It seems that the 'Blasphemy Law' could affect Boards

Kiwi in IE

Have a look at this thread from AH;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057057845

It is very unclear what constitutes 'blasphemy'. Seems to be for religious people to define depending on their level of collective offence.

Sulla Felix

Haha, alright. Messaged the mods about whether to throw it up here, guess I'm as risk adverse as boards.

Nodin

I just lobbed it in the "hazards" thread....

Sulla Felix

Nodin wrote: »

I just lobbed it in the "hazards" thread....

My choice was going to be Interesting Stuff :P

Sarky

My first thought was "Oh, they got an angry letter from some dingbat with more money than sense, and more 'faith' than either."

shruikan2553

It will be interesting to see where it goes. I doubt anywhere seeing as blasphemy can be anything from saying you dont believe in something that is part of a religion.

Kiwi in IE

So what constitutes 'blasphemy'? Does anyone know? It seems very vague, non specific and undefined!

Zzippy

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So what constitutes 'blasphemy'? Does anyone know? It seems very vague, non specific and undefined!

"Jesus is a *****" ? Blasphemy, or personal abuse? :rolleyes:

Sulla Felix

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So what constitutes 'blasphemy'? Does anyone know? It seems very vague, non specific and undefined!

At the time of the law going through, I remember it being pretty much outright stated by the Minister that they wrote it in such a way as to make it unprosecutable.

robindch

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So what constitutes 'blasphemy'? Does anyone know? It seems very vague, non specific and undefined!

That's what a blasphemy law is for -- it's intended to be non-specific enough to scare people into a rigid silence and here, it looks like it's succeeded.

I've had a few beers this evening so I won't be commenting further here, for the moment at least, lest I write something that might cause a few combustible fools to ignite themselves for their own greater good.

Carawaystick

Zzippy wrote: »

"Jesus is a prick" ? Blasphemy, or personal abuse? :rolleyes:

Obviously personal abuse, or possibly anti-Hispanic abuse
All them jesus's, how could you pick one out

Kiwi in IE

Sulla Felix wrote: »

At the time of the law going through, I remember it being pretty much outright stated by the Minister that they wrote it in such a way as to make it unprosecutable.

So the point of passing the law in the first place was? I can scarcely believe there is actually such a law.

Some in AH are comparing blasphemy to inciting hatred. But these are two entirely different things. If I say that I think all religious beliefs are a load of bullsh*t, which I assume constitutes 'blasphemy', how is that inciting hatred?

Geomy

This is scraping at the bottom of a lobster pot stuff thats been hauled up half full of rotten bait and sitting on seafield pier for two day's. ...

When's the last time someone's been charged with blasphemy in Ireland ?

Nodin

Geomy wrote: »

This is scraping at the bottom of a lobster pot stuff thats been hauled up half full of rotten bait and sitting on seafield pier for two day's. ...

When's the last time someone's been charged with blasphemy in Ireland ?

50's I think. Theres never (ever) a successful one though.

Sarky

Boards seems to have reason enough to worry they could be the first.

Sulla Felix

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So the point of passing the law in the first place was? I can scarcely believe there is actually such a law.

Some in AH are comparing blasphemy to inciting hatred. But these are two entirely different things. If I say that I think all religious beliefs are a load of bullsh*t, which I assume constitutes 'blasphemy', how is that inciting hatred?

Basically there's a provision in the constitution that required there to be a law or something along those lines. So, they wrote a law that agreed with the constitution but that was practically useless in it's own right.
Course, there was some talk about the provision being removed next time we had a referendum on the cards, but that never happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Defamation_Act_2009

Geomy

Sarky wrote: »

Boards seems to have reason enough to worry they could be the first.

Well I couldn't see it happening, if there's a law of blasphemy then there should be a law against people mocking atheism and atheists. ...

There has to be balance in the force

Fair is fair....

Sarky

Aha. Ahaha.

shruikan2553

Geomy wrote: »

Well I couldn't see it happening, if there's a law of blasphemy then there should be a law against people mocking atheism and atheists. ...

There has to be balance in the force

Fair is fair....

Nope, only if you are religious do you get protected. Look at the laws for setting up a school, you can't have an atheist school, some sort of religion is a requirement.

P_1

Sarky wrote: »

Boards seems to have reason enough to worry they could be the first.

Therein lies the problem if you ask me. Now a suit against the site were to happen, chances are the site would win but the real fear is that it could be sank by legal fees.

Geomy

Sarky wrote: »

Aha. Ahaha.

Do you think im being funny ?

Sarky

More naive than anything else.

Geomy

Sarky wrote: »

More naive than anything else.

On a personal level or on the subject ? for a moderator you seem to be able to get away with a lot....

Cienciano

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So what constitutes 'blasphemy'? Does anyone know? It seems very vague, non specific and undefined!

As far as I can see, all you need is a number of people to be "offended" by any comment on religion.
So, if a few people from the Christianity report a post here saying it's offensive to their religion, that person should get banned, and a €25k fine.


wasn't the fine €25k? that's another thing, if the law was brought in just because it technically had to be, why couldn't the fine be €1?

Corkfeen

Nodin wrote: »

50's I think. Theres never (ever) a successful one though.

1855 was the last conviction.

Doctor DooM

I can honestly say that thread is the most disappointing thing I've ever read on boards.

SpaceTime

The Seanad is fine we needed a referendum on Blasphemy! That article should be deleted from the constitution.

Or at least we should have a public vote on it anyway.

MagicMarker

Corkfeen wrote: »

1855 was the last conviction.

Jesus, that was only a few hours ago!

Need mod clarification, am I allowed say Jesus?

Kiwi in IE

Cienciano wrote: »

As far as I can see, all you need is a number of people to be "offended" by any comment on religion.
So, if a few people from the Christianity report a post here saying it's offensive to their religion, that person should get banned, and a €25k fine.


wasn't the fine €25k? that's another thing, if the law was brought in just because it technically had to be, why couldn't the fine be €1?

So there are no clear guidelines on what is illegal under this law? It is up to religious people to decide what it offensive? If a certain number are offended by me saying that Jesus was an ordinary person without special powers then I could be charged with blasphemy? How many people need to take offence? Is one or two enough or is there a certain number or percentage of adherents to whatever religion you are offending? What a f****n ridiculous law!

Turtwig

MagicMarker wrote: »

Jesus, that was only a few hours ago!

Need mod clarification, am I allowed say Jesus?

Haven't a clue what is or what isn't currently allowed. Assuming the old charter for now.

shruikan2553

Dont worry guys, someone showed this:

(4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

We can continue as normal then.

Corkfeen

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I can honestly say that thread is the most disappointing thing I've ever read on boards.

This country is in dire need of sorting out its laws. Hate the random bits of racism that can crop up in After Hours but the fact that there's a legal threat over one's right to blaspheme is bizarre. If posters were being arseholes or being racist etc,it should be a matter to be dealt with in the usual fashion through warnings and bannings. Legal threats should not be a concern.

Kiwi in IE

Should you ring the Gards if you hear someone blaspheme or see written blasphemy? Do you use the emergency number? Are you within your rights to carry out a citizens arrest against a blasphemer until the Gards arrive?

An Riabhach

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Nope, only if you are religious do you get protected. Look at the laws for setting up a school, you can't have an atheist school, some sort of religion is a requirement.

That can all change,too.

robindch

MagicMarker wrote: »

Need mod clarification, am I allowed say Jesus?

I'm sure the religious would have little problem ponying up a group of doddering blue-rinsers who could manifest the necessary outrage.

Anyhow, perhaps the following image might help people block outrageous thoughts from flitting across the of the religious?

Turtwig

Personally we could just invent a code.
We could stick our criticism to Voldemort, Sauron, Gandalf. and other fictional characters who bear resemblances to certain other characters.:D

An Riabhach

Geomy wrote: »

Well I couldn't see it happening, if there's a law of blasphemy then there should be a law against people mocking atheism and atheists. ...

There has to be balance in the force

Fair is fair....

Agreed.

They are more than capable of showing plenty of degradation,judgementalism and even aggressiveness towards Atheism and Atheists.
I've said before-if any believer was to call me a deliberately offensive name like a heathen,I wouldn't think twice about calling that person a hypocrite-laws or no laws.

Kiwi in IE

HAHAHAHA! You are not alone Ireland! It seems we have one too! Never heard of it before. Found THIS by accident when reading about the blasphemy law here. Strange that a completely secular country with no official religion would have such a law which specifically protects Christianity (makes it even worse than the Irish one).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_New_Zealand

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemous_libel

Turtwig

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

HAHAHAHA! You are not alone Ireland! It seems we have one too! Never heard of it before. Found THIS by accident when reading about the blasphemy law here. Strange that a completely secular country with no official religion would have such a law which specifically protects Christianity (makes it even worse than the Irish one).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_New_Zealand

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemous_libel

We've got central heating so we're obviously the better country. :pac:

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

Personally we could just invent a code.
We could stick our criticism to Voldemort, Sauron, Gandalf. and other fictional characters who bear resemblances to certain other characters.:D

OR We could fess up and say yeah, actually atheism is a religion after all (all hail Dawkins, blessed be his Hitchens) and we are outraged whenever any one says there is a God as we find that blasphemous and offensive in the extreme.


By the way - who gets the 25k?

gctest50

Irelands new motto for the post Celtic puisin era is ......

Welcome to Saudi

Amirani

It'll be a sad day when all dissenting voices have been crushed and faith in a deity has been mandated. What will we have to believe in then?

zenno

NiallSparky wrote: »

It'll be a sad day when all dissenting voices have been crushed and faith in a deity has been mandated. What will we have to believe in then?

Technologically advanced extraterrestrials.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure the religious would have little problem ponying up a group of doddering blue-rinsers who could manifest the necessary outrage.

Anyhow, perhaps the following image might help people block outrageous thoughts from flitting across the of the religious?

In a moment of fuckwittedness solidarity I backed your offer in AH by offering same.

biko

Seems OIC is slowly getting their way.
Criticising Islam is becoming a real crime, not just only "racism" is general.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emhN0yns4UE

To be clear, I understand boards' need to protect itself. I am not against Dav's decision to kill that thread, I'm against the notion that it's not ok to ridicule a religion or claim that it's prophet was a pedo*.

*not at the time, it was probably perfectly normal then. But unfortunately that means for many of his followers it's ok now too.

SpaceTime

The problem, as I understand it is that for decades we had a blasphemy mention in the constitution but there were no laws implementing it.

Previous attempts to take blasphemy cases ran into a logical infinite loop where the courts decided that the state couldn't prosecute a blasphemy case without establishing a religion (making an official state religion) which is unconstitutional. This meant that cases never could be prosecuted.

The FF/Green government then during their tidy up of the defamation/libel laws decided to enact legislation that would define blasphemy without reference to a single religion, thus making cases prosecutable.

As it stands at the moment, it would be quite difficult to bring a blasphemy case as there's a really high burden of proof and a lot of exemptions. However, it's not impossible and nobody's ever tested it. There's every possibility that someone could be prosecuted under this legislation.

This piece of legislation also dragged Ireland's reputation through the mud internationally and caused us to sink quite a few ratings on things like the International Press Freedom Index which we used to be at the very top of.
It got quite a lot of international coverage, all of which was highly negative and in many cases it was used to reconfirm stereotypes that Ireland was a social backwater.


It also opens the possibility of things like extradition to Greece which has a very active blasphemy law and has attempted to use European Arrest Warrants and extradition treaties to take prosecutions against people in Austria. It only failed because it couldn't extradite them as no similar offence existed in Austrian law.

The guy had never even set foot in Greece!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/mar/23/austria.arts

This is the main reason I will never vote for the Greens or FF ever again. I am nearly more disappointed with the Greens as FF have always had tendencies like this while the Greens allowed them to do it.

I wrote to several Green party reps at the time and got a rather patronising response basically telling me that I'd nothing to worry about.

I would *never* have voted Green if I'd known they'd support something like this. I never expected it and to me it just put me off that party for life. I wouldn't have voted FF anyway!

A voter scorned is a voter lost, and I can assure you I will never be voting for the Greens ever again.

sbsquarepants

Sarky wrote: »

Boards seems to have reason enough to worry they could be the first.

I can see their point to be fair. It's all well and good saying the law is stupid I won't be obeying it, but this is a business - it's peoples livelihoods at stake. They would almost certainly win the case, but it would still cost money to fight and a lot of these religious asshole types have extremely deep pockets!

SpaceTime

If there is a case, international press coverage will also be excruciatingly embarrassing and you can be sure that Ireland will be once again shown up to still have large elements of conservative, social backwater in the international media.

It's just mind-boggling that a Government in the 21st century in a western democracy could implement something so backwards.

Then again, look how they handled the finances!
...

I would actually argue that it could also have a chilling effect on international media companies hosting services from Ireland too if there were a successful prosecution.

This could actually cost us billions of Euro in lost investment.

28064212

Two huge absurdities the blasphemy law exposes:

Abortion legislation comparison: Dermot Ahern - "I as the responsible Minister, and we as legislators, do not have the luxury of pursuing a 'do nothing' approach while we wait for an opportune moment to move a constitutional amendment". Ridiculous. They pursued a "do-nothing" approach for 20 years for the X Case.

Contradictory religions: Do you know what the most common example of religious blasphemy is? Other religions. Everytime a Catholic priest claims transubstantiation, they are committing blasphemy against the Protestant church. Everytime an imam praises Mohammed as a prophet, it's blasphemous to Judaism. Religion-based statements do not fall under any of the defences: "genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value". So why are the various religions not the first defendants in any blasphemy case?

magicbastarder

SpaceTime wrote: »

Previous attempts to take blasphemy cases ran into a logical infinite loop where the courts decided that the state couldn't prosecute a blasphemy case without establishing a religion (making an official state religion) which is unconstitutional. This meant that cases never could be prosecuted.

my understanding of it is different - that neither the clause in the constitution nor the legislation actually defined what blasphemy was, so if you have no definition, you have no basis to prosecute.

this was dealt with by passing a law which defines blasphemy; they were able to deal with the 'problem' without needing to touch the constitution.

Akrasia

In the thread on AH, Dan explained that someone was making claims about Muhammed's marriage to a 7 year old girl and he said that it is intolerant to hold someone from the 7th century to the standards of 21st century civilisation

How could Muhammed have foreseen that it would one day be unacceptable to have sex with a child.
It's not like Muhammad was a prophet..

Uh oh, sorry Muslims, I forgot that you find it offensive to deny that Muhammad is a prophet, sorry about that... hey, doesn't that mean that anyone who uses the cultural relativism defence of Muhammad's marriage is also committing Blasphemy?