Are there blasphemy laws in this country?

[bnbn]

I'm curious to know if there are still blasphemy laws in this country. Does anyone know?

[returning officer]

Yes (I think). But probably contrary to the common law.

[johnfás]

It is the only crime outlined in the Constitution so far as I remember. It is virtually unpunishable though, owing to a lack of a legal definition. This was demonstrated recently over in England with the Jerry Springer Opera Case.

Article 40

6. 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:

i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, 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 matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

[fergalr]

The courts have said that they have absolutely no idea how to interpret blasphemy so it's a non-issue.

[mairteenpak]

The issue has been covered before during the rampage of pauriceenjack

[Zyklon B]

Read www.lawsociety.ie/Gazette/april06.pdf+blasphemous+libel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10& gl=ie]here, Law Society Gazette[/url].

Here, at Irishstatutebook.ie
13.—(1) Every person who composes, prints or publishes any blasphemous or obscene libel shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both fine and imprisonment or to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years.
[GA]

( a ) In every case in which a person is convicted of composing, printing or publishing a blasphemous libel, the court may make an order for the seizure and carrying away and detaining in safe custody, in such manner as shall be directed in the order, of all copies of the, libel in the possession of such person or of any other person named in the order for his use, evidence upon oath having been previously given to the satisfaction of the court that copies of the said libel are in the possession of such other person for the use of the person convicted.
[GA]

( b ) Upon the making of an order under paragraph (a)of this subsection, any member of the Garda Síochána acting under such order may enter, if necessary by the use of force, and search for any copies of the said libel any building, house or other place belonging to the person convicted or to such other person named in the order and may seize and carry away and detain in the manner directed in such order all copies of the libel found therein.
[GA]

( c ) If, in any such case, the conviction is quashed on appeal, any copies of the libel seized under an order under paragraph (a)of this subsection shall be returned free of charge to the person or persons from whom they were seized.
[GA]

( d ) Where, in any such case, an appeal is not lodged or the conviction is confirmed on appeal, any copies of the libel seized under an order under paragraph (a)of this subsection shall, on the application of a member of the Garda Síochána to the court which made such order, be disposed of in such manner as such court may direct.

[JDLK]

The issue has been covered before during the rampage of pauriceenjack

Wahtever happened to that guy, you arent him by any chance are you?

[forest]

in regards censership our laws are the same (more or less) as they were in the 1960's in other words the same laws that got LIfe f Brian banned still exist All thats changed is attitudes and the censor The government are bwulling to introduce any serious new acts or laws for the can of worms it could open

[NotDevsSon]

It is the only crime outlined in the Constitution so far as I remember. It is virtually unpunishable though, owing to a lack of a legal definition. This was demonstrated recently over in England with the Jerry Springer Opera Case.

Article 40

6. 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:

i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, 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 [color=#0000FF]utterance [/color]of blasphemous, seditious, or [color=#0000FF]indecent matter[/color] is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

Does using the work 'fukkers' in the Dail count?

[corkman2007]

The Supreme Court ruled that the offence of blasphemy couldn't be defined. The court ruled that it had no business deciding between all the different religions and choosing one above the other.

For example, according to Islam, Jesus is a prophet but not the Son of God/an aspect of God. However, if you deny the divinity of Jesus, you're committing blasphemy against the Christian religion. If you claim that Jesus was divine, then you're blaspheming against Islam.

Quite rightly, the Supreme Court decided that it was none of its business to pick which definition of blasphemy was the 'right' one.

It shows that you can have apparently legally-binding laws and provisions which are effectively meaningless if courts choose not to define them, or if courts don't have the power to define them.