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.

**Frazzled**

Thats a sig.

**Gwar!**

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

Not any more I can't.

**rubiksnoob**

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

THIS IS RIDICULOUS. I'm not Jewish, but when you look at this it's just so completely ridiculous. A Jewish person saying that Jesus was not the messiah is just stating one of the central tenets of his/her faith. This is so ridiculous I don't know whether to laugh or cry. This would be funny if it wasn't real.

Just imagine:

Christian: Jesus is the messiah. (Jew is offended)
Christian is prosecuted for blasphemy
Jew: Jesus is not the messiah. (Christian is offended)
Jew is prosecuted for blasphemy
Atheist: There is no god. (Religious person is offended)
Atheist is prosecuted for blasphemy
Agnostic: There may or may not be a god. (Atheist and Religious Person are offended)
Agnostic is prosecuted for blasphemy

So basically, under this law, ANY declaration of belief could be considered blasphemy. This is a disgusting, blatant violation of free speech.

**Jin**

You can if it's not intended to cause outrage.

**Grignard**

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

THIS IS RIDICULOUS. I'm not Jewish, but when you look at this it's just so completely ridiculous. A Jewish person saying that Jesus was not the messiah is just stating one of the central tenets of his/her faith. This is so ridiculous I don't know whether to laugh or cry. This would be funny if it wasn't real.

Just imagine:

Christian: Jesus is the messiah. (Jew is offended)
Christian is prosecuted for blasphemy
Jew: Jesus is not the messiah. (Christian is offended)
Jew is prosecuted for blasphemy
Atheist: There is no god. (Religious person is offended)
Atheist is prosecuted for blasphemy
Agnostic: There may or may not be a god. (Atheist and Religious Person are offended)

So basically, under this law, ANY declaration of belief could be considered blasphemy. This is a disgusting, blatant violation of free speech.

Do you disagree with my analysis of it in my earlier post, or are you just not reading the other posts?

**Gwar!**

Jin wrote:You can if it's not intended to cause outrage.

And who defines the intent? The person saying it? If that is the case the law could never be used.

No, the "intent" is defined by the "offended". So, your Church service is offensive to my Jewish Beliefs, that is Blasphemy, and I say it was inteneded to cause outrage.

**Tyras**

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

True, to a point. I can publish an article saying the Muslims are violent terrorists who seek to stamp out any culture or religion that doesn't fit the quran's vision. I would then be sued by the ACLU and every anti defamation organization under the sun incurring astronomical legal fees, which would have the same effect on my fianances of maintaining that view in the new Stallinesque Ireland and getting fined 25K Eruos every time I expressed those views.

The difference being that one day when I'm old and grey and the last hyper sensitive, first amendment hating D-bag has their case thrown out because it would violate my Constitutional rights to express my opinion I can then sue for damages in the cost all of those people inflicted on me through frivilous lawsuites, of course I'll probably be dead before seeing one penny of it lol. I hate PC, grow thicker skin people!

Note: I do not hold the view of the example given, so you can unbunch your panties.

**Frazzled**

Tyras wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Its no worse than many places here with their PC nonsense.

True, to a point. I can publish an article saying the Muslims are violent terrorists who seek to stamp out any culture or religion that doesn't fit the quran's vision. I would then be sued by the ACLU and every anti defamation organization under the sun incurring astronomical legal fees, which would have the same effect on my fianances of maintaining that view in the new Stallinesque Ireland and getting fined 25K Eruos every time I expressed those views.

The difference being that one day when I'm old and grey and the last hyper sensitive, first amendment hating D-bag has their case thrown out because it would violate my Constitutional rights to express my opinion I can then sue for damages in the cost all of those people inflicted on me through frivilous lawsuites, of course I'll probably be dead before seeing one penny of it lol. I hate PC, grow thicker skin people!

No, you can't. You will just be poor. Frivolous is an impossible standard under the law. I know, more than likely anyone who has ever ever posted on Dakka.
Its the reason I am the cranky old bitter man we all love.

Frazzled when he was your age

Frazzled now

and thats on a good day.

**rubiksnoob**

* The library, with its collection of books deemed blasphemous.

Under this law would religious texts not be deemed offensive and therefore blasphemous?

Shhhhh. Don't tell anyone you have a bible, you might offend the Jews and Muslims. Don't tell anyone you have a Qu'ran either, you might offend the Jews and Christians. Oh, and keep your Torah hidden away, you might offend the Chistians and Muslims.

**Grignard**

Gwar! wrote:
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.

No, being a Jew in Germany during the Nazi's time in power was so much fun. You'll live. On the other hand, while being a minority you can't expect everyone around to make allowances for you, I DO NOT believe they have the right to blantant verbal abuse. You shouldn't have to put up with that.

rubiksnoob wrote: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.

I disagree with that statement. That is something I believe you have the right to do. I DO NOT, however, believe that free speech implies that you have the right to verbally abuse someone. I do not think you should have have the right to use words simply to hurt and offend and for no other reason. That is where that "reasonable person" clause comes in. I think most people would differentiate between an opinion that may be contraversial and may indeed make people angry, and a statement made with the sole purpose of hurting someone.

**Kilkrazy**

Gwar! wrote:
Jin wrote:You can if it's not intended to cause outrage.
And who defines the intent? The person saying it? If that is the case the law could never be used.

No, the "intent" is defined by the "offended". So, your Church service is offensive to my Jewish Beliefs, that is Blasphemy, and I say it was inteneded to cause outrage.

The court would decide on the issue of intent, holding in mind the principle of the 'reasonable person'.

**Grignard**

rubiksnoob wrote:

* The library, with its collection of books deemed blasphemous.

Under this law would religious texts not be deemed offensive and therefore blasphemous?

Shhhhh. Don't tell anyone you have a bible, you might offend the Jews and Muslims. Don't tell anyone you have a Qu'ran either, you might offend the Jews and Christians. Oh, and keep your Torah hidden away, you might offend the Chistians and Muslims.

No, nowhere in that law is that implied or stated.

**Jin**

Gwar! wrote:And who defines the intent? The person saying it? If that is the case the law could never be used.

No, the "intent" is defined by the "offended". So, your Church service is offensive to my Jewish Beliefs, that is Blasphemy, and I say it was inteneded to cause outrage.

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.

Parts 2 and 3, as Grignard pointed out, are the crucial points for this law.

There's a difference between screaming out "Christianity is stupid and Jesus wasn't the messiah!" and saying "The Jewish faith, in which I believe/practice, does not consider Jesus as being the messiah" and vice-versa. Being incredibly thin-skinned about other peoples' beliefs and going off at every little comment would probably make a person not "a reasonable person" as well, as mentioned in section 3. You can have discourse expressing differing opinions WITHOUT getting into a screaming match and necessarily causing offense.

That being said, I still think this law is silly.

**Orkeosaurus**

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.

True.

Just because you shouldn't say something doesn't mean you can force people into silence.

Frazzled wrote:
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.

I find that occurs all of the time as well. "Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can be racist!"

"Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can cause 'emotional harm' to others!"

It bodes poorly.

reds8n wrote: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.

That's a relief.

Yeah, stuff always get slipped in legislature like that. Hopefully this is shot down.

**Frazzled**

Agreed. I could see the good purposes of it, but the harm it could cause far outweighs it. Simple enforcement of the eggregious aspects through normal means should be sufficient.

(prosecuting vandalism in a draconian fashion, that sort of thing).

**Jin**

Frazzled wrote:Thats a sig.

W00t! My first sigging!

**Frazzled**

Jin wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Thats a sig.

W00t! My first sigging!

Its important to let it go to your head.

**rubiksnoob**

grignard wrote:
rubiksnoob wrote: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.

I disagree with that statement. That is something I believe you have the right to do. I DO NOT, however, believe that free speech implies that you have the right to verbally abuse someone. I do not think you should have have the right to use words simply to hurt and offend and for no other reason. That is where that "reasonable person" clause comes in. I think most people would differentiate between an opinion that may be contraversial and may indeed make people angry, and a statement made with the sole purpose of hurting someone.

If someone is hurt by something someone else said they will of course think that it was with the sole purpose to hurt them. They will be blind to any other explanation because they have been hurt. You have the right to say what ever you want but whether or not you abuse that right is a completely different matter. I agree that you should think before you speak, but regrettably, that is something that the vast majority of people do not do.

Unfortunately, most people are just great big bags of hot air and a mouth with no brain.
That is why some people feel that this law is necessary.

**Orkeosaurus**

Prosecuting harassment should also be sufficient in most cases.

**Grignard**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
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.
True.

Just because you shouldn't say something doesn't mean you can force people into silence.

I think people deserve to be free of blatant verbal abuse, whether it applies to religion or not.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
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.
I find that occurs all of the time as well. "Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can be racist!"

"Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can cause 'emotional harm' to others!"

It bodes poorly.

**rubiksnoob**

Grignard wrote:
You're missing the difference between laws requiring you to be a civilized being and over senstive PC crap. For instance, the way I believe, you shouldn't run up to a black man and scream out that he is a "disgusting n---", at least not if you want to keep all your teeth. However, I think you DO have the right to say " I don't particularly care for n----ers", even if that could offend.

See the difference?

I agree that you shouldn't but the law should not say that you can't.

**Grignard**

rubiksnoob wrote:
Grignard wrote:
You're missing the difference between laws requiring you to be a civilized being and over senstive PC crap. For instance, the way I believe, you shouldn't run up to a black man and scream out that he is a "disgusting n---", at least not if you want to keep all your teeth. However, I think you DO have the right to say " I don't particularly care for n----ers", even if that could offend.

See the difference?

I agree that you shouldn't but the law should not say that you can't.

I disagree, I think the law should be able to differentiate between contraversial statements that may offend, and blatant verbal abuse. That is where the "reasonable person" comes in. You admit that you shouldn't do the former, and while you may not like it, you think the latter is an opinion, am I right? Do you not think a "reasonable person" as the law defines it can also tell a difference?

**rubiksnoob**

The problem with what the law defines blatant verbal abuse as is that it will be what those that make the law define it as, not what everyone defines blatant verbal abuse as. This is why the government should not make the end all be all definition for what is offensive and what is not.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

**Cane**

I guess one too many heated arguments in pubs had something to do with this bill.

I wonder if such a bill was in America how Neo Nazi and Ku Klux Klan movements would do. Same deal with abortion clinics and just protest in general. More examples come to mind: door to door Mormons and guys preaching about god in supposedly secular environments like a college campus.

In any case I see a lot of frivolous lawsuits in the future for Ireland and they'll probably get a significant gain in $$$ due to all the court costs that will ensue.

**Grignard**

rubiksnoob wrote:The problem with what the law defines blatant verbal abuse as is that it will be what those that make the law define it as, not what everyone defines blatant verbal abuse as. This is why the government should not make the end all be all definition for what is offensive and what is not.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

The ironic thing is that is exactly what many religious conservatives say in the US ( I can understand libertarian conservatives saying it, but I believe the religious right ought to be very careful with that, for just this reason).

Who is going to define verbal abuse then? I can consider that your criticism of my painted models is verbal abuse, but you know as well as I do it is not. I think the law can reasonably differentiate between contreversial statements and words meant solely to hurt. In short, yes, perhaps the government should define what is offensive, because who else will?

EDIT: By offensive in the last sentence of my statement, I believe something that is an assault on another person, not just "potentially offensive"

**youngblood**

Verbal abuse can be just as traumatic as physical violence. Either there should be some boundaries in both areas or no boundaries at all. Meaning I can kick your ass whenever I feel like it

**Kilkrazy**

rubiksnoob wrote:The problem with what the law defines blatant verbal abuse as is that it will be what those that make the law define it as, not what everyone defines blatant verbal abuse as. This is why the government should not make the end all be all definition for what is offensive and what is not.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

I don't know about the USA but in Britain laws usually refer to 'reasonable', a 'reasonable person' and so on, as does this Irish proposed law.

This means we don't have to define that 'ming' is offensive to French speakers while 'ploop' is acceptable to German speakers or whatever.

Sensible people (reasonable people) have a pretty fair idea about what is or is not acceptable, and when they sit on a jury they are capable of making a good decision.

**Orkeosaurus**

Grignard wrote:
You're missing the difference between laws requiring you to be a civilized being and over senstive PC crap. For instance, the way I believe, you shouldn't run up to a black man and scream out that he is a "disgusting n---", at least not if you want to keep all your teeth. However, I think you DO have the right to say " I don't particularly care for n----ers", even if that could offend.

See the difference?

Ah, I suppose "blatant verbal abuse" is the kind of thing that's good to be defined by example, as there's a lot of people out there who would define both of those as "blatant verbal abuse".

I think there's a right to privacy that should come into play in such situations, as trying to impose communication on someone who does not wish to be spoken to begins to violates their rights. Same as standing outside someone's house all day calling them "terrorists" or "baby-killers" or whatever.

However, the guy at the white supremacist rally has a right to call black people "disgusting n---s", regardless. Even if a person who would be offended (i.e. most people) walked past and didn't know the rally was held that day.

(Assuming calling black people "disgusting n---s" all he's doing. Telling people to go threaten local black community leaders or something would be another issue.)

**Grignard**

Kilkrazy wrote:
rubiksnoob wrote:The problem with what the law defines blatant verbal abuse as is that it will be what those that make the law define it as, not what everyone defines blatant verbal abuse as. This is why the government should not make the end all be all definition for what is offensive and what is not.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

I don't know about the USA but in Britain laws usually refer to 'reasonable', a 'reasonable person' and so on, as does this Irish proposed law.

This means we don't have to define that 'ming' is offensive to French speakers while 'ploop' is acceptable to German speakers or whatever.

Sensible people (reasonable people) have a pretty fair idea about what is or is not acceptable, and when they sit on a jury they are capable of making a good decision.

I'm not a legal scholar, but I know that US laws sometimes use the concept of a "reasonable person" because I just finished reading a book about the Cocoanut Grove fire in Boston. The owner was prosecuted with manslaughter because it was ruled that even though he was never challenged by fire inspectors, a reasonable person should have known that the conditions in his establishment caused a fire hazzard.

**Fifty**

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.

And I don't think this would stop me stating my opinion that faith is a character flaw and shows weakness, and that organised religion is an overall negative influence.

(Having said that, everyone has character flaws, and I forgive most of them, including religiosity, and many organised religious groups do fine work.)