Ireland makes blasphemy illegal

[Fr33ze]

Err, how come I can't find any reliable websites mentioning this?

Is the Irish Times not a reliable website? It looks like a full-blown news organization, not just a blogger. Admittedly, I don't know Irish media very well.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 87384.html

Err, how come I can't find any reliable websites mentioning this?

Because you're an idiot?

No, really, I'm being serious. You couldn't even look that up on Wikipedia? Maybe Google? How about http://www.irishtimes.com/?

Well, I'm more used to ".ie" instead of ".com" when it comes to news about Ireland, but it seems the Irish friend I consulted didn't question about the website. Thanks for the link.

Broomstick, Wikipedia is not somewhere I'd check reliability with.

[Broomstick]

Of course not - your first post in this thread made it completely apparent that you check nowhere at all.

Wikipedia is not a sewer - it is a good place to get started as it can be used as a source of terms and phrases to load into search engines or otherwise looked into. The "problem" with wikipedia is that most people don't know how to properly use it, or how to read things in a skeptical manner, or how to confirm/deny claims. Of course, you don't have that particular problem, your problem is that you're too lazy to look things up for yourself.

[Bounty]

So does this mean I can continue to stereotype the Irish as a bunch of backward-ass Bible thumpers?

Partially.

I don't want to spoil the party for all the keyboard warriors who are creaming their panties thinking about how Ireland is becoming a theocratic dictatorship, but the law is actually the exact opposite of what people here seem to envision it to be.

Thirty seconds of Googling shows the problem was that Ireland did have a blasphemy law on the books, dating to 1963, which called fro prison sentences up to seven years for infractions. The current government wants this gone, but can't make it happen without a constitutional amendment, which is a time-consuming and complex procedure requiring a nationwide referendum. As a compromise, they have simply changed the existing blasphemy law to reduce potential punishment to a fine, and added additional conditions that, it seems to me, make prosecution pretty much impossible.

Now, is this the proper solution? No. The proper solution is to call for a referendum and remove the requirement of a blasphemy law from the constitution. But neither is this some sort of retrograde slide into Judeo-Christian totalitarianism; it's nothing more than a legal trick to reduce the chance of anyone getting his life ruined by insulting a religion pending the actual removal of the constitutional requirement.

DUBLIN (Reuters) - Ireland will change a law that provides prison sentences for the crime of "blasphemous libel" but cannot abolish it altogether without a referendum to change the constitution, the justice minister said on Friday.

Dermot Ahern said he would repeal a 1961 act under which blasphemous libel can lead to a jail term of seven years, but added a new law was needed instead due to a constitutional requirement to punish blasphemy.

"Those who argue that, where the constitution has ordained an offence, a minister should simply ignore it to suit his ideological positions, seems to me to be arguing for a clear constitutional provision to be wilfully ignored," Ahern wrote in an opinion piece for the Irish Times.

The traditionally Catholic country's Constitution Review Group said in a 1996 report the offence of blasphemy should be dropped from the constitution as it is ambiguous and potentially clashes with the freedom of speech and conscience.

But Ahern said a referendum would have to be held to change the Irish constitution and that would be a "costly diversion."

Britain last year abolished its law against blasphemy -- an offence prosecuted in many Muslim countries -- and Ahern's critics said he was taking a "retrograde" step by proposing a fine of up to 100,000 euros (89, 348 pounds) for the crime.

"We are faced with the creation of a new offence, the parameters and reach of which are altogether uncertain," the Irish Examiner newspaper wrote on Friday.

Under Ahern's proposals, blasphemous material would only be prosecutable if it is "grossly abusive or insulting in matters held sacred by a religion," causes actual outrage among adherents of that religion and there is intent to cause outrage.

"Such intent was not previously required," Ahern said.

The Constitution Review Group, which was set up by the government, said in its 1996 report it was not clear whether the constitutional reference to blasphemy applied only to the "Judaeo-Christian religion" or to other faiths as well.

"The retention of the present constitutional offence of blasphemy is not appropriate," the group concluded.

Cartoons of Prophet Mohammad published in a Danish newspaper sparked violent protests in several Islamic countries in 2006 by enraged Muslims who saw them as blasphemous.

At least 15 Danish papers and several foreign publications reprinted the caricatures, many as a show of solidarity to the threat against the freedom of speech.

[Feil]

snip

Thanks. That is quite informative.

[Darth Wong]

Broomstick, Wikipedia is not somewhere I'd check reliability with.

You're full of shit. The Irish Times was the very first link that came up when I googled the subject matter. You obviously never so much as lifted a finger to check for this, and then said you couldn't find any reliable websites. Broomstick got one thing wrong: you're not necessarily an idiot, but you are a lying sack of shit.

[Darth Wong]

Thirty seconds of Googling shows the problem was that Ireland did have a blasphemy law on the books, dating to 1963, which called fro prison sentences up to seven years for infractions. The current government wants this gone, but can't make it happen without a constitutional amendment, which is a time-consuming and complex procedure requiring a nationwide referendum. As a compromise, they have simply changed the existing blasphemy law to reduce potential punishment to a fine, and added additional conditions that, it seems to me, make prosecution pretty much impossible.

Do they? I Googled this last night too, and if you did, then you should know the concerns people have about this. It was previously deemed unenforceable by the high court because the law did not properly define "blasphemy", which was deemed to violate a man's right to due process (you can't be found guilty of an undefined crime). Now it does define "blasphemy", which makes it more enforceable.

And why the fuck shouldn't someone be able to say something with the intent of causing outrage? Look at the blasphemous post I made earlier in this thread. Would that not fall under this law and therefore make me liable for this ridiculous penalty if I were in Ireland?

[Themightytom]

Well the stakes for free speech are a little higher in a country that has been torn apart by protestant and catholic extremists. They may have put the law in place as a means of reducing provocation for violence.

Throw a couple atheists in there and the clusterfuck begins anew.

[Darth Wong]

Well the stakes for free speech are a little higher in a country that has been torn apart by protestant and catholic extremists. They may have put the law in place as a means of reducing provocation for violence.

Throw a couple atheists in there and the clusterfuck begins anew.

As I said, belligerent Bible thumpers. If the Irish don't like that stereotype, maybe they should try not living up to it.

[TheLostVikings]

Thirty seconds of Googling shows the problem was that Ireland did have a blasphemy law on the books, dating to 1963, which called fro prison sentences up to seven years for infractions. The current government wants this gone, but can't make it happen without a constitutional amendment, which is a time-consuming and complex procedure requiring a nationwide referendum. As a compromise, they have simply changed the existing blasphemy law to reduce potential punishment to a fine, and added additional conditions that, it seems to me, make prosecution pretty much impossible.

Do they? I Googled this last night too, and if you did, then you should know the concerns people have about this. It was previously deemed unenforceable by the high court because the law did not properly define "blasphemy", which was deemed to violate a man's right to due process (you can't be found guilty of an undefined crime). Now it does define "blasphemy", which makes it more enforceable.

This reminds me of what happened in Norway recently when we finally removed our blasphemy law from the books. And despite the fact that it hadn't been enforceable for decades anyhow the religious started to whine about it, quite loudly in fact, and since the squeaky wheel tends to get the grease the persons in charge decided it would be a great idea to appease them by making additions to the current anti-defamation laws. (Which are actively enforced )

Luckily the result of the following shitstorm was the opposite of Ireland.

[Bellator]

So does this mean I can continue to stereotype the Irish as a bunch of backward-ass Bible thumpers?

Even ultra-liberal Holland has anti-blasphemy laws. Freedom of speech isn't valued as greatly in Europe, compared to the US.

[Simon_Jester]

Do they? I Googled this last night too, and if you did, then you should know the concerns people have about this. It was previously deemed unenforceable by the high court because the law did not properly define "blasphemy", which was deemed to violate a man's right to due process (you can't be found guilty of an undefined crime). Now it does define "blasphemy", which makes it more enforceable.

Yes.

Although, weirdly, they have seen fit to define "blasphemy" in a non-sectarian way. Offending the Moonies is just as blasphemous as offending the Catholics, as far as I can tell under this statute.

If the Irish government were normal religious fanatics, you'd expect them to define blasphemy in a way that was grossly advantageous to their own religion. This may be a case of a government mollycoddling religious fanatics without actually being fanatics; I don't know.

[Eleas]

Although, weirdly, they have seen fit to define "blasphemy" in a non-sectarian way. Offending the Moonies is just as blasphemous as offending the Catholics, as far as I can tell under this statute.

If the Irish government were normal religious fanatics, you'd expect them to define blasphemy in a way that was grossly advantageous to their own religion. This may be a case of a government mollycoddling religious fanatics without actually being fanatics; I don't know.

Or they just assume - with some justification - that any non-Christian who might feel blasphemed against will realize that their charges probably won't even go to court. As Mike pointed out, the Irish constitution and legal system not only now punishes blasphemy, it also enshrines Christianity as taking precedence over other faiths.

[Invictus ChiKen]

As anyone read the right-wing Catholic response to this here in the States?

It's fucking priceless! There playing the victim card claiming Muslims, Pagans and Atheist will use it to silence there agenda.

[Simon_Jester]

That's the weird thing. Based on the letter of the law, they could use it that way.

Which is why I can't figure out whether the Irish government are being a bunch of bigots who forgot to write their bigotry into the new law and give it an explicit sectarian bias, or just a bunch of "useful idiots" prepared to give fanatics of any and all stripes the tools they need to harass anyone they don't like.

[Themightytom]

[Masami von Weizegger]

PS. According to the Irish Times, the Irish Constitution is basically theocratic and puts the entire country under the authority of Jesus Christ, which requires this provision for some reason. I'm not really sure how, but I'm sure the Irish can explain it as soon as you rouse them from their drunken stupor.

Hah, ow, you wound me. I'm sorry if this counts as a necropost, but I do believe I can give a little more insight being an actual Irishman with a passport and an accent and everything.

But seriously, yes, it's a big fucking mess.

The Irish Constitution guarantees freedom of worship and forbids the State from creating an established church. It also once, ahem, "recognised the special position of the Catholic Church". This was eventually removed (It's our Fifth Amendment, trivia nuts). However, religion is still mentioned most prominently in the preamble which I will reproduce, despite the fact that it is vomit inducing tripe.

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

While the preamble has no legal meaning, the offering of the nation to Jesus Christ and so on is really quite disgusting. I can argue that the constitution and what it contains, is not as known by the people as the United States constitution, but that is no defence for what it does contain nor is pleading ignorance of the part of the people a ploy that would earn much credit.

Apparently, according to our ever beloved Minister for Justice, as well as all-round bastard homophobe git, Dermot Ahern, the "anti-blasphemy" law is being enforced because the constitution demands it in some obscure clause I never heard of. He also claims that it is being passed in such a manner as to make prosecution almost impossible. Which just goes to show the shower of bastards that run Ireland today. But that's a story for another time.

The law is proving to be quite unpopular, but the government won't push for a referendum on the matter because, surprise, they know they'll lose it. Sadly, major antipathy has sprung up over the actions of the Irish government in the last decade or so. As elections probably won't swing around until 2012, this latest issue probably won't be one by then but there's still a chance the current ruling party will be out on their arse and after that, well, there's hope.