Blasphemy Law comes into effect Jan 1st 2010

eldin

lostexpectation wrote: »

this nonsense about Atheist Ireland , or atheists in Ireland being cowardly by not attacking Muslims is ridiclous and the type of thing i was warning about, talking about a country with ~95% of primary schools being owned by the church, could indeed be described as staunchly Catholic.

At least half of the people in Ireland who consider themselves atheists would probably be formerly 'Catholics', I think its fairer to go challenge your former religion and the reason this law exist ie the Irish Catholic church and the close ties they have with our legislator who implemented this law.

welcome to Judeo-Christian land people.

I honestly do not know how to reply to this. I think you're selectively reading whats in front of you.

Overheal

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The problem is while this section of the legislation protects that vast majority of expressive blasphemies its not going to stop it from tying up the court system. And if you've ever attended traffic court for instance, you know it takes up about tenfold as much time to deliberate a Not Guilty plea.

eldin wrote: »

It'd be nice to stick posters of the mohammed bomber cartoons up around his area tbh

Considering the cartoon could be argued to have Political Value, these cartoons would also be defensible.

Given how offensive the cartoons were to Muslims and how legal they read to be under the 2009 Act, its a wonder they bother mentioning Blasphemy at all, if its so God-Damned impossible to convict.

RareVintage

Having read this very informative thread (hat-tip: Sceptre) I'm left in ambivalent confusion.

I can just about understand a catholic-soaked politician thinking "jaysus, better cobble some blasphemy idea together for this act, the constitution needs it" in the context of also thinking "we couldn't be wasting the usual millions on a referendum for this nonsense, for god's sake they even had to do the Lisbon one twice to get it right!" and "I'll just write something in there that you could twist anyway you wanted. And a nice big fine, the Bishop will appreciate that. Especially after all their recent troubles..."

I also think that by the time the media have shouted "Ireland has a blasphemy law!" loudly and widely enough it's all going to benefit the secular cause anyway. Even Italy managed to pass a law requiring schools to remove crucifixes from classroom walls (hooray!)!
Now more attention may be directed, across Europe not just in Ireland where the media try their best to ignore it, at the issue that 90+% of Irish schools are controlled by the Catholic church and that they religiously (!) enforce continual, relentless, oppressive indoctrination of the poor children's plastic and impressionable minds.

So the politician's cowardice (or apathy) in deference to his bishops, by not pursuing a change to the constitution instead of this blasphemy nonsense is really a blessing (!) in disguise for secularists and atheists.
Especially when, and I agree with Sceptre on this, the only religious group that even remotely might seek a prosecution under this law would be Muslims. Even then it would require some highly strung Imam to whip up the hysteria. The vast majority of European Muslims are just as easy going and tolerant as any other European religious 'group' (my opinion, obviously).

Does Ireland not have a law against "incitement to religious hatred", or similar? That kind of law, or offence, I could understand.

Incidentally the "Jerry Springer: the Opera" complaints and protest thingy was a bit of a sham. There were never any 'normal' Christians upset over that. That was a media storm whipped up by one Stephen Green and his self-made press release machine called Christian Voice. He attracts small numbers of adherents of the 'certifiable' variety. He probably told them that through him personally God had ordered each of them to submit 10,000 complaints.
I have absolutely no fear of retribution, legal or Divine, in publicly referring to him here as a nut-job of the highest and most deluded order.

The recent attempt on Kurt Westergaard's life will, ironically in this context, probably dissuade Irish Atheists (or me) from publicly displaying the Mohamed cartoons anywhere other than on the most securely anonymous blog :eek:
In any case, giving in to the temptation of responding to this daft law by going out and wilfully trying to upset people by "blaspheming", in the hope that they'll get so upset as to try and use the (as far as I can tell, useless) law, is a bit childish. Tempting, but childish.

I am, however, now on the look out for the soon-to-be printed blasphemous t-shirts, that are sure to be on sale in every market in the land!
Has anyone seen any yet?

RareVintage

Incidentally, you can see the 'blasphemous' cartoon Sceptre referred to from the case Corway v Independent Newspapers [1999] and the backstory on the blog Cearta.ie by Dr. Eoin O’Dell.
I just found the Cearta blog and it looks really interesting. Excuse me if I'm actually the only one who hasn't seen it before!

"Hello Progress, bye bye Father?" .... if only...

.Bob

does this law also mean we cant say any religious jokes? half of irish comedians will be stuck for material now.. :P

Spiritoftheseventies

Given all the furore over the angelus on these boards (different forum) last year not surprised about this really.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0103/breaking3.htm
opening pars
"Atheists have begun a campaign against the Government’s new blasphemy law, which came into force on January 1st as part of the Defamation Act.

The group Atheist Ireland has published 25 quotes it says are blasphemous, attributed to people from Jesus Christ to Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern.

Under the new blasphemy law, which Atheist Ireland is campaigning to have repealed blasphemy is now punishable by a €25,000 fine."

eldin

RareVintage wrote: »

The recent attempt on Kurt Westergaard's life will, ironically in this context, probably dissuade Irish Atheists (or me) from publicly displaying the Mohamed cartoons anywhere other than on the most securely anonymous blog :eek:
In any case, giving in to the temptation of responding to this daft law by going out and wilfully trying to upset people by "blaspheming", in the hope that they'll get so upset as to try and use the (as far as I can tell, useless) law, is a bit childish. Tempting, but childish.

The first half and second half of that don't sit well with me. I don't disagree per se, but in my mind if a large group of people are afraid of speaking their mind over a cartoon then we really should not be backing up and protecting the crazies they fear through ridiculous religious laws. It should absolutely be challenged, I don't see that as childish at all.

Spiritoftheseventies

How will this work exactly. A comedian makes some joke that is likely to "offend" and it becomes front pages headlines. Can see one comedian in particular being in news over this in next year.

RareVintage

Eldin
Point taken.
One the one hand I am merely exposing my own personal cowardice! It is an issue I've thought about a lot.
Salman Rushdie, presumably, didn't confront this issue whilst writing Satanic Verses - I could be wrong but I don't recall that type of Islamic backlash of top-down hysteria, with the death sentence (fatwa) and monetary reward on his head, having occurred before.
I think Roberto Saviano's Gomorrah: Italy's other Mafia presents an interesting comparison, stripped of the abstract (religious) context but similar in that the response of the "blasphemed" is one of a hysterical threat of violence.
However one might outrage, by published blasphemy, some group of Christians, murderous violence is extremely rare, if not non-existent. I can only think of the American anti-abortion arsonists and murderers, thankfully very rare, but that's more like religion-inspired terrorism than collective outrage at being blasphemed against.
Would Rushdie or Saviano have published anonymously if they knew that they were putting their lives at risk and that they would lose so much freedom? That's the point I was trying to make. Personally I would avoid, where possible, risking being an intellectual martyr. The religious fanatics are psychopathic in the same way as mafiosi.

I absolutely agree with you about the necessity of challenging this useless and insulting law. But how?

Is Ireland too soaked in Roman Catholicism for there to be a constitutional challenge to the 'need for a definition of blasphemy'?
Until the Roman Catholic domination of education is addressed I see little chance of there being enough free-thinking people to push for a constitutional reform, let alone to vote "yes" for removing the relevant part(s) if such a referendum were granted.
As more and more of the disgraceful, and illegal, conduct of the Roman Catholic church in relation to children is publicised perhaps this inertia of deference to the patriarchs in hats and robes might change. This might take a generation or two though.

How else to challenge this law? By deliberately setting out to blaspheme? I still can't help but think that this reduces the secularist cause to a puerile level. Personally I avoid knowingly upsetting people, I'm even polite to the evangelicals who knock on my door from time to time!
The law is also wish-washy enough, with its caveats and room for defence, that I think it is useless in any case. I can't think of how a court would be persuaded to grant leave to prosecute under it. If there is a campaign of blasphemy this would qualify under the defence that it has political merit, so no prosecution would be granted - even if some religious group could be bothered to pursue it. It really is a useless law.

Byron85

A lovely quote here from Dermot Ahern regarding the recent ongoings..

A spokesman for the Department of Justice said that Ahern did not “have the luxury of time to deal with some crackpot sitting in an attic somewhere sending around quotes that are intended to be blasphemous. I would suggest this person spend €5 on a copy of Bunreacht na hEireann, which contains the reference to blasphemy being against the law.
“The minister is quite happy to have a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy from the constitution, but doesn’t believe that should be done this year, given the other serious challenges facing the country.”


A garda source said there will be an investigation into whether the publication of the quotes is against the new law.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6974138.ece

eldin

RareVintage wrote: »

Eldin
Point taken.
One the one hand I am merely exposing my own personal cowardice! It is an issue I've thought about a lot.
Salman Rushdie, presumably, didn't confront this issue whilst writing Satanic Verses - I could be wrong but I don't recall that type of Islamic backlash of top-down hysteria, with the death sentence (fatwa) and monetary reward on his head, having occurred before.
I think Roberto Saviano's Gomorrah: Italy's other Mafia presents an interesting comparison, stripped of the abstract (religious) context but similar in that the response of the "blasphemed" is one of a hysterical threat of violence.
However one might outrage, by published blasphemy, some group of Christians, murderous violence is extremely rare, if not non-existent. I can only think of the American anti-abortion arsonists and murderers, thankfully very rare, but that's more like religion-inspired terrorism than collective outrage at being blasphemed against.
Would Rushdie or Saviano have published anonymously if they knew that they were putting their lives at risk and that they would lose so much freedom? That's the point I was trying to make. Personally I would avoid, where possible, risking being an intellectual martyr. The religious fanatics are psychopathic in the same way as mafiosi.

True, they may have been more compelled to publish anonymously if expecting a backlash on the scale of the mohammed cartoons. That said, there were a few publishers willing to reprint the cartoons even while the furore was still going on. Geert Wilders published Fitna shortly after that too if memory serves correctly, although most providers would not carry it (I'm on the fence on that one).


I think you're correct about posters being taken as political though, so I'm at a loss as to how its possible to even break this new law.

RareVintage wrote: »

Is Ireland too soaked in Roman Catholicism for there to be a constitutional challenge to the 'need for a definition of blasphemy'?
Until the Roman Catholic domination of education is addressed I see little chance of there being enough free-thinking people to push for a constitutional reform, let alone to vote "yes" for removing the relevant part(s) if such a referendum were granted.
As more and more of the disgraceful, and illegal, conduct of the Roman Catholic church in relation to children is publicised perhaps this inertia of deference to the patriarchs in hats and robes might change. This might take a generation or two though.

I think a referendum would pass. There's barely a person on this Island that doesn't blaspheme (in the most basic sense - ahh jesus etc.) on a daily basis, so it would really depend on what demographic bothered to vote.

Hazys

This is an embarrassment.

Faithless

My goodness, we are an absolute exhibition to the world.

In 2010, I can't fathom the idea that people are sitting around a table and being paid with tax-payers money to write up such nonsense. We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them "religious"; otherwise, they are likely to be called "mad," "psychotic," or "delusional." Clearly there is sanity in numbers...and yet, it is merely an accident in history which has made it normal in our society to consider a divine Creator of the Universe, full of magic tricks and carnage and now we have laws securing it's legitimacy.

However, I think an entity with these properties (I hesitate to use 'God' as a noun because of its traditional connotation) isn't something you can find 'evidence' for, strictly speaking. If you ask for evidence, what are you actually asking for? What would convince you? I can't even think of something that would qualify as evidence.

To summerise, all religious superstition evolved around our own fear of death and our previous inability to explain natural phenomena. We live, we die, in the vastness of time, your own consciousness is a twinkle in billions of years, make the most of it. The awareness of "self" is nothing more than an illusion but use it wisely.

Humans are ultimately limited by their logical deductive abilities, and also cognitive and rational thought faculties. We have epistemological limits, and certain limits on our ability to understand and form rational thoughts and also interpreting sensory information. We aren't the be all and end all of conscious experience.

If Intelligent Design is out there, it would be completely out of the realm of our 'logic' and ability to rationally conceptualize it. The mystery at the end of the universe certainly isn't something as simple as 'God did it'. I, personally, detest "Gap worshipers". If a "gap" is found in evolution, why do Christians automatically fill it with God by default? By filling the missing links with God, doesn't it raise more questions than it solves?

I can't believe our Government have stooped so low, not that they haven't disappointed before but it's time they were made look like a bunch of monkeys and it seems, they are quite willing to show everyone what they are on their own accord.

RandomName2

Is there anyway anybody knows of of opposing this law, or is it now (to all intents and purposes) writ in stone?

Who voted for this law?

Riskymove

RandomName2 wrote: »

Who voted for this law?

tbf hardly any of our laws are voted for

Free Speech IE

FF and the Greens voted this through. Senator Deirdre de Burca carried it through the Seanad at the last minute. I made a short film about the history and context of the Blasphemy law if you want to check it out. If you want to be kept updated regarding the campaign to have this repealed, you can check www.blasphemy.ie regularly or join the 'Blasphemy Ireland' Facebook group and I'll keep you updated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDC3hXCfcqI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7b5h_bnbX4

RandomName2

For clarity's sake, I take it that is it now illegal to hypothetically say that God is a flying spaghetti monster?

sceptre

RandomName2 wrote: »

For clarity's sake, I take it that is it now illegal to hypothetically say that God is a flying spaghetti monster?

It's nothing of the sort. I respectfully invite you to read the last few pages of the thread, which will bring you largely up to speed on why. The words won't wear out from being read:)

RandomName2

sceptre wrote: »

It's nothing of the sort. I respectfully invite you to read the last few pages of the thread, which will bring you largely up to speed on why. The words won't wear out from being read:)

Most of the previous posts concern whether or not it is likely to be enforced. It isn't. But as far as I can see it is defined as causing insult based on religious beliefs - which can be constituted as merely saying that God/Allah/Q doesn't exist or something of the sort.

sceptre

RandomName2 wrote: »

Most of the previous posts concern whether or not it is likely to be enforced. It isn't. But as far as I can see it is defined as causing insult based on religious beliefs - which can be constituted as merely saying that God/Allah/Q doesn't exist or something of the sort.

Ah, it's there somewhere, I know because I dealt with it. But assuming it's not...:)

You're not going to find anyone who's anything more than amused at anyone pimping the notion that a god or "the" God has meaty noodly bits. It's missing the bit where it's required to significantly outrage a significant amount of adherents. Ditto with a mere claim that a god or "the" God doesn't exist. It doesn't make the legal requirement merely by saying it. I like spaghetti, meatballs and pirates on the same teeshirt as much as the next guy who likes overdone teeshirt designs (and Bobby Henderson made a great point in a great way to the Kansas Education Board when he came up with the flying spaghetti monster concept) but "followers" of a parody religion aren't going to be taken seriously if their religion is insulted and followers of the "real" ones don't care about parody religions (failing the sufficient outrage test) and the FSM concept has artistic value (which means it can't pass the lack of artistic value test).

So, not enough people would care enough to allow the penalties to be triggered and even if they did it's defensible as it has artistic value, meaning that the penalty can't be triggered.

As for whether something is "blasphemous" as opposed to "in breach of the new anti-blasphemy laws", that's outside the remit of a political discussion. It's only relevant based on what the potential prosecutor (which has to be the DPP) and a judge would say. I'm still 100% adamant that the law shouldn't be there and that if it takes a referendum on constitutional amendment to overturn that , then we should have one but it's important and useful to know that just saying "god is 50% meatball, 50% pasta and 10% love" doesn't make the cut. If it did, we'd have had a small march about this already and people would have known what to put on their banners. I appreciate where you're coming from but the legislation is short, easy to read and clear. It wouldn't make the cut.

The Volt

I emailed my TD's over a week ago and still no reply