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

[H.R. Haldeman]

Yes, an attack on freedom of speech and yes a disgrace.

And what is this nonsense:

“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.”

Any religion? Scientology? The Moonies? Falung Gong? I have never heard such dishonest, disingenuous bullsh1t in my life. The hypocrisy of the faitheratti yet again. Makes me sick.

[ibis]

Here's the bit I added to my post above after you'd replied:



Convicting someone on the basis that they've published material insulting a 'matter held sacred' by all religions is theoretically possible, because it doesn't confer a privilege on one religion over another.

However, you'd also have to prove all the other elements of the offence: that the matter published was grossly insulting or abusive, that it caused outrage amongst a substantial number of adherents and that it was intended to cause such outrage.

No, that's the bit I'm specifically disagreeing with, because the only requirement is that we're talking about "matters held sacred by any religion". There is, therefore, no privileging involved in agreeing that Muslims hold the Prophet sacred, while Christians hold Christ sacred.

[marmurr1916]

No, that's the bit I'm specifically disagreeing with, because the only requirement is that we're talking about "matters held sacred by any religion". There is, therefore, no privileging involved in agreeing that Muslims hold the Prophet sacred, while Christians hold Christ sacred.

This is what the Koran says about the Trinity and the Son of God:

"Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve."

...

"Regarding Sonship of Jesus: That is Jesus, son of Mary, in word of truth, concerning which they are doubting. It is not for God to take a son unto Him. Glory be to Him! When He decrees a thing, He but says to it " Be" , and it is. (Qur'an 19:34,35) And they say, 'The All-merciful has taken unto Himself a son.' You have indeed advanced something hideous. The heavens are well nigh rent of it and the earth split asunder, and the mountains well nigh fall down crashing for that they have attributed to the All-Merciful a son; and it behoves not the All-Merciful to take a son. None is there in the heavens and earth but he comes to the All-Merciful as a servant. (Qur'an 19:88-93) Truly the likeness of Jesus, in God's sight, is as Adam's likeness; He created him of dust, then said He unto him, " Be" , and he was. (Qur'an 3:59) People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the Truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, 'Three', Refrain, better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him - that He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth, God suffices for a guardian." (Qur'an 4:171)

As far as Christians are concerned that's blasphemous; the divinity of Jesus is denied and the Trinity is also denied (although not all Christians are Trinitarians).

However, if someone was convicted for publishing the Koran, because it was an insult to the Christian belief that Jesus is divine, a 'matter held sacred' to Christianity, then effectively Christianity would have been conferred with a privilege over Islam.

It's a 'matter held sacred' to Islam that Jesus is not divine, and convicting someone for publishing the Koran would restrict the right of Muslims to practice their religion freely by preventing publication of the Koran, thus discriminating against Muslims and conferring a privilege on Christianity which would not face the same restrictions.

Restricting the right of Muslims to practice their religion freely and conferring such a privilege on Christianity would be unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court case.

The Bill is deeply flawed and the section which defines blasphemy as an insult to 'any religion' must be unconstitutional since the holy books of one religion may well be considered blasphemous by another religion or religions.

[ibis]

This is what the Koran says about the Trinity and the Son of God:



As far as Christians are concerned that's blasphemous; the divinity of Jesus is denied and the Trinity is also denied (although not all Christians are Trinitarians).

However, if someone was convicted for publishing the Koran, because it was an insult to the Christian belief that Jesus is divine, a 'matter held sacred' to Christianity, then effectively Christianity would have been conferred with a privilege over Islam.

It's a 'matter held sacred' to Islam that Jesus is not divine, and convicting someone for publishing the Koran would restrict the right of Muslims to practice their religion freely by preventing publication of the Koran, thus conferring a privilege on Christianity which would not face the same restrictions.

Conferring such a privilege would be unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court case.

The Bill is deeply flawed and the section which defines blasphemy as an insult to 'any religion' must be unconstitutional since the holy books of one religion may well be considered blasphemous by another religion or religions.

No, because what is in the Koran is not "insulting and abusing" what the Christians hold sacred. It is disagreeing - some might say respectfully - and that is not within the scope of the Act.

As I said, you're still thinking about this as being about "blasphemy", and it isn't. That "blasphemous" occurs in the title is essentially irrelevant - the Act requires no further definition than it gives, and that is a definition that applies to all religions, and requires no privileging of one religion over another. It does not define what is, or is not, sacred - it would be sufficient for the purposes of the Act for someone to state that such and such was a "matter held sacred" by their religion - and as long as the religion is recognised, that should be enough.

The Act is both limited, in the sense that it ties down "blasphemous material" to a definition enclosed within the Act, and open-ended, in that it is capable of working for any religion. Clever piece of drafting.

[marmurr1916]

“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.”

Not, because what is in the Koran is not "insulting and abusing" what the Christians hold sacred. It is disagreeing - some might say respectfully - and that is not within the scope of the Act.

You're going to find plenty of Christians who think that the Koran's claims about Jesus are 'insulting and abusing' to a matter they hold sacred: the divine nature of Jesus.

Therefore, publication of the Koran is insulting and abusing to a matter held sacred by Christians, would cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents of Christianity (or particular sects of Christianity) and, given that there are plenty of Muslim scholars and clerics who would gladly testify that it's intended to cause outrage to Christians, then all the tests under the proposed law would be met.

If someone was convicted of publishing a Koran (on the basis that it was blasphemous material), then they could appeal on the grounds of unconstitutionality.

Making the publication of the Koran a criminal offence would certainly be a restriction on freedom of religion and would certainly confer privileges on Christianity and would therefore be unconstitutional.

It needn't be about the Koran and Chrisitianity. What about a Hindu religious group (Group A) that publishes material that claims another variant of Hinduism (Group B) is a load of nonsense, and does so in a manner which meets all the tests under the proposed law?

Does that amount to 'blasphemous material'? Certainly. However, convicting Hindu Group A under the proposed law would restrict its rights to practice its religion freely if the practice of that religion required it to claim that 'matters held sacred' to Hindu Group B were a load of nonsense.

[ibis]

You're going to find plenty of Christians who think that the Koran's claims about Jesus are 'insulting and abusing' to a matter they hold sacred: the divine nature of Jesus.

I have to say I don't think so, unless the views are put forward in a deliberately insulting and abusive manner. Indeed, the religious of different beliefs are far more capable of working with each other than atheists.

Therefore, publication of the Koran is insulting and abusing to a matter held sacred by Christians, would cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents of Christianity (or particular sects of Christianity) and, given that there are plenty of Muslim scholars and clerics who would gladly testify that it's intended to cause outrage to Christians, then all the tests under the proposed law would be met.

If someone was convicted of publishing a Koran (on the basis that it was blasphemous material), then they could appeal on the grounds of unconstitutionality.

Making the publication of the Koran a criminal offence would certainly be a restriction on freedom of religion and would certainly confer privileges on Christianity and would therefore be unconstitutional.

It needn't be about the Koran and Chrisitianity. What about a Hindu religious group (Group A) that publishes material that claims another variant of Hinduism (Group B) is a load of nonsense, and does so in a manner which meets all the tests under the proposed law?

Does that amount to 'blasphemous material'? Certainly. However, convicting Hindu Group A under the proposed law would restrict its rights to practice its religion freely if the practice of that religion required it to claim that 'matters held sacred' to Hindu Group B were a load of nonsense.

It's not sufficient to simply disagree with another religion's beliefs to come within the scope of the Act, nor would the Act interfere in any such way with the freedom of religion. It will be used - or threatened - only in cases like the Danish cartoons, and for such cases I imagine it will do the job very well. Whether that's a good thing is a separate question.

[marmurr1916]

I have to say I don't think so, unless the views are put forward in a deliberately insulting and abusive manner. Indeed, the religious of different beliefs are far more capable of working with each other than atheists.

It's not sufficient to simply disagree with another religion's beliefs to come within the scope of the Act, nor would the Act interfere in any such way with the freedom of religion. It will be used - or threatened - only in cases like the Danish cartoons, and for such cases I imagine it will do the job very well. Whether that's a good thing is a separate question.

I really don't think that position is credible, especially not in Ireland of all places.

If the Free Presbyterians publish something that intentionally insults a 'matter held sacred' by the Catholic Church, then a substantial number of Catholics will be outraged, meeting all the tests under the proposed law.

It's also completely plausible that a group of fundamentalists from one religion will set out to test the law by deliberately publishing material that they know will result in a prosecution.

If they do, and they're convicted (perhaps they could even plead guilty) then they've got an excellent case to take to the Supreme Court.

It's also possible that there's a religion which requires its members to insult another religion (or other religions) as part of that religion's beliefs. I'm not aware of such a religion, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist (or can't be started up). If intentionally insulting and abusing matters held sacred by other religions is an intrinsic part of the practice of a particular religion, then a law which prevents that intentional insult and abuse also prevents the practice of that religion.

Not only could someone set up a religion which deliberately sets out to insult and abuse other religions, they could also set up a religion which deliberately sets out to be insulted and abused by claiming that, for example, it's a 'matter held sacred' by that religion that Coke is the best drink and all other claims to the contrary are a cause of outrage to adherents of that religion.

You could argue that such religions would not be recognised.

However, you're then opening a whole can of worms about what constitutes a religion, something which the Supreme Court would be very reluctant to examine.

[evercloserunion]

Ahem.

This does not quite seem to be a ban on blasphemy in the traditional sense. Traditionally blasphemy has been viewed as wrong because it is an insult to God or because it defiles His dignity, or some reason along those lines. That is, blasphemy is viewed as morally wrong in and of itself and apart from any policy concerns. At least that is my view of the matter.

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, rather than giving legal teeth to the more traditional concern that you shouldn't say bad ******************** about God because he is the Man and he can ******************** us all up.

The policy behind the bill would appear to be similar to that behind the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 Irish Statute Book, Acts of the Oireachtas, Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989 which does exactly what it says on the tin.

[marmurr1916]

Ahem.

This does not quite seem to be a ban on blasphemy in the traditional sense. Traditionally blasphemy has been viewed as wrong because it is an insult to God or because it defiles His dignity, or some reason along those lines. That is, blasphemy is viewed as morally wrong in and of itself and apart from any policy concerns. At least that is my view of the matter.

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, rather than giving legal teeth to the more traditional concern that you shouldn't say bad ******************** about God because he is the Man and he can ******************** us all up.

The policy behind the bill would appear to be similar to that behind the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 Irish Statute Book, Acts of the Oireachtas, Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989 which does exactly what it says on the tin.

The problem is that the Bill contains a provision in which:

“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.”

Furthermore, the constitution itself states that the publication of blasphemous matter shall be punishable by law, although it doesn't define what 'blasphemous matter' is:

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

This proposed Bill is very different to the Incitement to Hatred Act because it has constitutional backing.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has ruled that blasphemy laws should not restrict freedom of religious expression.

It's possible that there's a religion which requires its members to insult another religion (or other religions) as part of that religion's beliefs. I'm not aware of such a religion, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist (or can't be started up).

If intentionally insulting and abusing matters held sacred by other religions is an intrinsic part of the practice of a particular religion, then a law which prevents that intentional insult and abuse also prevents the practice of that religion in violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Not only could someone set up a religion which deliberately sets out to insult and abuse other religions, they could also set up a religion which deliberately sets out to be insulted and abused by claiming that, for example, it's a 'matter held sacred' by that religion that Coke is the best drink and all other claims to the contrary are a cause of outrage to adherents of that religion.

You could argue that such religions would not be recognised.

However, you're then opening a whole can of worms about what constitutes a religion, something which the Supreme Court would be very reluctant to examine.

[lostexpectation]

An Irish Supreme Court case found that blasphemy could not be defined as to try to define it would favour one religion over another, something the Supreme Court didn't fancy doing.

Any anti-blasphemy laws are moot on the basis of that judgement.

If blasphemy can't be defined, then there can't be any crime.

You can't have a crime without a legal basis; there's no legal basis for blasphemy in Ireland no matter what this Defamation Bill might say.

you argue that as the police kick in your door