Ireland poised to pass anti blasphemy law

By • on April 30, 2009

A NEW crime of blasphemous libel is to be proposed by the Minister for Justice in an amendment to the Defamation Bill, which will be discussed by the Oireachtas committee on justice today.

At the moment there is no crime of blasphemy on the statute books, though it is prohibited by the Constitution.

Article 40 of the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech, qualifies it by stating: “The State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

“The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent material is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”

Last year the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of Fianna Fáil TD Seán Ardagh, recommended amending this Article to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafting the Article along the lines of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression.

The prohibition on blasphemy dates back to English law aimed at protecting the established church, the Church of England, from attack. It has been used relatively recently to prosecute satirical publications in the UK.

In the only Irish case taken under this article, Corway -v- Independent Newspapers, in 1999, the Supreme Court concluded that it was impossible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists”.

It also stated that a special protection for Christianity was incompatible with the religious equality provisions of Article 44.

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern proposes to insert a new section into the Defamation Bill, stating: “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.”

“Blasphemous matter” is defined as 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 he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may issue a warrant authorising the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary using reasonable force, a premises where the member of the force has reasonable grounds for believing there are copies of the blasphemous statements in order to seize them.

Labour spokesman on justice Pat Rabbitte is proposing an amendment to this section which would reduce the maximum fine to €1,000 and exclude from the definition of blasphemy any matter that had any literary, artistic, social or academic merit.

This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times

Related Entries

Recent Entries

Comments

By Jochen Stacker on April 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

Is this a joke?
No, really, this must be a joke!
An attempt at humour by the Government?
Seriously boys, get back to work and pass some proper laws that actually help the country.

By Patrick on May 1st, 2009 at 8:54 am

“Blasphemous matter” is defined as 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 he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

WELL YOU KNOW WHAT?

F U C K G O D!

By James Cohen on May 1st, 2009 at 9:16 am

Are ya right there Father Ted?

By Shane Murphy on May 5th, 2009 at 4:23 pm

The law is designed to stop people being “Grossly” offensive about someone’s religion, in the same way you cant be grossly offensive about someone’s race. This is a good thing. People should be allowed to believe whatever they like without the risk of being abused by other members of society who think their belief is ridiculous.

I am the least religious person in the world but think that if I walked passed someone in the street who was being “grossly offensive” to a muslim / catholic / Hindu person I would hope the law would afford the victim of the abuse some protection.

Remember that this is proposed to be part of the defamation act and thus saying things like “Fuck God” I would imagine is not what it covers. It will cover person to person statements like “Your god is a fucking moron and I want to shit on your church.” Saying something like that is clearly offensive and should not be allowed in a civilised society.

The current law covers racial abuse and I think it makes sense that it covers abuse regarding one’s religion too as these days religious discrimination is almost more prevalent than racial.

By journeyman on May 6th, 2009 at 12:44 am

@Shane Murphy
Infact this is back-room capitulation to the recent demands made by the 57 ´totalitarian contries O.I.C (Organisation Islamic Conference)at the U.N.convention,(criminalization of the defamation of Islam )to be introduced into Western criminal legislation.
Death by a thousand tiny cuts,sanctioned by the unelected E.U.council to oil up society, to bend over and welcome Eurabia.
It is also a negation of Article 19 of the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
One this central pillar of free-speech and Western Civilization goes we will be on the slippery slope back to the 18th century and helpless against expansionist,non-muslim-ophobic,aparthide Islam.
The endless concessions and appeasment to this most privileged and sentitive of religions is clear indication that if our fate is abandoned to the Multi-cultural-guilt ridden “Left”,the future security of Europe may be seriously comprimised.

By Shane Murphy on May 6th, 2009 at 9:24 am

@journeyman

Wow what a theory! : ) Do you have any evidence to support your “theory” or did you just write a whole load of disconnected information and hope that the reader would presume you knew what you were talking about?

May I remind you that you don’t need to go back as far as the 18th century to see why laws restricting the freedom of speech have been passed. Little events in history such as Apartheid, Black Suppression in the US, The Holocaust, have all led to the realisation that discrimination and repression in all its forms should be illegal… this includes verbal forms.

Also luckily we live in mature democracies and we can at any time boot out the people making these decision if it gets out of hand. I received a first in EU law so have a pretty good handle on the workings of the European legislative process. Remind me who the European Council are and why the EU is structured the way it is? I thought it was made up of the democratically elected heads of state? I must have missed the lectures on the EU being undemocratic. Remind me what the European parliaments function is? What is separation of power again?? I really am getting terribly forgetful.

Your argument and arguments which are similarly ridiculously one sided actually hurt the very cause you are fighting for. These points of view simply polarise opinion and nothing gets done. I believe firmly in freedom of speech. I dont believe in allowing people be outrageously offensive. I could quite rightly call you an idiot. I shouldnt however be able to incite racism or hatred by atacking your religion or race. It’s as simple as that

By James Cohen on May 6th, 2009 at 10:59 am

This looks interesting. Britain and the E.U. http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=7744

Also, any examples of restriction on political speech or opinion that actually achieved it’s desired effect at least in terms of liberal goals would be much appreciated.

By journeyman on May 8th, 2009 at 10:06 pm

@ Shane Murphy
Well Shane,hope you enjoyed the video just under your last comment.Looks like I,m not the only “misinformed idiot”running around.

“little events in history such as Apartheid,Black suppression in the U.S ”

Well you are not exactly keeping on track here are you?
But as we are here–
Last Countries to Abolish Slavery
Iran 1928
Ethiopia 1942
Quatar 1952
Saudi Arabia 1962
Mauritania 1981 ( just thought you should know.)
Do check out “The Barcelona Process ” starting 2010,the gradual integration of Morocco,Algeria,Tunisia,Egypt,Israel,Jordan,Lebanon,Syria and Turkey into the E.U.Popualtion 280.million.(Everybody with telepathic powers has heard about it)
A first in E.U.Law You say.
Then you must know that the my country has just had it,s constitution over-ridden and can know longer determine the fate of its own future.Like immigration policy for example.(and we are wondering how many more people will die.)
Of course its not going to end there is it?
If you study up on the Koran and Islam,and you are as concerned about black suppression in the U,S.A and The Holocaust as you claim to be,you may well find that under some circumstances and concerning some religions,Blasphemy,should be not just a right ,but a duty.
Infact the best way to avoid the next race-enslavement or Holocaust might just be the freedom to tell somebody exactly what you think of their,quaint rustical,pious–xenophobic,racist,sexist,expansionist,non-Muslim-ophobic philiosophy.(oh sorry I fogot to add psychopathic )
And as you mention the Holocaust.In 1942,before the establishment of the state of Israel,some where in the Balkans,two divisions of troops,well equipped by the German army,was helping to erradicate Jews.They were not German and they just following orders..from a little book called the Koran.
So before taking sides,its always wise to check out exactly who you are fighting for.
Regards journeyman

By James Cohen on May 8th, 2009 at 10:58 pm

Shane Murphy:
If you are to ridicule someone for their race, then its one matter. However a set of beliefs do not gain validity no matter how many people decide those beliefs are true nor even if they decide those beliefs are sacred. Should all people on earth decide that for example, music is a great sin, images of natural objects are a blaspheme to god and punishable by death and that hospitals in the UK should not have paintings or photos of churches in them as they find it offensive, I would still be playing music sculpting and enjoying images of some of Europe’s finest architecture.

A person does not get to set the agenda or rights of others because they more or less arbitrarily decide a thing is counter to what they hold sacred. Your post, takes a reasonable position on whats offensive. But the moment you decide people have a right not to be offended you give them the power to dictate your rights through their beliefs. I realize that all the examples I gave are extreme and horrifying. However every one of them is taking place now from Pakistan to the UK.

You also failed to define abuse. If a person were to wear an image of Mohamed on a T shirt that person be criminally liable because some decide that is offensive? What if they wore an image of anyone on a T shirt? what if they where told for instance, that they may not wear pants and shirts but must wear traditional Islamic garb as doctors in Pakistani hospitals where told today? Where is your line in terms of accommodation to peoples sense of offense please?

By DP111 on May 15th, 2009 at 1:49 pm

I will drop the coyness, and state outright that all this fuss is because of Islam and Muslims, though the governments, the EU and the UN, are trying to pretend that it is for all religions and faiths. No one ever bothered about these matters until Muslim immigrants took offence at our freedom to be rude about any religion, and most particularly about Islam and its founder Mohammed. And what if the so-called “blasphemy” was not really blasphemy but actually the truth about a religion? Did Mohammed have sex with a child, and does that make him paedophile? Legitimate comment or blasphemy? Mohammed raided caravans for profit – does that make Mohammed a brigand – legitimate comment or blasphemy? Do the above two facts destroy all claims of Mohammed being a genuine prophet, in the truest meaning of the word. Blasphemy or legitimate comment? And so on. Muslims are bombing and shooting their way across the whole world, while shouting “allahu ackbar”. So would depicting Mohammed with a bomb under his turban be a justifiable caricature of Islam or blasphemy?

I can understand that we should be well mannered, as well as mindful of our own necks, and not say anything negative about Islam in a Muslim country. But I fail to see why Muslim immigrants, who are here at our sufferance, should dictate with threats of violence, what we can say, read or write. They knew full well before they came here, that we had freedoms for which we went through two world wars, and were unlikely to give them up just to please Muslims. For be certain, that is not just about speech, but will extend to what we can write, and thus what we can read. And who will decide – of course the EU or government apparatchiks.

By DP111 on May 15th, 2009 at 1:55 pm

James Cohen

Good points.

By James Cohen on May 15th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

DP111 well said. Please disseminate your last comment as widely as possible.

By DP111 on May 16th, 2009 at 6:04 am

James

Use it as and when you feel it is appropriate.

By Truth Defender on July 25th, 2009 at 2:18 pm

Still talking about Islam? DO you think that the western polititians who CAUSED more than 1 million muslims to be killed in Iraq will do anything to protect muslims (see how fair I am saying caused NOT killed). And do you know what was it all about. I guess you do..(you are smart enough as you found your way to this page)..but if you frgot, it was about weapons of mass destruction. You western guys pretend to be smart all the time, while your politician can radiculously make you believe that weapons of mass destruction can be held in a hand bag. Still, that what it was about the actuall thing was the so-called 9/11 that has caused every muslim in this world to be termed a terrorist. That was actually and inside job performed to convice you guys that envading the countries of these *bad guys* is legitimate and that they are too dangerous on your souls. This fact was known by almost eveybody now exept that idiots or dumps who only listens to their own thoughts. See the videos by Alex Jones and loads of other ones that you can google for yourself:

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENIE332&q=inside+job+911&meta=
also see
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraq.html
and the very well known one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

Still talking a bout demogracy??

Thanks.

By James Cohen on July 25th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

‘At http://vladtepesblog.com/?page_id=1715 if you scroll down to…

“WMD’s a film about Saddam and his regime of murder and torture.”

You will see a film there showing how Saddam’s regime was to its Muslim inhabitants. While the claim of ‘one million Muslims’ is wholly unsubstantiated by the author of the above comment, one ‘Truth Defender’, this movie will offer substantial evidence of what may have been the greatest rescue of Muslim people from a tyrant and monster, namely Saddam Husein, in recent history. Many in fact would argue that Clinton also saved millions of Muslims from the Serbs. In other words, the action in Iraq was, if nothing else, one of compassion for the inhabitants of Iraq. If Bush had to misdirect in terms of WMD’s, (and this was not the case at all, I have other film evidence that even the UN ordered Saddam’s Calutrons bombed during the Clinton years, to show that it was more than reasonable to assume Saddam was working on the WMD project and Gerald Bull should be enough evidence alone)it would have been a small price to pay to end the sick, barbaric, torturous, twisted regime of Saddam Husein. However this is not the point.
1. There is no evidence for a million people killed during the Iraq war. This claim is a rhetorical device and nothing else.
2. To not liberate the people of Iraq from a monster like Saddam when you have the means to do so would be a crime. I hope the people of the USA will find it in their hearts and pocketbooks to free the people of North Korea, the worlds largest prison sometime soon from a third generation of what will likely be monsters of biblical proportions who reward their people for slavery with starvation.

James Cohen

By Josephine S. on October 28th, 2009 at 11:04 am

tracing the anti blasphemy law in ireland back to the results of a multicultural society is astonishingly stupid. far more this development needs to be contextualised within the overall securitisation of the EU in and the blurring of legislation and introduction of new legislation to the means of executive forces.

Trackbacks