Death Of Free Speech as Ireland Makes Blasphemy Illegal

TheInquisitor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It didn't seem meaningless when you first said it.



That's not what the bill provides for. You will be safe declaring yourself an atheist, or advocating atheism, or saying that you think religion is an expression of primitive superstition, or saying or doing many other things that intolerant believers might take offence at.

Susperstitition or what if i say that i think god is a figment of peoples imagination?

drkpower

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Susperstitition or what if i say that i think god is a figment of peoples imagination?

Why is it that people who are vehemently opposed to this legisaltion to the point of wanting to breach it and incur a €25K fine, have not even read the bloody thing?

The relevant section is only a few paaragraphs and if you google Defamation Bill it links straight to it..... so its not difficult..??

P. Breathnach

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Susperstitition or what if i say that i think god is a figment of peoples imagination?

Well, I think so too, and I don't worry one bit about saying it after the bill has been signed into law.

I would not spit on a crucifix solely to show contempt for Christian belief (mind you, I can't think of a circumstance in which I might do it for any reason other than an improbable accident). That, in my book, is simply a matter of good manners. After the bill becomes law, I might have another reason not to.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Daftendirekt

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While I think it's despicable that this is even being discussed in the Dáil, and a referendum should certainly be held if that's what it takes to get this out of our constitution and out of law, it seems as if the wording of the law makes it practically unenforceable.

I mean:

(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.

Define 'outrage'? Define 'substantial number of people'?

And throwing the word 'artistic' in there makes it even vaguer. I mean, if I wanted to get a megaphone and parade up and down O'Connell St. shouting 'Fuck the Holy Spirit' I'm sure I'd be able to prove that I had some artistic intent.

What really bugs me about it is this:

(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. [Amended to €25,000]

€25,000?! What the hell? If this is only being proposed because of a constitutional requirement, then why not some meagre penalty, €50 or something like that?

cm2000

Apart from being pretty appalled at the content of this new law I'm struggling to comprehend why it came about. Was there an epidemic of blasphemy that I was unaware of?

sovtek

jabbertalky wrote: »

You don't think the right wingers are connected all over the world? Every time we have a referendum on abortion, where do you think all the money comes from supporting the no side. George Bush and his friends have a lot to answer for.

You're right. They are like McDonald franchises all over the world.

Chris Lowe

Daftendirekt wrote: »

€25,000?! What the hell? If this is only being proposed because of a constitutional requirement, then why not some meagre penalty, €50 or something like that?

Most likely it is to keep it in the High Court (Central Criminal Court) and out of the Circuit Courts.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hobochris

Id love to know who or what is the driving force behind this piece of crap being put into law. And how its is relevant to the current issues the Dail should be dealing with... golden handshake from the Church?

ChocolateSauce

No one, including Dermot Ahern (who according to Senator Ivana Bakic was making blasphemous jokes during the debate), actually thinks there will be a successful case. But it is the principle of the thing, and also the expensive fact that anyone with a chip on their shoulder can demand a prosecution.

Tim Robbins

Someone should try to apply the legislation to Fr. Ted and then this would show how daft it all is.

solice

cm2000 wrote: »

Apart from being pretty appalled at the content of this new law I'm struggling to comprehend why it came about. Was there an epidemic of blasphemy that I was unaware of?

hobochris wrote: »

Id love to know who or what is the driving force behind this piece of crap being put into law. And how its is relevant to the current issues the Dail should be dealing with... golden handshake from the Church?

There is a whisper out there that it was brought up because they wanted to slow down the defamation bill until after the Monica Leach ruiling a few weeks back. The new defamation bill moves responibility of awarding compensation from the jury to the judge and there is no way a judge would have given somebody €1.8 million! She would have to be really innocent to be given that much money...and if she was innocent then Martin cullen would be too....Maybe this post belongs in the Conspiracy Theory section?

Is the Blasphemy addition not a good thing? I believe in the seperation of church and state, now any debate about religion interfering in state matters could be deemed offensive, its a legal minefield! Maybe people wont bother bringing up religion into any debate! Maybe priests wont be allowed preach from the pulpit in the run up to an election?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

solice

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I find it offensive! I look at Brian Cowen, I see a god!

Chris Lowe

The new law will be discussed on the Last Word in a few minutes.

For anyone who didn't catch it here's some quick notes I took
They started with a clip the Jehovah scene from Life of Brian.

Michael Nugent from Atheist Ireland: Medieval legislation in a 21st century republic dangerous as based on outrage.

Senator Ronan Mullan filling gap in constitution based on AGs advice, the law itself is based on offending substantial numbers of members, high bar need to show intent.

Matt Cooper does tree stump count.

Senator Abusive or offensive, changes from offensive to God to offensive to adherents. New defense artistic, cultural, academic etc. exceptions, interesting irony may need to Ian Paisley or radical Imam.

MN reduced fine and defenses added to the original proposal. If enough people are outraged by someones declared athiesm then its prosecutable, difficulty is encouraging and incentivising outrage. Atheists discriminated against - no chance of fair trial, education system mainly run by one religion, presidential and judges oaths discriminatory.

RM No danger, hard to prosecute, stops people from setting out to cause insult, could set up discourse between believers and non believers.

texter how many is sufficient number

RM arrest warrent legislation if two countries recognize blasphemy, dangerous, requirement for review after 5 years

Ends with a clip from Father Ted - Holy Stone scene

After discussion Father Ted would get out of it based on cultural exemption

BlaasForRafa

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Aye, I can't wait to hear them playing Deicide albums in the high court to decide their artistic merit

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

j1smithy

This blasphemy part of the defamation bill is really just a constitutional oddity which was required and is so open ended it is unlikely anyone will ever be prosecuted under it. I mean the onus is on the prosecution that any statements under this law have to be intentionally offensive. It could be argued that the expression of a truely held belief cannot be intentionally offensive.

The more important parts of the bill, which are a multitude times more likely to end in court such as the areas which deal with libel are far more worthy of discussion.

Maybe the inclusion of blasphemy was a clever tactic to divert real debate?

Darragh29

Can someone tell me why this legislation is being introduced now??? It's not like we haven't hugely more important justice issues to worry about for example gangland crime, etc.

Like has someone lobbied for this or what's the story, I'm serious here, why on earth is this being introduced now??? What is motivating the introduction of this legislation I suppose is what I'm trying to ask...

GlobalStranger

http://www.carobit.com/Forum/ShowThread/YouTube%20Discussions/20090704130605Pino%20Carafa.html

lostexpectation

j1smithy wrote: »

The more important parts of the bill, which are a multitude times more likely to end in court such as the areas which deal with libel are far more worthy of discussion.

Maybe the inclusion of blasphemy was a clever tactic to divert real debate?

start a new thread and give us a summary then, off you go.

oncevotedff

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Declaring that a tree stump resembles the Mother of God?

or

solice wrote: »

...I look at Brian Cowen, I see a god!

solice

oncevotedff wrote: »

Declaring that a tree stump resembles the Mother of God?

or

I would just like to point out, I do not think Brian Cowen is a god, merely omnipotent in his ability to survive

DTrotter

If this (and don't even start on the tree stump) happened in America we would all be laughing at them.

oncevotedff

solice wrote: »

I would just like to point out, I do not think Brian Cowen is a god, merely omnipotent in his ability to survive

Nevertheless, and I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here(apologies to all Devil worshippers), you have blasphemed in implying there is more than one God (the Judaic religions) and in implying that God has a corporeal form (Muslims believe this is impossible).

oncevotedff

DTrotter wrote: »

If this (and don't even start on the tree stump) ...

I suppose we should be grateful the stump did not take the shape of Mohammed.

DTrotter

oncevotedff wrote: »

I suppose we should be grateful the stump did not take the shape of Mohammed.

Or a teddy bear

irish_bob

DTrotter wrote: »

Or a teddy bear

off with your head