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

[Odyessus]

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.

Very well argued. Excellent post.

[marmurr1916]

The Church of Me has never been rejected tens of thousands of people; the Church of Coke has (Coke being banned from sale in TCD for several years by the student body by democratic vote)

All blasphemers. The Church of Coke's sacred doctrines cannot be challenged by so-called democratic vote. The Church of Coke's sacred doctrines are eternal and unchanging truths handed down by God.

Y'know it sounds all funny, but how will this amendment prevent the Church of Latter-day Saints from taking the Jehovah's Witnesses (or pick your own smaller religious groups) to court for precisely that purpose?

Indeed. How will it prevent a fundamentalist Christian church from seeking to have publishers of the Koran punished on the grounds that it blasphemously denies the divinity of Jesus?

How will it prevent fundamentalist Muslims from seeking to have publishers of the Bible punished on the grounds that it blasphemously asserts the divinity of Jesus?

Unfortunately, the law will not be used by reasonable people to make reasonable arguments for the protection of reasonable beliefs.

And who's to say what reasonable beliefs are anyway? The Supreme Court?

I look forward to the case which decides that a belief in any deity is unreasonable and that such belief shouldn't be protected by blasphemy laws.

[The Celtic Chimp]

Wow,

What a load of offensive cobblers this is! Anyone who holds freedom of expression to be a worthy value must surely be offended by this horrible, backward-looking notion. I spent about 5 mins completely dumbfounded by this. I was so appalled by this I think I went momentarily blind. To see very quickly what is wrong with this utter nonsense just substitute "political party" where it states "religion".

“Blasphemous matter” is defined as matter “that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any political party, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that political party; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

How offended would people be by that legislation, how loud would the laughter be if it were seriously proposed. Who knows, it never would be. Replace "religion" with any other popular concept or ideology and it reads just as badly. Religion once again is getting special treatment and if that weren't quite infuriating enough we have to listen to religious morons on the radio talk about being persecuted. The majority are apparently now being persecuted by the minorities. Those poor Christians, dominating europe for the better part of the past two millenia who litteraly burned people who disagreed with them are being persecuted. Oh no!! Is someone tying them to stakes and killing them in the least humane way possible?? What? No, some people are just saying they think religion is a pile of S**t?
Wow, the bar on "persecution" has surely been lowered. It has gone from being fed to the lions to not being shown the respect they think they diserve?........Thats quite a drop.

Does anyone else find the idea that the government should be somehow responsible for safeguarding your ideological sensibilites seem completely ridiculous? The government should try to legislate!!! against you becoming offended by something????

Oh wait my mistake. They will only try to prevent you from becoming offended if someone says something derogatory about you complete irrational religious beliefs. Anything else and you're on your own. This proves in principle the government does mind you being offending. It only worries about your inivisible friend theory taking some flak.

Sometimes the world is far more depressing that I seriously thought it could really be....

I find this proposed legislation offensive........is there someone I can sue?????

[an asal]

Fantastic distraction, I'm sure the 300/400 thousand on the dole are very interested in this New Crime. It's a pity they don't deal with crimes already on the statute books i e Dolphin House. The Govement would be better using their time trying to creat jobs for these unfortunate people.

[dennehym]

All blasphemers. The Church of Coke's sacred doctrines cannot be challenged by so-called democratic vote. The Church of Coke's sacred doctrines are eternal and unchanging truths handed down by God.

This, while obviously wrong, does raise the interesting point that the Church of Me, whose truths are handed down by the true God (rather than the imaginary friend of the high priest of the so-called church of coke), is obviously bound to a higher law than that of the secular state and thus would not be bound to the baser rulings of the supreme court.

You know, I bet you could sell tickets to the first case taken under this amendment... maybe that's the motivation for this? A small addition to the exchequer through ticket sales to the High and Supreme Courts?

[slx]

I really don't see how this will work.

Let's just assume that I claimed to be an Slxilian, and I come up with a load of religious beliefs, claim (genuinely) that I believed them then went to court and sued anyone who dared to insult my beliefs.

What would stop me from doing this?

Also, where does leave Atheists ? Many religions believe that non-believers are insulting to their faith.

Also, where does it leave Pagans?

How can you protect something that can't even be defined!?

To me this is pandering to an ultra politically correct nonsense.

Serious attacks on someone based on their religious belief are covered under various other legislation, e.g. the Equal Status Acts, anti-harassment legislation etc.

I really don't see the need for specific blasphemy legislation. It's really just 1950s Ireland coming back to haunt us via Fianna Fail of 2009.

[marmurr1916]

No - what would follow is that lots of Muslims are unreasonable.

If a particular sect or denomination of Islam is made up of adherents who find naming teddy-bears after Mohammed to be blasphemous, is that sect then effectively unreasonable?

Once you go start down the road of deciding what constitutes a religion and what religions should be recognised or not, then you're on a never-ending journey.

[ibis]

Again, you're talking about an already-recognised religious group applying for a tax-exempt status. That's nothing to do with recognising a religious group as legitimate in the first place. We, so far as I know, simply don't have such a mechanism in Ireland.

Indeed we don't, but it would do as a test. It's the basis on which Scientology is not 'recognised' and Judaism is.

Y'know it sounds all funny, but how will this amendment prevent the Church of Latter-day Saints from taking the Jehovah's Witnesses (or pick your own smaller religious groups) to court for precisely that purpose?

Because the Act doesn't work that way?

[corelli]

But is qualification for exemption from taxation an essential criterion for recognising a religion?

Nothing in the Constitution says this, nothing in the Corway judgement says this.

There are no set criteria in the Constitution for the recognition of a religion.

In any case, don't some fundamentalist sects of Christianity meet the tests set by the IRS?

Couldn't any religion, no matter what its doctrines, meet the IRS tests?

The Conway judgement ran away from the issue. They said there was no definition of blasphemy so the issue of what constituted a religion did not arise. Judgements of the Supreme Court are replete with injunctions to respect all religions equally but I don't remember them every defining a religion. In Ireland the only State recognition is by the Revenue Commissioners for charitable purposes. The Scientologists were refused by the Revenue.

Therefore, when it comes to the proposed offence, the Courts will take judicial notice of where the State does and does not recognise a religion. Now, they might come up with another formulation, but not too dissimilar, one would imagine.

To postulate that the Supreme Court will depart, in its recognition or definition, from the established religions is mere speculation. They are not a very adventurous lot, presently!

[imokyrok]

These are the email addresses of the members of the oireachtas committee of justice who will be voting on the issue:

sean@ardagh.org
brendan.howlin@oir.ie
niall.blaney@oireachtas.ie
finian.mcgrath@oireachtas.ie
gerard.murphy@oireachtas.ie
sean.ofearghail@irlgov.ie
Denis.ODonovan@oireachtas.ie
Peter.Power@Oireachtas.ie
Tony.Kett@oireachtas.ie
Maurice.Cummins@oireachtas.ie
joanna.tuffy@oireachtas.ie
Jim.Walsh@oireachtas.ie