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

[drkpower]

EVERY SINGLE ******************************G DEFINITION OF THE WORD "BLASPHEMY" INCLUDES DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. BY DEFINITION IF I AS AN ATHEIST STATE THERE IS NO GOD, I AM COMMITtING BLASPHEMY. WHAT PART OF THIS COCKMUNCHINGLY SIMPLE ARGUMENT ARE YOU NOT GETTING?

I think we need a little reminder of the offence here. The offence and definition as proposed is below. These are the necessary ingredients:

It must be abusive/insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion
It must cause outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion.
The publisher/uterrer must intend to cause such outrage.

While denying the existence of God may be blasphemy depending on your definition, merely denying the existence of God would come nowhere close to breaching this proposed offence of blasphemous libel unless a substantial number of Christians wre actually outraged by you denying the existence of God (which would be untenable) and unless you actually intended to cause outrage (which would be hard to believe given your belief is not very unusual).

Lets have a bit of perspective about this rather than a load of scaremongering.



[SIZE="1"]“A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000.”
“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; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”[/SIZE]

[myksav]

Here's what I was trying to get at, Cato:

- when I set out what I understood to amount to blasphemy, you responded by saying "so what", as if blasphemy, as I defined it, did not amount to much worth making a fuss over
- but if believers are making a fuss over nothing why would non-believers be so reluctant to see legislation enacted criminalising what amounts to totally innocuous behaviour
- I think non-believers and anti-blasphemy campaigners want it both ways, i.e. they want to make outrageous and pointed attacks on the most central and important tenets of faith (and enjoy legal protection in so doing) but then deny believers their right to feel affronted (and withold from them legal protection). It's as if the ridicule has two stages to it - first you intentionally and offensively ridicule the belief, then you ridicule the believer for being so deluded as to be offended.

"- but if believers are making a fuss over nothing why would non-believers be so reluctant to see legislation enacted criminalising what amounts to totally innocuous behaviour"

If it is nothing, why should there be a law against it? The niggle point is that if such a law did exist in the Statued Book, it would mean that those who "blaspheme" because it means nothing to them would be open to the punishment allowed by the hypothetical law. With Aherns idea, that is 100,000 euro fine for nothing.

It is not a case of "wanting it both ways", people can be as affronted as they wish at statements by atheists or non-believers. In fact, affronted "believers" can return the favour with "outrageous and pointed attacks on the most central and important tenets of faith" of atheists. I use "faith" very loosely there.

Another point not noticed is that with such a law, one could, as a Christian, bring a case against anyone who called one an infidel. Inter-religious strife, anyone?

[Geekzilla]

That is quite simply not the case. Blasphemous speech must be irreverent, abusive, insulting, outrageous. You think believers are gravely insulted and outraged by you lack of belief? The working definition of blasphemous libel that I have seen states that the material in question be "gravely abusive and insulting...causing outrage". The anti-blasphemy-law camp does not do itself any favours by pretending that the new law will criminalise less than outrageous material. That should be bad enough (if you oppose any and all anti-blasphemy measures).

That depends on the believers - the reaction of, say, someone who thinks Ian Paisley is a raving liberal would be different from, say, a Unitarian Universalist.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

No matter where you fall on the issue of the proposed amendment I have to say its a badly written proposal. In fact, it is so badly written that it should receive a 'fail' mark alone on the grounds of a lack of legislative clarity.

Seldom have I seen such a badly drafted, unnecessary, hostage to fortune piece of nonsense. And that is what makes me believe it is something of a deliberate distraction from other more important Dail business.

Ahern should be kicked up the backside for presuming to waste taxpayer's time and money on it.

[myksav]

Your deity is a vile concept and if he existed he would be sucking donkey balls. Is that blasphemy

If that's aimed at me, hah. My deity is laughing his ass off at that one. He's got a vicious sense of humour. Proof? just look around ya.

[garlandgreen]

If that's aimed at me, hah. My deity is laughing his ass off at that one. He's got a vicious sense of humour. Proof? just look around ya.

I am not a deity

[femmefatale]

No, it doesn't. Sorry, but you're wrong. I can't state it more plainly. I've shown you the definitions.

And even if it was, so what? Because Thomas Aikenhead was outragoeous, did he deserve to be punished?

I don't think I am wrong. We will have to agree to disagree on that point I guess.

Thomas Aikenhead did say blasphemous things, according to the definition of blasphemy the authorities of the day had. Do I think he ought to have been executed for that? No.

Are you claiming that believers have never punished anyone for their lack of belief? Really?

It's not Salem you know! No one is going to be burned at the stake. (And you would probably accuse religious peoples of having a persecution-complex )

Don't know much do you? You jump into a thread 120 pages late, not knowing anything about the text of the blasphemy law or the background or those proposing it, and apart from right-wing Islamists, you're the only one defending it. Don't you find that odd? You were the one, don't forget, who condemned Ayaan Hirsi Ali for agreeing with "neo-cons". Yet, you're the one here consorting with right-wing Islamists.

P.

I think I know as much as most people do about the matter and I have tried over the course of the debate to familiarise myself with as much of the detail as possible. So I didn't getting your reference to junkies etc. I can't know and understand every reference every person makes on here. I am not from the Republic and there are some references that do go over my head. If you didn't like what I had to say about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, you should have mentioned it at the time.

I have repeatedly stated that I am not an out-and-out advocate for the proposed law. I am trying to make a case for that side of the debate however and facilitate discussion. Perhaps you feel it would be better if those opposed to the law had a completely one-sided discussion.

[femmefatale]

Lets have a bit of perspective about this rather than a load of scaremongering.

I concur. Some people are being unnecessarily alarmist about all this.

[myksav]

I am not a deity

Yeah, I know, so does my deity. But keep it up, you'll get there.

[femmefatale]

She hasn't 'consorted' with anyone. If Vladimir Putin came into this thread and argued against the blasphemy law, would that mean we were consorting with Vladimir Putin? At the very worst you could call her a 'useful idiot' for the Islamist cause.

I'm insulted. Where's my 100,000 euro?