Atheist Ireland letter to the President re: Blasphemy

[Mercurial]

Atheist Ireland has sent a letter to the President of Ireland, outlining our concerns about the constitutionality of the new blasphemy law, for her to consider before she discusses the issue with the Council of State tomorrow. In our letter we argue the following:

* The law is contrary to the guarantees of equality under the law enshrined in Article 40.1 of the Irish Constitution, and of freedom of conscience and religion enshrined in Article 44.2.

* The law is contrary to Article 44.2.3 of the Irish Constitution, which says that the State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

* The law shifts the burden of proof to the defendant in contravention of Article 38 of the Constitution, and of Schedule 1, Article 6, 2. and 3(a) of the European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003.

* The law does not meet the standard of prevention of imminent public disorder that made the old English blasphemy law compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights.

* The definitions in the law are too vague to allow citizens to regulate their conduct, and it could make it unlawful for a religious citizen to inform his co-religionists about a statement he believes to be blasphemous.

Is the Blasphemy Law Unconstitutional? | blasphemy.ie


Nicely-written letter spelling out the craziness of the proposed law. Also, here's a relevant article from today's Irish Times. Blasphemy provisions clash with Constitution - The Irish Times - Wed, Jul 22, 2009

[Panopticon]

OTOH, blasphemy is required to be prohibited in the constitution, so that would seem to overrule other constitutional objections based on inferences from different articles. I'm not a lawyer but the case strikes me as not convincing.

[the_Observer]

Hopefully some whack job like Muj will attempt to prosecute a high profile figure like Myers under the blasphemy act. A few high profile cases brought by minorities should drive home the stupidly of this law.

This quote sums up how I feel about the Blasphemy bill : Atheists are being disarmed.

The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.

True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy.

— H L Mencken, "Aftermath" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)

Scopes Trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mercurial]

OTOH, blasphemy is required to be prohibited in the constitution, so that would seem to overrule other constitutional objections based on inferences from different articles. I'm not a lawyer but the case strikes me as not convincing.

Presumably a distinction could be made between the requirement that *some* blasphemy law be in place, and the contents of this particular attempt at a blasphemy law. It’s only a half-assed solution, but that’s probably all we can expect considering the best way to solve the problem would be to have a referendum.

[seabhcan]

Presumably a distinction could be made between the requirement that *some* blasphemy law be in place, and the contents of this particular attempt at a blasphemy law. It’s only a half-assed solution, but that’s probably all we can expect considering the best way to solve the problem would be to have a referendum.

Indeed, the fine could be 1 cent.

But I don't buy this "there has to be a law" stuff. For 30 years the constitution has demanded that all university graduates should have a vote in the Senate. They still don't.

[Panopticon]

Presumably a distinction could be made between the requirement that *some* blasphemy law be in place, and the contents of this particular attempt at a blasphemy law. It’s only a half-assed solution, but that’s probably all we can expect considering the best way to solve the problem would be to have a referendum.

I think the Atheist Ireland letter is a case against any blasphemy law, and a well-made one, but we still have Dev's Testament to deal with. Unfortunately I can't see the Council of State referring the Defamation Bill to the Supremes. I think the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill is more likely to be sent up.

[Geckko]

To say "it's in the consitution" is a poor argument.

I thought the Constitution stated:

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

That is plain:

It is an offence.
It shall be punishable.
In accordance with the law.

Maybe there is a nicety that consitutional lawyers would haggle, but I can't see anywhere there why there must be a law. It simply states that "the law" will stipulate how it will be punished.

If there is no law, then it is simply an "offence" which doesn't get punished (i.e. in accordance with the law).

If a constitutional lawyer could argue that this clause does require a law be written, what is the requirement that it be subject to any punishment at all. How about a maximum fine of one cent?

[Munion]

Hopefully some whack job like Muj will attempt to prosecute a high profile figure like Myers under the blasphemy act. A few high profile cases brought by minorities should drive home the stupidly of this law.

Which is exactly why it is best that the president signs it and then has it challenged in a real life case before the supreme court rather than the supreme court making it's decision in isolation.

It's an utterly ridiculous law and there should be a referendum to amend the constitution.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Hopefully some whack job like Muj will attempt to prosecute a high profile figure like Myers under the blasphemy act. A few high profile cases brought by minorities should drive home the stupidly of this law.

This quote sums up how I feel about the Blasphemy bill : Atheists are being disarmed.


Scopes Trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tried to pos rep this poster but it appears I did so for another post recently so cannot respond in the usual way.

Not only is the quoted piece very relevant I think but any post containing the work of Mencken instantly makes the level of debate more elegant

[corelli]

OTOH, blasphemy is required to be prohibited in the constitution, so that would seem to overrule other constitutional objections based on inferences from different articles. I'm not a lawyer but the case strikes me as not convincing.

Well, legislation implementing a constitutional provision have to accord/be in sympathy with the other provisions of the Constitution and not conflict with it. So when they indicate that there may be a difficulty with the Equality provisions of the constitution when judged against this legislation they have an interesting legal point. It should be pointed out, however, that the equality provisions in the Constitution are not particularly strong.