Crime of blasphemous libel proposed for Defamation Bil

Capt'n Midnight

Is Scientology considered a religion here ?

They are not illegal here, does Article 44 give them rights to use invoke this law ?

Based on the number of followers they are extremely litigious and win loose or draw all court proceedings will cost the state money..

They can threaten to sue until it goes all the way to the High Court.



Also we already have laws covering Incitement to Hatred :rolleyes:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/act/pub/0019/index.html

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/act/pub/0019/sec0006.html#zza19y1989s6

6.—A person guilty of an offence under section 2, 3 or 4 shall be liable—

( a ) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both, or

( b ) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.

InFront

Lets be realistic here. This is not a catholic law for catholic ireland as someone quite negatively depicted it. The Irish constitution makes an offence of blasphemy and that is that.

I must admit I do find the the proposal for the addition of new blasphemy legistlation as opposed to holding a referendum to remove blasphemy from the constitution to be slightly regressive.
It is true that we already have incitement to hatred legislation which seems like an ideal protective instrument to the rights of individuals of all religious affiliations to the free pursuit of their faith without annoyance or abuse.

Don't get me wrong, I am opposed to blasphemy. However I am a firm believer in the state minding its own business and not interfering with religion where possible. As long as the protections for incitement to hatred are in place, these articles should and could be safely removed from the constitution in my opinion. Along with an overhaul of a host of other outdated material relating to religion, children and gender, by the way.

In a letter to the Irish times recently, someone writing from the Christian perspective outlined his opposition to the legislation on account of his prophet Jesus Christ having been tried and executed on a charge of blasphemy, which I thought was very interesting.

ART6

InFront wrote: »

Lets be realistic here. This is not a catholic law for catholic ireland as someone quite negatively depicted it. The Irish constitution makes an offence of blasphemy and that is that.

I must admit I do find the the proposal for the addition of new blasphemy legistlation as opposed to holding a referendum to remove blasphemy from the constitution to be slightly regressive.
It is true that we already have incitement to hatred legislation which seems like an ideal protective instrument to the rights of individuals of all religious affiliations to the free pursuit of their faith without annoyance or abuse.

Don't get me wrong, I am opposed to blasphemy. However I am a firm believer in the state minding its own business and not interfering with religion where possible. As long as the protections for incitement to hatred are in place, these articles should and could be safely removed from the constitution in my opinion. Along with an overhaul of a host of other outdated material relating to religion, children and gender, by the way.

In a letter to the Irish times recently, someone writing from the Christian perspective outlined his opposition to the legislation on account of his prophet Jesus Christ having been tried and executed on a charge of blasphemy, which I thought was very interesting.

Amen:D

lostexpectation

InFront wrote: »

Lets be realistic here. This is not a catholic law for catholic ireland as someone quite negatively depicted it. The Irish constitution makes an offence of blasphemy and that is that.

yes cos they were thinking of allah when they wrote it. :rolleyes:

imokyrok

As Dermot Ahern is a devout catholic who seems to have indulged in a complete solo run with the blashemy legislation I would argue that in his eyes at least it is a Catholic law for a Catholic nation. He fails to have recognised that Catholic Ireland has moved on from the days of the priest with the big stick (no pun intended) and few other Catholics today would see the need for this legislation.

In fact it is my understanding that all the main churches have stated they have not called for this update in the law. Michael Martin spoke out against such legislation only last december so it's not FF policy and all other parties are opposed to it. Dermo seems to be the one and only instigator.

InFront

lostexpectation wrote: »

yes cos they were thinking of allah when they wrote it. :rolleyes:

As Dermot Ahern is a devout catholic who seems to have indulged in a complete solo run with the blashemy legislation I would argue that in his eyes at least it is a Catholic law for a Catholic nation.

Both of you are completely missing the point. It isn't Catholic, it isn't anything but a legal anomaly that has to be fixed.

The constitution insists that blasphemy must be punishable. Dermot Ahern is changing the law to remove imprisonment from that punishment, he is lowering the punishment not adding to it. The only other option would be to hold a referendum to remover the related article from the constitution, and I'm sure another national opinion poll is not what the Government want so if there is any vested interest, that's about the height of it.
Enough with the conspiracy theories, surely most people can see that there is very little to this!

ART6

InFront wrote: »

Both of you are completely missing the point. It isn't Catholic, it isn't anything but a legal anomaly that has to be fixed.

The constitution insists that blasphemy must be punishable. Dermot Ahern is changing the law to remove imprisonment from that punishment, he is lowering the punishment not adding to it. The only other option would be to hold a referendum to remover the related article from the constitution, and I'm sure another national opinion poll is not what the Government want so if there is any vested interest, that's about the height of it.
Enough with the conspiracy theories, surely most people can see that there is very little to this!

Given that we have an economic, violent crime, and drugs crisis on our hands, there is not very little in this. Our dear minister might, perhaps, have more pressing issues to deal with than blasphemy particularly since it's been in the Constitution for 70 years without any significant court action (one?) and since any court in the land or in Europe would throw out any case brought under it.

imokyrok

InFront wrote: »

Both of you are completely missing the point. It isn't Catholic, it isn't anything but a legal anomaly that has to be fixed.

The constitution insists that blasphemy must be punishable. Dermot Ahern is changing the law to remove imprisonment from that punishment, he is lowering the punishment not adding to it. The only other option would be to hold a referendum to remover the related article from the constitution, and I'm sure another national opinion poll is not what the Government want so if there is any vested interest, that's about the height of it.
Enough with the conspiracy theories, surely most people can see that there is very little to this!

The proposed legislation is contrary to the position taken by Michael Martin and to the recommendations made by government bodies recommending a referendum to remove the blasphemy reference. At the very least Dermot Ahern could have let sleeping dogs lie as the Supreme Court has rendered it impossible to pursue a case on blasphemy.

I would also suggest that not many would consider a €100,000 fine much of an improvement over a prison sentence!

InFront

imokyrok wrote: »

The proposed legislation is contrary to the position taken by Michael Martin and to the recommendations made by government bodies recommending a referendum to remove the blasphemy reference.

I cannot speak for Micheal Martin nor am I a FF supporter. However, I would suggest that the Law Reform Commission's 1991 report may not have said the same thing about this somewhat diluted aspect of the defamation bill as they would have said of a full and restrictive blasphemy bill in its own right.

At the very least Dermot Ahern could have let sleeping dogs lie as the Supreme Court has rendered it impossible to pursue a case on blasphemy.

That is not a completely accurate summary. What the Supreme Court has said in Corway vs Independent Newspapers is that a conviction of blasphemy cannot be provided because there is no clear definition of the nature of blasphemy in place.

Therefore, the provision of punishment for blasphemy as enshrined in the 1937 constitution cannot be met. This is unconstitutional. It needs to be fixed either by implementing legislation or removing the relevant articles from the constitution by way of a referendum.

I have no problem with a referendum. I said in my previous post that I think additional legislation is a regressive step. However, I can see why the Government would not want to give the electorate another chance to berate them. Cest la vie. This has nothing to do with religious pressures and I wish people would stop misinterpreting it as such.

Our dear minister might, perhaps, have more pressing issues to deal with than blasphemy particularly since it's been in the Constitution for 70 years without any significant court action (one?) and since any court in the land or in Europe would throw out any case brought under it.

Yes there was a case in 1999 called Corway vs Independent Newspapers as mentioned above

imokyrok

Not sure if this has been posted yet so:

PUBLIC MEETING - BLASPHEMY IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME
VENUE: WYNN’S HOTEL, ABBEY STREET, DUBLIN
DATE: MONDAY 25th MAY TIME: 8-10pm

The Dublin meeting is the second 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 the play I Keano
Ian O’Doherty, columnist with Independent newspapers
Other speakers to be confirmed.
Local politicians will be invited.

http://blasphemy.ie/

InFront

Just an update on this story with some less relevant parts excluded
From The Irish Times Website May 19th

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern has said he is “bemused” by recent criticism of his proposal to include an offence of blasphemy in new defamation legislation due to be debated before an Oireachtas committee tomorrow.

Mr Ahern was responding after the media watchdog of the world’s largest regional security organisation said the Government’s plan to introduce the blasphemy law would be in violation of international agreements on media freedom.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) representative on freedom of the media, Miklos Haraszti, said new court cases that might emerge as a result of criminalising 'blasphemy' would have a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression.

Mr Ahern last month revealed he would propose an offence of blasphemous libel in an amendment to the Defamation Bill. The new section of the Bill will state: “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.”

He insists he is obliged to take account of the offence of blasphemy, which is provided for in the 1937 Constitution.

Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution states that the “publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law”....

A spokesman for Mr Ahern said he had two options, either to amend the Constitution, or amend the law....

“He has to do it because he is the Minister for Justice and he cannot willfully ignore the Constitution. Unlike the ‘commentariat’, the Minister does not have the option of wilfully ignoring the Constitution. He is the Minister for Justice and he is advised by the Attorney General that he has to have regard to the offence of blasphemy.”

The spokesman said the Minister felt that in the “current economic environment” it was not the time to go to the people seeking to amend an article of the Constitution.

The Minister will propose an amendment to the 2006 Defamation Bill at the Committee stage in the Oireachtas tomorrow.

Under the Minister’s amendment, the offence of blasphemy can only be prosecuted following a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The offence will also no longer be punishable by a jail term.

That amendment will state that it shall be a defence where a prosecution is taken under the section on blasphemy for the defendant to prove that a “reasonable person” would find “literary, artistic, political, scientific or academic value” in the material to which the alleged offence relates.

Mr Haraszti has written to Mr Ahern and to the Oireachtas committee debating the Bill, urging that it be passed without the blasphemy provision.

lostexpectation

im besmused that ahern thinks referendums aren't worth the money

lostexpectation

this is the wording to be dicuess tmw at a justice cmttee meeting

1. 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.
2. For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters 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 (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
3. 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.

although actually putting it through is a long way off

Quentinkrisp

lostexpectation wrote: »

im besmused that ahern thinks referendums aren't worth the money

I think we all know where the money's going and has gone to recently!:pac:

gizmo555

InFront wrote: »

Both of you are completely missing the point. It isn't Catholic, it isn't anything but a legal anomaly that has to be fixed.

The constitution insists that blasphemy must be punishable. Dermot Ahern is changing the law to remove imprisonment from that punishment, he is lowering the punishment not adding to it. The only other option would be to hold a referendum to remover the related article from the constitution, and I'm sure another national opinion poll is not what the Government want so if there is any vested interest, that's about the height of it.
Enough with the conspiracy theories, surely most people can see that there is very little to this!

The constitution also insists in the same article that sedition is an offence. Why isn't Dermot Ahern introducing a €100k fine for criticising the government? Makes as much sense.

InFront

Sedition is already dealt with in legislation and is punishable by law. Blasphemy currently is not, and this is unconstitutional. It's simple.

gizmo555

InFront wrote: »

Sedition is already dealt with in legislation and is punishable by law.

You may well be right - IANAL. But it's news to me. What legislation?

imokyrok

InFront wrote: »

Sedition is already dealt with in legislation and is punishable by law. Blasphemy currently is not, and this is unconstitutional. It's simple.

Would I be correct in thinking that the goverments failure to legislate for on th abortion issue for a considerable lenght of time is also unconstitutional? Doesn't seem to be causing them any lost sleep though.

InFront

Gizmo It comes under the Offences Against the State Act 1939 Section 12 Artcles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

This isn't about abortion and I'm not a spokesman for the Government. Guys there is a clear constitutional issue here. This isn't a big cover up, there's no religious mafia at work. I'm no FF supprter but Ahern is right - this is bemusing.

gizmo555

InFront wrote: »

Gizmo It comes under the Offences Against the State Act 1939 Section 12 Artcles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

This isn't about abortion and I'm not a spokesman for the Government. Guys there is a clear constitutional issue here. This isn't a big cover up, there's no religious mafia at work. I'm no FF supprter but Ahern is right - this is bemusing.

The section of the act you refer to only covers seditious documents - it would appear then sedition in Ireland is OK if you don't put it in writing. It also provides for penalties of a £50 fine or three months in prison. Even allowing for inflation, €100k is a hell of a lot more than £50 1939 pounds. If Ahern is only tidying up an anomaly, why does he feel the need to include such a heavy penalty in the process?

And imokyrok has a very good point - successive governments have been heavily criticised by the judiciary for their failure to legislate on abortion in line with the constitutional imperatives created by the right to life amendments. I'm not holding my breath waiting for Ahern to deal with that.

InFront

gizmo555 wrote: »

The section of the act you refer to only covers seditious documents - it would appear then sedition in Ireland is OK if you don't put it in writing.

Perhaps. It could be argued that the constitution does not explicitly demonstrate publication "or" utterance to be a co-ordinating or an exclusionary disjunction though.

It also provides for penalties of a £50 fine or three months in prison. Even allowing for inflation, €100k is a hell of a lot more than £50 1939 pounds. If Ahern is only tidying up an anomaly, why does he feel the need to include such a heavy penalty in the process?

Look, for the last time I am only arguing for the need to do something about the unconstitutional nature of the situation as it stands without legislation.

Again, I think legislation is an unfortunate step to take as opposed to complete removal of the relevant article as per a referendum. But to be honest, I don't care enough that it bothers me, because the incitement to hatred legislation already acts as a protective instrument for those who would come under this act anyway.
Perhaps the figure is intended to bear some reality in relation to what would actually be seen as a reasonable punishment for a very powerful or wealthy publishing company, for example. Anyway, remember that is the maximum penalty, not the only penalty.

And imokyrok has a very good point - successive governments have been heavily criticised by the judiciary for their failure to legislate on abortion in line with the constitutional imperatives created by the right to life amendments.

He is correct but this does not negate the need for legislation on other legislative anomalies!
Yes, sure, legislation is needed to regulate the principle of X (1992) and provide a process of establishing the worthiness of an abortion claim in certain limited circumstances. Furthermore, of course legislation is required on embryos in vitro and nothing is yet forthcoming on that.

There are a whole lot of issues that are waiting to be legislated on. Blasphemy defamation is just one of these and unlike abortion it is pretty straightforward and despite your distaste for it, it isn't likely to cost the Government any seats.

Capt'n Midnight

InFront wrote: »

Sedition is already dealt with in legislation and is punishable by law. Blasphemy currently is not, and this is unconstitutional. It's simple.

2. For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters 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 (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

Is blasphemy not effectively covered by this law already ??
Which carries a up to £10,000 / 2 years penalty

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/act/pub/0019/sec0002.html#zza19y1989s2

2.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person—
( a ) to publish or distribute written material,
( b ) to use words, behave or display written material—
(i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or
(ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,
or
( c ) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,
if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.

InFront

The relevent paragraph of article 40 states

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law

At the moment only the publication or utterance (at least where 'or' is said to relate to the exclusionary disjunction) of seditious matter and indecent matter is punishable in accordance with the law.

Blasphemy could be perceived as being indirectly punishable in that a gross insult comes under the Incitement to Hatred legislation, but it is not explicitly so described in that legislation as blasphemy. The fact that it is blasphemy doesn't come into it as long as people are sufficiently insulted. That is the problem.

The constitution expects an explicit crime of blasphemy. It also expects a direct punishment specifically for blasphemy. Where blasphemy is not in itself described as an offence it cannot either be punishable as a crime in its own right as set out in Article 40.

My point, Captain Midnight, is that the insult felt or the threat perceived are punishable and so in my opinion blasphemy can be safely removed from the constitution while those individuals concerned about blasphemy remainin satisfied that any effects of blasphemy they perceive would remain punishable.

On the other hand, as long as blasphemy remains in the constitution it must be explicitly described in legislation and as long as punishment is prescribed in the constitution, punishment must be described in legislation.

ShooterSF

Excuse my ignorance as I haven't read through the thread. If a law has to be brought in due to the article in the constitution why is it only blasphemous libel that is being covered when the constitution includes the "utterance" of blasphemy?

If they can dodge that part why can't they avoid the whole lot?

Also I hope Mr. Ahern has the spine to stand by convictions that our country is in no financial shape to hold a referendum at the minute if a certain European treaty gets mentioned in the coming months, I won't hold my breath though.

gizmo555

InFront wrote: »

Look, for the last time I am only arguing for the need to do something about the unconstitutional nature of the situation as it stands without legislation.

There may be a theoretical need, but as a matter of practicality, there is nothing compelling Ahern to deal with this anomaly now, in this way, with draconian financial penalties, and without any prior debate as to whether blasphemy laws even make sense any more.

Ahern's namesake Bertie claimed we would make an international laughing stock of ourselves if we stuck to pencil & paper voting instead of using electronic voting. That notion was questionable at best, but here is how the proposed legislation on blasphemy is viewed abroad:

http://www.osce.org/item/37737.html

VIENNA, 19 May 2009 - The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Miklos Haraszti, welcomed today the Irish Parliament's final preparations to decriminalize defamation, but warned that the proposal to introduce a new article on 'blasphemous libel' risked jeopardizing OSCE media freedom commitments.

"Ireland is in the vanguard of 21st century media freedoms as it prepares to officially make defamation a mere civil offence. It would therefore be unfortunate to introduce at the same time a new crime of 'blasphemous libel'," Haraszti said.

The proposed new section of the Defamation Bill, which was introduced at a late stage of the legislative process, would punish intentionally blasphemous publications or utterances with a fine of up to 100,000 euros. It would replace an older blasphemy law.

In a letter sent to the Justice Minister as well as to the Speaker of the Dáil and the Chairman of the Seanad, the two houses of Parliament, Haraszti asked the relevant Select Committee - which is scheduled to open the final stages of discussion on the Defamation Bill tomorrow - to pass the Bill without the blasphemy provision.

"I am aware that the new article is meant to bring the law into line with a constitutional provision dating from 1937," said Haraszti. "Nonetheless, it violates OSCE media freedom commitments and other international standards upholding the right to freely discuss issues of religion."

He added: "It is clear that the government's gesture of passing a new version of the 'blasphemy article', even if milder than the dormant old version, might incite new court cases and thereby exercise a chilling effect on freedom of expression."

"By passing a renewed blasphemy provision, Ireland would defy the international trend that has led to the abolition of that crime in a number of countries. It also could hamper progress towards greater freedom of speech in other OSCE participating States."

"I therefore ask the Irish Government to pass the very welcome bill on de-criminalizing defamation, but without the provision on blasphemous libel. Any legal difficulties related to the blasphemy issue can be dealt with as and when they arise," he said.

imokyrok

InFront wrote: »

There are a whole lot of issues that are waiting to be legislated on. Blasphemy defamation is just one of these and unlike abortion it is pretty straightforward and despite your distaste for it, it isn't likely to cost the Government any seats.

Unlikely to cost the government seats?! It could very possibly bring down the government. I've been assured that the Green Party will not support this legislation.

I would advise all those who care about free speech to continue to contact Green Party and Independent TD's on the issue.

The justice committee is meeting this afternoon on the bill.

Article about OSCE in the Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0520/1224246953537.html

InFront

gizmo555 wrote: »

There may be a theoretical need, but as a matter of practicality, there is nothing compelling Ahern to deal with this anomaly now, in this way, with draconian financial penalties, and without any prior debate as to whether blasphemy laws even make sense any more.

Firstly, there is a significant debate going on, far beyond the reaches of this thread and in the Leinster House today if I'm not mistaken.

There are a number of constitutional issues that are waiting to be legislated on and have been for some time. Many of them, such as legislating on the Supreme Court Principle reached after X (1992) are controversial and could actually bring down a Government in the current climate. This legislation won't even cost FF one local seat as far as I can see.

but here is how the proposed legislation on blasphemy is viewed abroad:

I'm not sure enough attention is paid to the constitutional necessity in that article. What's more, I already posted a simpliar article basically saying the same thing and quoting the same man.

Unlikely to cost the government seats?! It could very possibly bring down the government. I've been assured that the Green Party will not support this legislation.

Look, the Greens are not that high-principled. It won't bring down the Government, the economy will. I agree a referendum is the best course of action but it just isn't going to happen.

gizmo555

InFront wrote: »

Firstly, there is a significant debate going on, far beyond the reaches of this thread and in the Leinster House today if I'm not mistaken.

There was no debate before this amendment to the bill was brought in. It was a solo run by Ahern and came as a complete surprise even to the main churches who never asked for it.

InFront wrote: »

This legislation won't even cost FF one local seat as far as I can see.

I wouldn't be so sure.

InFront

gizmo555 wrote: »

There was no debate before this amendment to the bill was brought in.

The amendment to this bill has not been brought in. It is only at committee stage and is being discussed as such today by the Oireachtas Committee on Justice in Leinster House. You are perfectly entitled to have your say or talk to whatever representative or TD you want to about it.

gizmo555

InFront wrote: »

The amendment to this bill has not been brought in.

Oh ffs, now you are are splitting hairs. If by "brought in" you mean enacted by the Oireachtas, that is not what I meant. By definition, a bill has not been enacted.

InFront wrote: »

You are perfectly entitled to have your say or talk to whatever representative or TD you want to about it.

I have.