Louis Theroux Scientology falls foul of blashpemy laws

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

private

By whom?

Orion

Cabaal wrote: »

You could get to see it right now if you got a flight from Ireland to a place showing it, but it doesn't deal with the fact that we have backwards legislation that has no place in a modern society

Sounds exactly like the abortion situation

Orion

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

private

It's criminal - so public.

Orion

Orion wrote: »

It's criminal - so public.

Can private prosecutions not be brought in Ireland as they can in the UK?
Anyway if it is the state would it not fall under artistic exemption? Along with the whole not-being-a-religion thing?

Orion

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can private prosecutions not be brought in Ireland as they can in the UK?
Anyway if it is the state would it not fall under artistic exemption? Along with the whole not-being-a-religion thing?

To the first question I don't think so. The dpp takes the action.
Second question. Yes it would. But it appears cinemas and distributors won't take the risk.

Ash.J.Williams

the state won't take any action. It's some useless serial objector will

Cabaal

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

the state won't take any action. It's some useless serial objector will

There's always the chance of a fringe religious person taking a case, you\'ve only to look at the marriage equality ref to know that

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/electrician-and-gardener-bring-bids-challenging-result-of-marriage-referendum-to-high-court-31278539.html

The chap from Kilkenny previously refused to believe the state had the ability to allow his wife to divorce him.....sigh

Orion

Orion wrote: »

To the first question I don't think so. The dpp takes the action.
Second question. Yes it would. But it appears cinemas and distributors won't take the risk.

As I said, how can they be done for blasphemy when it's not recognised as a religion here?

The standard defamation laws are the tool that would be used to block this film.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said, how can they be done for blasphemy when it's not recognised as a religion here?

There is no list of recognised religions, so if Scientology says it is a religion, then that must be the default position unless it is officially declared otherwise.

On the question of whether they are a religion, we have lining out...

In Favour (in the blue corner)
Me.
Scientologists.
The USA.
Australia.
Portugal.
Spain.
Slovenia.
Sweden.
Hungary.
Croatia.
Kyrgystan!!

Against (in the red corner)
The Pope
Most other religions and/or cults.
Germany.
The UK.
Canada.
Finland.
Belgium.
New Zealand.

No comment (the referee)
Ireland
(and a couple of others)

robindch

Orion wrote: »

I genuinely hope that someone does release it and that they do go to court.

Perish the thought that Mr Spurling might be dangling for a court case in order to gain notiriety

silverharp

Cabaal wrote: »

There's always the chance of a fringe religious person taking a case, you\'ve only to look at the marriage equality ref to know that

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/electrician-and-gardener-bring-bids-challenging-result-of-marriage-referendum-to-high-court-31278539.html

The chap from Kilkenny previously refused to believe the state had the ability to allow his wife to divorce him.....sigh

to the best of my knowledge though isnt there some ministerial say so to allow such a case go ahead?

Ash.J.Williams

non story and great publicity

recedite

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

great publicity

True. What are the odds that the cinemas will "relent" at the eleventh hour, and open the floodgates to the queuing horde of indignants?

recedite

BTW, I like the spelling of blashpemy in the thread title.
I vote that it not be amended

ligerdub

How many documentaries get cinematic releases in Ireland? I can't think of many, especially from Louis Theroux, he is a TV guy, not a cinema guy.

Honestly, how many people would go to the cinema to see this? My guess is that it's a hard sell for the distributors and couldn't be arsed getting it in.

magicbastarder

and in support of that argument:
http://www.thejournal.ie/louis-theroux-scientology-blasphemy-ireland-2996221-Sep2016/?utm_source=twitter_self

Orion

recedite wrote: »

BTW, I like the spelling of blashpemy in the thread title.
I vote that it not be amended

dammit - I blame my fat fingers! And I second that vote :pac:

Orion

Cabaal wrote: »

There's always the chance of a fringe religious person taking a case, you\'ve only to look at the marriage equality ref to know that

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/electrician-and-gardener-bring-bids-challenging-result-of-marriage-referendum-to-high-court-31278539.html

Not the same. He challenged the result of a referendum. This is a criminal law so only the DPP can take the case. It's extremely unlikely that such a case would be taken but that's not the point - it could be which is ridiculous.

Orion

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said, how can they be done for blasphemy when it's not recognised as a religion here?

The standard defamation laws are the tool that would be used to block this film.

Defamation would be a civil case not criminal (blasphemy would be criminal). But you can't defame a "church" only a person (including a legal person which is a company). Theroux's film is not about the Irish Dianetic clusterwank so they have no case for defamation.

Orion

magicbastarder wrote: »

and in support of that argument:
http://www.thejournal.ie/louis-theroux-scientology-blasphemy-ireland-2996221-Sep2016/?utm_source=twitter_self

Dr Neville Cox of Trinity College, a specialist in the Defamation Act, has said categorically that “there is no blasphemy case here”.
Cox said that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) would never bring such a case and that no judge in the land would go near it.

Well the last part of that is complete bollox. A judge doesn't get to choose what cases he/she hears. The DPP may never bring a case but if he did then whatever judge was up in the rotation would go near it - no choice in the matter. Typical of The Journal version of "journalism".

Orion

I'm going to hold my hand out to be slapped now though.

It does appear that the whole blasphemy argument was based on a tweet that has no backing. The whole thing stinks of a viral marketing campaign and I fell for it.

My money is on this gathering momentum and the film getting released to packed houses because of the publicity surrounding the blasphemy law. If so - well done Altitude.

bren2001

Orion wrote: »

I'm going to hold my hand out to be slapped now though.

It does appear that the whole blasphemy argument was based on a tweet that has no backing. The whole thing stinks of a viral marketing campaign and I fell for it.

My money is on this gathering momentum and the film getting released to packed houses because of the publicity surrounding the blasphemy law. If so - well done Altitude.

If this turns out to be the case, I take my hat off to them. They certainly got me!

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Perish the thought that Mr Spurling might be dangling for a court case in order to gain notiriety

Orion wrote: »

The whole thing stinks of a viral marketing campaign and I fell for it.

Mark Hamill

Orion wrote: »

This is a criminal law so only the DPP can take the case.

Just a general thought in relation to that - if the DPP decided to take a blasphemy case and they lost, would the DPP (and therefore the Irish taxpayer) have to pay the defendants legal costs?

Orion

Orion wrote: »

Defamation would be a civil case not criminal (blasphemy would be criminal). But you can't defame a "church" only a person (including a legal person which is a company). Theroux's film is not about the Irish Dianetic clusterwank so they have no case for defamation.

I understand the difference between civil and criminal matters. In the UK it is possible for people to bring private prosections so I was wondering if it's the same here given the whole shared common law thing.
Also in that vein, the UK has become a hotbed for libel proceedings because of the cost of defending oneself even when the case is rubbish. Given our shared legal history I was thinking that such a threat would be an awful lot more likely to cost more and put the ****s up distributors than a possible 25k fine which given 1) the way the blasphemy is phrased and 2) the fact that scientology isn't recognised as a religion here at the moment seems a bit more logical.

Orion wrote: »

It does appear that the whole blasphemy argument was based on a tweet that has no backing. The whole thing stinks of a viral marketing campaign and I fell for it.

At least you didn't make a lot of posts before realising.

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just a general thought in relation to that - if the DPP decided to take a blasphemy case and they lost, would the DPP (and therefore the Irish taxpayer) have to pay the defendants legal costs?

Unlikely. Well, unless in this particular case the judge (quite fairly) decided the case shouldn't have been taken because the law is clearly on the side of the film-makers/distributors and bringing the case was negligent or whatever legalese they use.

recedite

I think if the DPP pursues a criminal case, the defendant is likely to get free legal aid even before the outcome is decided.
Shur look at Paul Murphy TD, ex MEP, and free legal aid recipient. The criteria for awarding it is based mainly on the possible duration of the trial and the severity of any possible sentence. Not so much on the income of the defendant or the evidence against them. Because most peoples income would disappear very rapidly after a few days of paying for a senior counsel.

robindch

The Irish Times looks into the issue and declares it a manufactroversy:

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/why-ireland-won-t-ban-louis-theroux-s-scientology-film-1.2807475

Irish Times wrote:

A bizarre fog of rumour has clouded around the decision by Altitude Film Distribution not to release Louis Theroux’s My Scientology Movie in Irish cinemas. News organisations have suggested the distributor is concerned the documentary, which finds Theroux investigating that controversial “church”, may fall foul of the nation’s blasphemy laws. At least one newspaper argued that the film “could be banned in Ireland”.

In fact, any prosecution for blasphemy would be close to impossible. The Irish Film Classification Office has not refused certification on a theatrical release – the closest thing to a ban under the current legislation – in more than a decade and has not yet considered My Scientology Movie. “It’s a non-issue for us. Because it hasn’t been submitted to us,” Ger Connolly, the Director of Film Classification, told The Irish Times. “This notion of being ‘banned’ in abstentia is ludicrous.” Is blasphemy a consideration when issuing a certificate? “The opening line on our website states we believe the public should, within the law, be free to view what they choose,” Connolly says. “It would be wrong of me to say that we don’t consider it. It would be accurate to say it hasn’t arisen yet.”

The story says more about the dynamics of modern media than the state’s unsettled business with blasphemy law. In May of this year, reporting on Altitude’s acquisition of My Scientology Movie at Cannes, the website Entertainment.ie (part-owned by The Irish Times) wondered if the Church of Scientology, a famously litigious organisation, might use the blasphemy laws to stop the release. Last weekend, Graham Spurling, managing director of the Movies@ chain in Ireland, tweeted about rumours concerning the film’s possible suppression. “Regret that after much trying [My Scientology Movie] will not get an Irish release. Our blasphemy law to blame?” he said.

[...] Dr Neville Cox, associate professor of Law at Trinity College Dublin, told The Irish Times: “There are three reasons why the blasphemy laws are of no relevance here.” It is significant, he agrees, that the state does not define the Church of Scientology as a religion with charitable status. Secondly, for blasphemy it has to deal with issues held sacred by a religion and, thirdly, there is an exception within the blasphemy laws for something that is of literary, political, artistic or scientific merit. There is no way a documentary could not fall under that.” [...] This week’s chatter has, however, focused almost exclusively on the blasphemy legislation. Professor Cox explains: “My view is the 2009 act fulfilled a constitutional obligation on the crime of blasphemy, but skilfully rendered the law completely unenforceable. I am not saying that was the intention.”

My Scientology Movie opens in the UK on October 7th. It will be broadcast on the BBC at a later date. The inflated controversy will do the film no harm at all.

recedite

Is blasphemy a consideration when issuing a certificate? “The opening line on our website states we believe the public should, within the law, be free to view what they choose,” Connolly says. “It would be wrong of me to say that we don’t consider it.

Interesting to hear the censor's view. Weasel words seem to get used a lot around this issue. I can imagine what he might say if the movie was shown and the Church of Scientology sued. Maybe something like;
"A certificate from this board does not guarantee immunity from prosecution, it is the responsibility of the cinema owner to ensure they remain within the law at all times".

And Professor Cox might explain: “ I never said there was an intention to make the law completely unenforceable.”

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

Interesting to hear the censor's view. Weasel words seem to get used a lot around this issue. I can imagine what he might say if the movie was shown and the Church of Scientology sued. Maybe something like;
"A certificate from this board does not guarantee immunity from prosecution, it is the responsibility of the cinema owner to ensure they remain within the law at all times".

you should apply when the post comes again, you will fit right in :pac: