Congratulations to atheist.ie for international publicity success

[johnfás]

Suppose I've been found to have been in violation of all other aspects of the legislation (not actually possible I think but however). Do I still have to prove lack of intent

No, it is for the prosecution to positively prove intent, it is one of the ingredients of the crime. If the prosecution cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that the publisher of the statement intended to cause outrage to a substantial number of adherents of a religion, there is no offence, irrespective of how grossly abusive or insulting the material is. Though obviously the two are somewhat intertwined as the publication of obviously and extremely offensive material might be indicative of intent, but it need not necessarily be as the two are distinct issues, each of which must be proven separately.

There are four separate ingredients to the offence as outlined above - i) publication of material ii) which is grossly abusive or insulting to matters held sacred to any religion iii) actual outrage must arise among a substantial number of adherents as a consequence of the publication iv) there must be intention to cause such outrage. All these ingredients must be proved by the prosecution - that is why I have maintained throughout this thread that the publication by Atheist Ireland was merely a publicity stunt. They know full well that the manner in which they have published renders them outside the definition of the offence within the Act. It was a simply, albeit clever, way of pretending to break the law when in fact they were not.

[nozzferrahhtoo]

Johnfas you are missing the point I feel,

With crimes like murder you have to show that the accused in fact did perform the action they are accused of. A case has to be made against you. You can then EITHER rip apart this case by showing the evidence to be false or irrelevant, OR you can establish your innocence with something else.

With this law you do not. You have to just have enough people be offended by it. The action itself is arbitrary and subjective. You merely have to be accused of it by enough people (this meaningless “substantial number” and you are then required to mount a defense.

This is NOT in the spirit of “innocent until proven guilty”. You are in fact guilty by virtue of being accused and have to then prove you

Read the text. A person who utters the Blasphemy “shall be guilty of an offence”. What is a blasphemy? Anything the right amount of people deem to be so. Unless the person can justify his intent he is therefore guilty. In other words having been declared guilty he must now establish his innocent.

Use murder as an analogy. Imagine a law that says a person will be guilty of murder is a substantial number of people accuse him of it. Come on, puhleeeese.

And how do we prove intent? Judging by the words in the law itself intent is shown by the accused failing to show otherwise.

This is intensely problematic and any notion that it is true to being “innocent until proven guilty” is yet to be established.

[drkpower]

Suppose I've been found to have been in violation of all other aspects of the legislation (not actually possible I think but however). Do I still have to prove lack of intent

It is always for the prosecution to show your intent b.a.r.d., not the reverse. You can say nothing and prove nothing if it so pleases you. It is only if and when the prosecution have shown that you have committed the ingredients of the offence do the defences become an issue and then, if you want to you, you can attempt to show, on the balance of probabilities, that your act of blasphemy had some comedic/artisitc merit etc...

[drkpower]

Johnfas you are missing the point I feel,

With crimes like murder you have to show that the accused in fact did perform the action they are accused of. A case has to be made against you. You can then EITHER rip apart this case by showing the evidence to be false or irrelevant, OR you can establish your innocence with something else.

With this law you do not. You have to just have enough people be offended by it. The action itself is arbitrary and subjective. You merely have to be accused of it by enough people (this meaningless “substantial number” and you are then required to mount a defense.

This is NOT in the spirit of “innocent until proven guilty”. You are in fact guilty by virtue of being accused and have to then prove you

.

Utter rubbish. We have both explained the 4 ingredients of the offence. It is clear in the legislation. How you can continue to get this wrong is baffling and embarrassing.

As a hint, try reading the definition of 'blasphemous matter'.

Read the text. A person who utters the Blasphemy “shall be guilty of an offence”. What is a blasphemy? Anything the right amount of people deem to be so. Unless the person can justify his intent he is therefore guilty. In other words having been declared guilty he must now establish his innocent..

What?!
The definition of 'blasphemous matter' is in there!! Read it.
Seriously, are you trying to mis-interpret the act or do you really believe what you are saying is true.
This is pretty embarrassing.

[Christine Murray]

Excuse me but FF/Green have created a criminalisation for blasphemy WHILST eluding it's definition. Ahern is no philosopher but a politico with a messianic complex. Does he want a Rushdie, Qatada, Joyce or Rouault to illustrate how flawed and subjective his idiocy actually is : Let's challenge the new blasphemy law that denies us our fundamental human rights - Signatures

[nozzferrahhtoo]

Second, where did you get this from....?!: "the crime is a crime as soon as a "substantial number" of people (whatever this means) are offended and they lodge the complaint."
Rubbish!! The law requires the following:

Maybe my wording is bad but what I mean is that the law is only considered when this "substantial number" comes into play.

“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”

With other crimes things are clearer. It is spelt out exactly what you have to do in order to commit the crime. Here however it is not. I might write an article saying that mini skirts are coming back in for women. If a "substantial number" of a religion (Say Islam) decide this is offensive this law kicks in.

The law then says the onus is on ME to prove that I had good intent in writing what I did. How can I do this? How can I PROVE I didn't write my article because I knew all muslims would be upset at my suggesting women wear revealing clothing?

How do we legislate for intent in this matter? I am dying to hear it clarified. I am also agog to hear what "substantial number" actually means. Totally agog.

However, I can tell you now I like Mini skirts and I fully intend for that to offend as many people as it can

[nozzferrahhtoo]

What?!
The definition of 'blasphemous matter' is in there!! Read it.
Seriously, are you trying to mis-interpret the act or do you really believe what you are saying is true.
This is pretty embarrassing.

You seem so sure but so unable to explain it either.

Explain it to me then. How is intent legislated for in these cases? If I write an article say... on the subject of changing the ingredients of the Eucharist slightly to make it taste better, maybe with a bit more sugar and salt... and this magical imaginary number of "substantial" people take offense how is my "intent" to be established? Why does the law specify, as it does, that I must show that my actions had some merit in order to defend myself? Why must I even have to establish a defense at all simply because X people were offended and not X-1? In fact since there is no legislating for what may or may not offend someone, how can ANYONE intend to cause offense under this law since no one knows what will cause offense in the first place? If your perspective on this law is true, and I really hope it is by the way, the law appears to entirely negate itself from the outset does it not?

[drkpower]

With other crimes things are clearer. It is spelt out exactly what you have to do in order to commit the crime. Here however it is not. I might write an article saying that mini skirts are coming back in for women. If a "substantial number" of a religion (Say Islam) decide this is offensive this law kicks in.

NO IT DOESNT!!!!

1. It must be 'outrage'
2. That outrage is (probably) objectively judged
3. (and this is the key bit) It must be proven by the prosecution, b.a.r.d., that you intended this outrage. [SIZE="1"]Not that you intended insult, or laughter, or derision, but outrage.[/SIZE]

Only then, do the defences even become an issue.

The mere fact that a substantial number of Muslims think something is only one small part of this offence. Please stop making me correct things that you should be able to spot for yourself.

[Christine Murray]

The fact stands that FF/Green have created a criminalisation for blasphemy whilst eluding a definition thereof.

[Cato]

How do we legislate for intent in this matter? I am dying to hear it clarified. I am also agog to hear what "substantial number" actually means. Totally agog.

Indeed. If a substantial number is a percentage of believers then it acts against large religions as it will be more difficult to 'assemble' the number required. If it is a number of people then it goes against small religions as they may not have the numbers required even if all of them find the published matter blasphemous.

This is bad law. It contains a number of flaws such as the one above. It seems to have been passed without the expectation that no one will ever be prosecuted under it.

It is also bad law because no modern republic should have such a law on its books. Other, islamic, countries are now using it at international level to try and force blasphemy to be an international crime.

No one, even on this website, has attempted to defend this as a good law.