Ireland Makes Blasphemy Illegal

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

Mad Rabbit wrote:
Gwar, if you want a Damn Forsaken Country, come to Wheaton, Illinois. Look up Wheaton College if you want to know what it's like here. There's a building called the Billy Graham Center. Ugh.

I grew up about 15 minutes from there. I'm very sorry for your misfortune.

**greenskin lynn**

gwar could always escape to Tennessee and build a mountain retreat stocked with guns and moonshine

**lord_sutekh**

Nah, TN isn't so good for that anymore; it's been too heavily infiltrated by the East Coast. Montana, now there's a state made for heavily-armed standoffs with the ATF.

**The Defenestrator**

my biggest problem with these kinds of laws is where you drawn the line on this stuff. Why not fine me 25,000 euros for telling someone "football should be banned from all modern countries, and anyone who plays it should be executed." I promise you, I can find someone who will be outraged by this sentiment (likely some of you dakkaites, even.), so how do you decide what's opinion and what's hatespeech?

**Dracos**

sebster wrote:
Cheese Elemental wrote:Well this is going over the top a bit, but to be fair, it's not much different from outlawing discrimination against other races or people of different sexual orientation.

This isn't outlawing discrimination, its outlawing speach. Dicrimination based on religion is already outlawed. This is stopping someone from saying 'believing in God is silly', the equivalent of saying 'homosexuality is unnatural'.

I agree with neither phrase, but they shouldn't be illegal to say.

This^^

**Corum**

Personally (and I feel dirty saying it,) Im in Gwar's camp on this.

I live in the American Deep South, and Atheism is equated down here with schizophrenia or modest retardation. Reactions range from patronizing sympathy to outright outrage at the denial that Jesus died for our sins and he literally came back to life and leapt into heaven.

I like the Bible, it is a good read. I also believe, like Carl Sagan, that there is a unifying force in the universe, but we haven't the means to qualify, quantify or explain it yet. This really doesn't make me an Atheist, but close enough that I keep my opinions to myself at work.

The points is, even here there is a double standard: complain about the evil humanist worldwide conspiracy and you are eccentric. Point out that there is a double standard, and the Christians leap onto the cross to martyr themselves.

If I have a pretend friend who keeps me out of trouble and his name is Percy - Im a lunatic; if his name is Jesus, Im a pious christian.

P.S. Gwar don't get excited, some of your rulings are still harebrained.

**typhus**

I live there and did not hear anything
Im also an athiest

**Kilkrazy**

The UK used to have a blasphemy law but it was rescinded a few years ago. There hadn't been a successful prosecution under it for decades, thanks largely to the human rights doctrine of free speech.

Another problem was that it only protected Christianity. Britain is sufficiently diverse that it seemed unfair to protect one religion and not others such as Islam, Hinduism and Judaism.

The UK has fairly strong anti-discrimination laws (race, sex, age, etc) and also has a battery of laws regulating speech. These are usually framed as anti-hate or anti-provocation laws and in recent years have been strengthened with laws against glorifying terrorism.

My concern with anti-speech laws is that I believe stupid ideas can only be defeated if they are allowed to be spoken and then countered in the arena of public debate. Banning the public expression of hate speech only makes it fester underground.

**theocd**

Being neither an atheist nor a terribly religious guy I believe this is unbelievable. Also, like many stupid British laws how do they control it? I can see that situation unfolding. "Right, you said 'God' I'm phoning the police."

The OC-D

**SilverMK2**

* Jews can be prosecuted for saying Jesus isn’t the Messiah.

(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

Well, seeing as it is central to the Jewish faith the Jesus was not the son of "God", does that mean that any Christian gathering will be broken up and the members fined as it is blasphemous towards the Jewish faith, or indeed the Muslim faith?

In relation to the law in general, law is usually based on evidence, so why should there be laws relating towards something where there is no evidence either for or against the existance of a god (or gods)?

The extent of the law should be to protect people from abuse, but also to allow people to express their views in a non abusive way.

I do not believe in god and believe that a lot of problems in the world are or have been cause through religion (either religion itself, or the use of religion by people to manipulate others into violence/hatred/etc). I would not expect to go to jail or be fined for stating such. Neither would I demand that someone saying that Religion is great and makes people hug and love each other be fined or jailed.

There is room enough for everyone in the world and the law should reflect that. This particular law markedly skews the law against anyone not of a particular religious group, regardless of its intentions (which, I would imagine, are another example of how a few individuals can use manipulate religious intolerance to their own ends - in this case, perhaps a furtherance of the "christian" cause in ireland).

**Frazzled**

Modquisition on:

Remember folks, lets keep this discussion off casting attacks against particular countries (excepting Leichenstein of course). You can discuss this joy without insulting Ireland.

**Grignard**

Gwar! wrote:
36. Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.

(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]

(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.

37. Seizure of copies of blasphemous statements.

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorising any member of the Garda Siochana to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Siochana of all copies of the statement to which the offence related that are in the possession of any person, © specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Siochana.

(2) A member of the Garda Siochana may (a) enter and search any premises, (b) seize, remove and detain any copy of a statement to which an offence under section 36 relates found therein or in the possession of any person, in accordance with a warrant under subsection (1).

(3) Upon final judgment being given in proceedings for an offence under section 36, anything seized and removed under subsection (2) shall be disposed of in accordance with such directions as the court may give upon an application by a member of the Garda Siochana in that behalf.

http://www.palibandaily.com/2009/07/09/ireland-makes-blasphemy-illegal/

I now do not care, Someone send me money via Paypal so I can get out of this Damn Forsaken Country! Please, I am dead serious

**Kilkrazy**

The 'intent' argument and the 'reasonable person' argument give a lot of leeway for defending an action and clearly the examples you give would not be successfully prosecutable.

It may well be that after a few test cases the law will become moribund as the UK law did years ago.

The original concept of blasphemy wasn't about offending individuals, it was about insults to God and the Christian religion.

**reds8n**

Asked a friend about this, he said

Haha Irish politicians are at it again, you guys might complain about your politicians a lot but i swear they have nothing on the incompetancies of ours.

Basically they were revising defamation laws with only an hour to debate it in the Dail so they were getting bored and pretty much all agreed as they did not want to actually have to look into and investigate the new laws as that would be work when a sneaky bloke decided to slip in and tag on the blasphemy part into as an addendum to the defamation laws and since noboddy was paying attention or caring it passed this first vote.

Luckily though it will be rejected before going further as there is an atheist get together this saturday to organise a protest pointing out the stupidity and more importantly a coalition of lawyers and college professors are getting together to point out that this law can never be finally ratified by the president as it is against EU laws and human rights to the freedom of expression.

Needless to say this is another case of our well paid politicians dropping the ball because they were too lazy to read what they were voting on, and all during the run up to the second vote on the Lisbon treaty ooooppppppssss.

So given this is directly aginst a multitude of EU laws-- which the Irish will get no matter how many "NO" votes they have-- I can't see this being quite true as it stands/soon.

**Grignard**

Kilkrazy wrote:The 'intent' argument and the 'reasonable person' argument give a lot of leeway for defending an action and clearly the examples you give would not be successfully prosecutable.

It may well be that after a few test cases the law will become moribund as the UK law did years ago.

The original concept of blasphemy wasn't about offending individuals, it was about insults to God and the Christian religion.

I don't think this is necessarily the original concept of blasphemy. It is true that blasphemy, theologically, is an insult to God, and I believe it was specific to the followers of a certain religion. ( i.e. Moslems would blaspheme against their concept of God, it wouldn't apply to, say, a Hindu deity, because they don't believe in it anyhow).

I agree that the reasonable person argument would probably be used for a broad defense, as I believe the reasonable person as defined by law would definitely differentiate between a statement meant to hurt individuals and a book questioning the existence or nature of God.

**Kilkrazy**

Grignard wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:The 'intent' argument and the 'reasonable person' argument give a lot of leeway for defending an action and clearly the examples you give would not be successfully prosecutable.

It may well be that after a few test cases the law will become moribund as the UK law did years ago.

The original concept of blasphemy wasn't about offending individuals, it was about insults to God and the Christian religion.

I don't think this is necessarily the original concept of blasphemy. It is true that blasphemy, theologically, is an insult to God, and I believe it was specific to the followers of a certain religion. ( i.e. Moslems would blaspheme against their concept of God, it wouldn't apply to, say, a Hindu deity, because they don't believe in it anyhow).

I agree that the reasonable person argument would probably be used for a broad defense, as I believe the reasonable person as defined by law would definitely differentiate between a statement meant to hurt individuals and a book questioning the existence or nature of God.

Let's say blasphemy as defined in an English dictionary and in the old UK law of blasphemy. The UK law started as canon law and became part of common law in the 17th century. The reason was that in the 17th century the UK was still predominantly a christian country.

The UK law applied to anyone in the UK whatever their religion, but it only protected Christianity, in particular the Church of England. That's one reason it fall into disuse in the 20th century, as the country became more secular and more multi-cultural.

**Emperors Faithful**

At first it looked like it was way over the top, and the creation of a religeous freak, but it seems that you only get into trouble if you are just downright insulting.

It also applies to everyone, so that no religeon or sect is put above the other.

**Grignard**

Haha Irish politicians are at it again, you guys might complain about your politicians a lot but i swear they have nothing on the incompetancies of ours.

Basically they were revising defamation laws with only an hour to debate it in the Dail so they were getting bored and pretty much all agreed as they did not want to actually have to look into and investigate the new laws as that would be work when a sneaky bloke decided to slip in and tag on the blasphemy part into as an addendum to the defamation laws and since noboddy was paying attention or caring it passed this first vote.

Luckily though it will be rejected before going further as there is an atheist get together this saturday to organise a protest pointing out the stupidity and more importantly a coalition of lawyers and college professors are getting together to point out that this law can never be finally ratified by the president as it is against EU laws and human rights to the freedom of expression.

Needless to say this is another case of our well paid politicians dropping the ball because they were too lazy to read what they were voting on, and all during the run up to the second vote on the Lisbon treaty ooooppppppssss.

I don't believe it is stupidity, though I do think it brings up important questions about the freedom of expression ( should that even be a fundamental human right?) versus the freedom of worship and the desire to live in a society where people are, for lack of a better concept, nice to each other.

We wouldn't need laws like this if people would just be nice. Am I naive to think this is possible? I would think I would have the damn common decency not to tell some Moslem praying on the floor toward Mecca that he's an idiot and islam is bloodthirsty, or tell some other religious person that they're ignorant and religion is responsible for all wars, or some such assheaded comment.

I'm not saying I'm perfect, and I have said things about certain Christian sects, in private, that I have regretted in hindsight, but I like to think that I'm trying to be tolerant of others beliefs.

It is also worth mentioning that just because you have the right to say something, doesn't mean you should.

**Gwar!**

Grignard wrote:It is also worth mentioning that just because you have the right to say something, doesn't mean you should.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Evelyn Beatrice Hall on Voltaire

As relevant today as ever.

**Grignard**

Gwar! wrote:
Grignard wrote:It is also worth mentioning that just because you have the right to say something, doesn't mean you should.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Evelyn Beatrice Hall on Voltaire

As relevant today as ever.

What does that have to do with anything Gwar. There is a difference between a statement of opinion that I might well disagree with, and a comment made with the sole intent of causing pain. Words can cut like a knife Gwar, and I'm suprised that you haven't enough life experience to be aware of that fact.

**Frazzled**

With rights come responsbility. People are quite insistent about the former but have forgotten the latter.

**Gwar!**

Grignard wrote:What does that have to do with anything Gwar. There is a difference between a statement of opinion that I might well disagree with, and a comment made with the sole intent of causing pain. Words can cut like a knife Gwar, and I'm suprised that you haven't enough life experience to be aware of that fact.

Yeah, I know full well. Being an Englishman of Jewish Decent living in Ireland is so much fun, especially when you are forced to go to a Catholic school because it is the only one around for miles.

I know damn well how words can hurt, but I disagree with what they say, not their right to say it. They can say whatever thhey want about me, just as I can say whatever I want about them.

**rubiksnoob**

This law is appalling and is a huge step backwards. "Blasphemy" is just really an opinion that you don't like. When you outlaw "blasphemy" you are forbidding people from expressing their opinions, and therefore outlawing free speech.

No matter how offensive people's opinions are, they should be allowed to express them.
The only problem with that is that most people are uncivil, uneducated, and unthinking, and do not know how to respond in an appropriate manner when someone has "offended" them. Instead of just asking them why they believe what they do, and having a civil discussion about it, they typically respond with "I gonna sue that

" or in some of the more barbaric parts of the world they just kill them.

**Frazzled**

rubiksnoob wrote:

No matter how offensive people's opinions are, they should be allowed to express them.

(This is NOT directed at you rubksnoob)

Not including the poster, I find 99 out of 100 people making this statement are hypocrits of the highest order. They believe in free speech unless it offends them or one of their protected categories.

**rubiksnoob**

Yes, but so goes the world. It takes all types.

**Tyras**

Wow, I had always had a kind view of Ireland until now. I had no idea there was such a Fascist movement within that Government. I'm pretty limited on my knowledge of Irish politics though. If I were living there I would be selling all my stuff to afford the costs of fleeing that place.

**Frazzled**

Its no worse than many places here with their PC nonsense.

**Deadshane1**

is buddy christ blastphemous?

**Gwar!**

Tyras wrote:Wow, I had always had a kind view of Ireland until now. I had no idea there was such a Fascist movement within that Government. I'm pretty limited on my knowledge of Irish politics though. If I were living there I would be selling all my stuff to afford the costs of fleeing that place.

Problem is, no-one is buying because noone has any money because the Government is the most corrupt in Europe.

**Jin**

Sigh. I'm going to regret getting into this discussion, but why not....

Gwar! wrote: They can say whatever thhey want about me, just as I can say whatever I want about them.

This is the thing: They/you can say whatever they/you want.

However, there's an important distinction between saying something of positive worth and saying something of negative worth. Sadly, a lot of modern discourse is laden with the latter and it all tends to lead to a stupid positive feedback loop that just ends up making us all worse for the wear.

It is my belief that people should always have a right to free speech. It's also my belief that people don't use their right to silence nearly as much as they should.