LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOriginally Posted by The OD
The offence you describe above is not blasphemous libel so the State will have no interest.
It is defamation but you cant defame the dead (or the never-existed...)
The offence you describe above is not blasphemous libel so the State will have no interest.
It is defamation but you cant defame the dead (or the never-existed...)
'the never-existed' ! Blasphemer!
I don't understand this law at all. I don't have a problem with religion being criticized. Everyone can be free to have whatever faith they like, as long as their beliefs don't stifle criticism of that belief. I wouldn't be hurt or offended if someone criticized my religion. I would be offended if people were silenced from criticising someones faith. As long as they are not harmed then I can't see the problem. Those who are offended play an active role in being offended. If someone tries to offend you you don't have to take the offence. You cannot be offended if you don't consent to being offended. You can be harmed without your consent, but you can't be offended without it. You can be harmed against your will but you can't be offended against you will. An odd law, protecting people who don't need to be protected
You do when your 'argument' is one that does not logically follow. You seem to rely on 'common sense' - common sense dictates that, when the evidence is being weighed up in a trial and not in some abstract reading of a statute, it is going to be hard to say that any mentally competent person could intend to offend without foreseeing that outrage was a probable result. The outrage part is in the eye of the beholder - the 'victim' has to be outraged. What else did they think would happen? My point is that a court is hardly going infer, given a set of facts, that someone could not have foreseen that outrage would result from their actions - especially since the fact that outrage occurred would have been proved at this point. It would have to be an example of extreme sensitivity before that would not follow.
I refer you to what I said above. You have failed to grasp the practical implications of this Bill and your analysis is flawed because of it. On an evidential and practical level, that sort of sophistry would not fly. A Defendant who intended to offend is going to be be deemed to have foreseen outrage unless they can show that they did not appreciate the consequences.Try not to tie yourself up in legal knots. Legal authority is not needed to show something that is obvious on the facts. The plain and simple meaning of words is always the first port of call.
Yes. I recall pointing that out to you in an earlier post.Remember, criminal statutes are interpreted strictly and it would only be a very very loose interpretation that would give rise to an interpretation allowing a conviction for an outrage offence where an intent to offend only was shown.
Turning to your original post:3) The jury are not involved in any decision making until the end of the trial when both sides have made their case. An application for a dismissal can be made at the conclusion of the prosecution case. It is the trial judge who decides if there is an answerable case and the test is not one of reasonable doubt - it falls well short of that. After that, the Defence would have to decide whether to give evidence or take his chances with the jury.
The above is lovely; And I agree with it; well done. It has nothing to do with anything I said, though..
The above deals with this quote the last part of which is clearly factually incorrect - the case does not go to the jury at that time. The Defendant will have to decide whether to give evidence before the Defence case closes and the jury is charged. So 'all of that' does not need to be done before the Defendant has to say a word.A jury will need to be shown that the Defendant intended to cause outrage, not that he merely intended to cause offence. And all of that needs to be done before the Defendant has to say a word.
You are clearly someone who has no practical knowledge of the law and its operation.
My heart wasnt really in it to be honest.
If I could mass-sterilise the planet, I would. Seriously.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This sums up your difficulty; that is simply incorrect. The Bill requires that there is an intention to outrage. That must be shown. An intention to offend is not an intention to outrage; they are significantly different and, excepting an unusual set of facts, the latter will not be a natural or a probable consequence of the former.
I previously gave an analogy to the Incitement to Hatred legislation. That offence requires that actions be offensive and that there is an intention to stir up hatred. So it requires an intention that is more than an intention to offend. This piece of legislation, despite being enacted in 1989, was only succesfully used once up until 03/04 and only occasionally since then. The considered view was that this was because of the apparent difficulty in proving an intent to stir up hatred. If the argument was made that incitement was the natural and probable consequence of causing offence, it doesnt seem to have been succesful.
And the mere fact that outrage has occurred cannot put the onus on the Defendant to prove he did not appreciate the consequences. Such a change in the burden of proof would need the the Bill to explicitly reverse it that way; it does not.
When did I say it went to the jury at that time? I said that the Prosecution would have to prove all of the ingredients of the offence before the Defendant had to say a word. Are you following this at all?
I really hate when people trade insults, based on absolutely no factual information, on what people do or do not do outside of p.ie so I wont reply in kind.
[SIZE="1"]But since you chose to insult me with no factual basis, just to set the record straight, while I dont practice in criminal law, I am a farily experienced civil litigator (including a bit of defamation) in a Big 5 firm and I tutor in the Law Society. So I do have quite a bit of practical knowledge of the law and its operation[/SIZE]
Last edited by drkpower; 9th July 2009 at 11:12 PM.
That just made me watch the Life of Brian prophet sequence all over againI'm thinking of renting a billboard truck and selling blasphemy bricks on the billboard posters (just to cover the cost) - where you'll get the blasphemy of your choice printed on the poster, the truck will then just drive around town (particularly Leinster House).
It's either that, or a megaphone outside Leinster House where we all get shouty. But there are too many of those people already.
That is fine except if your aim is to actually gain support and get the legislation (which is stupid) overturned. If self-congratulatory grandstanding, as these people on Saturday apparently aim to do, and indulging an irresistable urge to take the piss out of others' beliefs, is the prime goal, and not winning support from 'mainstream' Ireland (large numbers of whom are still actually religious) then work away...I'm thinking of renting a billboard truck and selling blasphemy bricks on the billboard posters (just to cover the cost) - where you'll get the blasphemy of your choice printed on the poster, the truck will then just drive around town (particularly Leinster House).
It's either that, or a megaphone outside Leinster House where we all get shouty. But there are too many of those people already.
Reply With Quote