-called ‘reduction’ of punishment that is intended to make the law possible to implement. It is the definition of the term ‘blasphemy’, which is non-existent at present.

this was and is a catholic law for a catholic ireland

It may have been a Catholic law in 1937, long before the separation of church and state. To say that it ‘is a Catholic law for a Catholic Ireland’ is no longer plausible. There cannot be one set of laws for Catholics and another for the different religious groups that exist in the country today.

Free Speech IE

lostexpectation wrote: »

its not a new quite a new law in regard to the constitution, he's changing the law, reducing the punishment to make it implementable.

this was and is a catholic law for a catholic ireland

The problem with that reasoning is that this legislation will benefit smaller religious groups more than it will members of the Roman Catholic faith. As a 'significant number' of believers must be insulted or grossly outraged, it would be easier for 10% of the Sikh population (80-100 people) to complain than it would for 10% of the Catholic population (over 300,000). And nobody but Ahern, the DPP and possibly God knows what a 'significant number' will be. He has the option to have a referendum on the constitution, which is merely carrying over an old British law meant to protect the Church of Ireland - not the Roman Catholic Church. This could easily be done at the same time as the Lisbon Referendum. As one letter writer to the Irish Times said 'we must be a very poor country if we can't afford free speech'.

lostexpectation

ahern is removing the possiblity of jail term, that is a reduction in punishment, thats what i meant, its not enough i want a ref to get rid of it, but still its a reduction in punishment, although ahern still ain't defining blasphmey he seems to be defining outrage.

again what is dermot aherns motivation does he care or is he scared of muslims i don't think so, its often commented that the conservatism of the al -aqaeda mirrored the bush neoconservatism, I think the general conservatism of muslims is matched by old catholic conservatism that any of our politicians still hold to unto

smaller groups, like christian evangelicals that many of old conservative catholics are moving too now they think the church has gone too liberal.

lostexpectation

anyway these privacy and defamation bills have been up in the air for years http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?docID=2582

100 Defamation Bill 2006 [Seanad] Awaiting Committee
its not going to get sorted before the autumn or next year?


theres as much to worry about in the privacy bill , if people are worried about free speech, i was looking for some recent analysis of where thats headed now