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

[iartaoiseach]

Agreed. Has the stress of the job addled Aherns brain?

Maybe it's time to invite Richard Dawkins over to give a lecture!

dawkins would probably be ran out of town like that professor was in cork. by the very people who demand respect for their beliefs.

[Toland]

_. P .., .S.
. .:............. ....
....:.................._ ....,
............ .............., .:..
....... . . _:........ :..
_...... . .<........ ....
,...... ....... ..._.
_..... ..:...) .....
:.... ..:.... .....
.... _:..... .....
...... .....U..._.
..... _:..... (
O..... ......
:... ) .......
....._ . ...E:..),
.:.... ).... . _.....
..... ,...... .:....
) ..... ...:.._ .....
....... ..:..... ...+,
. :...... )..:...,. ....
.:....... ..+......., _:...
............?. .............. .....
. .......:............,. :...
. :..............) ...
.. I. .. ,D.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Perhaps we should have a law that prevents muppets like Ahern playing their egotistical little fiddles while Dublin burns.

He sounds like a lad that is looking for a trophy cause he can add to his CV. For any nation in the 21st century to have on its statute books laws containing penalties for blasphemy is utterly ridiculous. Any such attempt is likely only to result in expense to the tax-payer, big fees for a circle of lawyers playing around with test cases and aforementioned muppets wasting valuable legislative time with their personal publicity efforts.

In the UK for example there are currently at least two or three senior cabinet ministers yapping in the press constantly on nonsensical issues and the whole point of their yapping is to maintain a high public profile while trying to gather support for a leadership bid when Gordon Brown is dumped- looking likely to be no later than early summer.

They've got one Hazel Blears, a notorious waste-of-not-much-space of a Communities Secretary, in the papers this week warning of possible civil disorder. She's not addressing a government from the opposition benches by the way but she's actually a member of the Cabinet responsible for arranging the conditions under which such civil disorder may well arise. The reason? The deluded little Nutkin thinks she's positioning herself for a leadership bid and can't think of any other way of getting her happy little face in the news.

[iartaoiseach]

If sufficient Rastafarians were indeed outraged by the article, and found it insulting or abusive, then it would indeed fall within the scope of the Act. However, Rastafarianism is not a recognised religion in Ireland.

I'm not assuming I will know what adherents of a religion will consider insulting or abusive - the Act is clearly only going to be called on in cases of widespread public outrage, and it will be up to the judge(s) who try the case to determine whether adherents of a given religion actually found the material insulting or abusive.



No, you've made a little jump there. It's not sufficient for something to be 'critical', or for people to be outraged by something critical - it needs to be insulting and abusive as well as causing outrage.



If it were a recognised religion, this Act would indeed afford Rastafarianism exactly the same protections as Catholicism.

so not alone is the government deciding what blasphemy is but also what is valid as a religion. bit of a contradiction really.

[iartaoiseach]

Ahernism. Instead of a collection plate there is a statue of bertie holding a brown envelope surreptitiously under a newspaper into which supplicants can segrete cash in order to have their prayers answers. The church would be called a tribunal and every likeness would have an irritating grin on it's mug.

satanism is already established.

[iartaoiseach]

Perhaps. He would have had to get Cabinet approval to draft heads of bill though. Is it at that stage? Notwithstanding, it's one to be quietly shelved methinks!

Blasphemy was actually removed from English and Welsh law last year after long campaigning, and with the aquiescence of the Church of England. WHAT is Ahern thinking of!!

see now there is your mistake. 'ahern' and 'think' in the same sentence

[tmesis2008]

The obvious solution is to amend an article of the Constitution that has the greasy pawmarks of McQuaid all over it.

Replacing it with an article prohibiting the criminalisation of blasphemy, of course.

Rabbitte has not been hugely impressive on church-state matters, imo.

Of course, I am in agreement. I think the best thing to do is leave the situation as is, and to table an amendment to coincide with the next election.

On a side note, it seems impossible to me that any sensible person could reflect on a blasphemy law and not conclude that it was a terrible idea, for many reasons, such as the curtailment of free speech, the quandry of deciding what a religion is, what is "fair, reasonable comment" and what is meant to denigrate? How can you have a "reasonable man" test when so many otherwise reasonable people hold such frankly wacky, and unreasonable beliefs.

It is also a strike against artisitic endeavour. Artists should have the freedom to make terrible art, and certainly shouldn't be punished if a court deems their art not to be artisitic enough.

I'm inclined to say that a person who does support such a law has never really thought about what it would be like if they weren't a religious adherent and is in dire need of having their conciousness-raised, as Richard Dawkins would say. I really don't think any deep reflection has gone into this at all. If there has been deep reflection then one can only conclude that Aherne and Rabbite are religious zealots, and I don't think that's true.

[Clanrickard]

Any coincidence that Calamity Coughlan is in the Gulf looking for business?

[iartaoiseach]

Any coincidence that Calamity Coughlan is in the Gulf looking for business?

wise move send the one woman guaranteed to upset the mullahs. that silver tongue of hers will charm their sandals off.

[Mar Tweedy]

[quote=marmurr1916;1608206]Irish Examiner story about this. Ahern's spokesman denies that Ahern is 'criminalising blasphemy':
Quote:
Ahern denies 'criminalising blasphemy'

By Conor Ryan Political Correspondent
Thursday, April 30, 2009
JUSTICE Minister Dermot Ahern has said he is not trying to create a new law to criminalise blasphemy in new proposals he believes will clear up rules already on the books.

Mr Ahern has tabled an amendment to the Defamation Bill 2006, which defines blasphemy and threatens fines of €100,000 for those who commit it.

This will hit a person who intentionally produces material "grossly abusive" to anything held sacred by any religion.

However, a spokes-man for the minister said he was merely acting on the advice his department received from successive attorneys general and was solving a long-standing legal problem. This was because the Constitution already demands that there be a law against blasphemy. Article 40 says either publishing or speaking in a blasphemous way would be an offence.

While the 1961 Defamation Bill included a provision to jail those who committed blasphemy, this was compromised by a Supreme Court ruling in 1999 which said it was impossible to define what the offence was. This effectively meant that without a definition no charges could stand up.

Mr Ahern’s spokesman said: "This is the elephant in the room, because it has to be sorted out one way or another. The people could decide to change the Constitution by way of Referendum, but without that there has to be some law.

"The minister has been given advice that this has to be addressed . . . [besides] with this amendment you cannot be jailed for the charge," he said.

Same legal situation applies for abortion - courts have called for laws. So what makes this different? Ludicrous rationalisation from Ahern's spokesperson on this. This is not the reason for bringing this forward - which leaves the question, what is the reason behind it?