New crime of blasphemous libel proposed for Defamation Bill - goodbye free speech ?

[Trampas]

The OIC (those bastions of free speech) has been pressing the UN to make blasphemy a crime.

Not alone that but 2/3 years ago EU candidate Turkey (holder of the OIC secretariat) hi-jacked an EU meeting in Austria in an attempt to have blasphemy laws introduced to the EU. Poor choice of venue mind you.

[Clanrickard]

Not alone that but 2/3 years ago EU candidate Turkey (holder of the OIC secretariat) hi-jacked an EU meeting in Austria in an attempt to have blasphemy laws introduced to the EU. Poor choice of venue mind you.

Yes another excellent reason to stop this country from getting into the EU.

[Odyessus]

Being discussed now on Joe Duffy show RTE1 Radio.

[corelli]

There is a well known ECtHR case, who's name I can't remember of course, which held that blasphemy laws could not be used to inhibit normal criticism of religion or any position that a religious group would hold. The case indicated that it was acceptable to criminilise hate speech, which is fine, but that it could not inhibit criticism.

It is very interesting to note that the UK ( well, England and Wales) recently abolished the offence at common law, in light of incorporating the ECHR there, but here we are introducing it on a statutory basis. Pure stupidity!!

[blacbloc]

Yes another excellent reason to stop this country from getting into the EU.

Well, Ill be damned! A point on which we agree Mr Clanrickard. Mind you, I almost certainly for very different reasons.

[ibis]

Good point. Would this mean it'd be a crime to take the p1ss out of the creationists?

That's one that bothers me - rather more than the prospect of cartoons of the Prophet. However, I think that one would fall down on the "matters held sacred...by any religion". Creationism (or the literal truth of the Bible) is not actually a 'matter held sacred' in any religion as such - it is, rather, an interpretation found within all the strands of the Christian religion. That is, it is held sacred by people within certain religions, without constituting an article of faith in any of them as religions - and there, I imagine, the court will simply refuse to rule, since that would involve privileging certain interpretations of a religion over others within a specific religion.

[marmurr1916]

Again, though, I would say that the Act doesn't cover a publication that simply describes cannabis as bad - because that does not "insult or abuse". Also, Rastafarianism is not, I think, a recognised religion in Ireland.

But you're assuming to know what the adherents of a particular religion consider insulting or abusive.

If I'm a Rastafarian, and I consider a description of cannabis as bad as insulting or abusive, as causing me outrage, then I merely have to attest to that.

How can it be proven that something published about cannabis wasn't, in fact, insulting or abusive, and didn't cause outrage to Rastafarians when Rastafarians testify that it was and did?

Perhaps a defendent in an initial case could argue successfully that they did not intend to insult Rastafarianism by insulting or abusing the smoking of cannabis, a 'matter held sacred' to Rastafarians.

However, subsequent defendents could not rely on this defence, as the initial case would have made it clear that the future publication of material insulting or abusing the smoking of cannabis would, in fact and in law, cause outrage to Rastafarians. A person who published such claims after the initial case couldn't claim to be ignorant that insulting the smoking of cannabis was likely to cause outrage to Rastafarians. The way would be open to say that it was such common knowledge that Rastafarians were likely to be caused outrage by the publication of anything critical of smoking cannabis that any such publication was, in fact and in law, intended to cause outrage merely by being published, whatever the stated intent of the publishers. After all, intent in criminal law can be proven despite the statements of a defendent that a crime was not intended if there's sufficient other evidence so that intent may be inferred. For example, a person accused of attempted to commit burglary may claim that they did not intend to commit burglary by carrying tools typically carried by burglars. However "A jury may be permitted to infer criminal intent from facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that it existed. For example, the intent to commit [COLOR=#0000ff][COLOR=black]burglary[/COLOR][/COLOR]may be inferred from the accused's possession of tools for picking locks."

If I publish Danish-type cartoons but state that I didn't intend to cause outrage, then there may be sufficient evidence that a reasonable person should have known that the publication of these cartoons would, in fact and in law, cause outrage. Therefore, criminal intent, no matter what my stated intent, can be inferred.

Likewise, if I publish cartoons which insult or abuse the smoking of cannabis by Rastafarians: criminal intent can be inferred.

The Supreme Court judgement in the Corway case made it clear that the Constitution does not permit the conferring of privilege or imposition of disability on one religion as compared to another.

All religions and all religious denominations, no matter what one might think of them, are held equal under the Constitution.

The idea that certain religions are 'recognised religion[s]' doesn't exist in the Irish Constitution: the article of the constitution which gave special recognition to the Catholic Church and which gave special protection to Judaism was removed in the early 1970s.

The Corway judgement makes clear that the state cannot privilege one religion or religious denomination over another. On that basis, Rastafarianism must be given the same constitutional and legal protections as Catholicism.

[Christine Murray]

I've pointed out before that Ireland doesn't have good protection for free speech in our constitution. Unfortunately it seems like the government have just realised the same and intend taking advantage of this and cracking down on freedom of expression

Last year the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution had recommended amending article 40 and ensuring free speech... Dermot Ahern has gone the other way and is proposing a €100,000 fine for blasphemy and also giving the Gardaí the rights to break down our doors to seize evidende !

So what next from Ahern ... under the same article he could bring in more anti-free speech laws

Anything that undermines: public order , morality or the authority of the State

Or matter which is seditious or indecent !


cYp

Does this mean that people with the name of Ahern will be performing our thinking for us- what a load of Sh'ite.
When can we have educated ministers in our government , I am utterly bored with FF cra'P

[marmurr1916]

ibis is probably right about the 'grossly abusive or insulting' clause - the courts will likely be able to dispose of that.

I don't think so. If I hold that I'm outraged and grossly insulted and abused, who's to say that I'm not?

Well, first of all, since it's only religions that are entitled to the constitutional protection, the Court has a get-out-of-jail-free card on this issue if it's willing to specify what counts as a religion. There's no constitutional protection for systems of belief over which some religions are being privileged which are not themselves religions within the meaning of the Constitution.

Secondly, this is why I'm interested in case law on the Revenue definitions. Presumably, some 'religions' (like Scientology, say) have been refused charitable status on some grounds; if these are religions in the constitutional sense, then there's already a constitutional case to answer. If, however, the grounds of refusal are suitably neutral (something like the fact that the self-proclaimed religions are operating as a business), then there might not be a case to answer, but equally, it seems unlikely that the Revenue definitions can be extended to cover this new law.

That is very problematic. Is Rastafarianism a religion? Should it be recognised as one?

What about the Church of Coke (same as the Church of Ireland, plus Coke-related doctrine)?

Why shouldn't the state recognise the Church of Coke?

If the Supreme Court upholds the relevant part of its judgement in the Corway case, then the Church of Coke would have to be recognised as a religion.

[FutureTaoiseach]

That is not the kind of religious, moralistic ethos which is contained in the new definition. If the essential element of the crime is that it causes outrage amongst a substantial number of religious people then the underlying policy of the law would seem to be to prevent religious tension and conflict,

Oh come now, evercloserunion. You know well how the Muslim community are infinitely more sensitive to criticism of religion than the rest of the population. People who get so hysterically worked up over satirical cartoons (including the burning of one Danish embassy) are going to take offense far more easily than the majority of Irish Catholics who wouldn't batton an eyelid at a satirical cartoon relating to the Pope. The context has transformed since 1989 because of demographics. A Muslim-hijacked UN Conference on Racism has passed a ban on blasphemy which, while not legally-binding (as it isn't a UNSC resolution), nonetheless threatens to provide Fianna Fáil with a pretext to silence freedom of speech in terms of criticism of religious doctrine using the UNCR as a veneer or respectability. We must not let this go. Email your TDs - especially the Greens and Opposition, to make your feelings known. We will not change our way of life to suit extremists from outside our country. We should not have to walk on eggshells by an unholy-alliance of religious-fanatics on the one hand and the PC-brigade on the other.