Here's the just-enacted statute:
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 £25,000.(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if --
(a) he or she publishes or utters 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
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.
(4) In this section “religion” does not include an organisation or cult --
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation --
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.
Now I oppose this law, for the obvious reasons, which I won't repeat here. The Irish Constitution does expressly calls for the punishment of blasphemy -- "The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law" -- so the absence of a blasphemy law until now (an earlier law was struck down for not defining "blasphemy") has itself been unconstitutional. But it seems to me that Irish legislators should have tried to amend the constitution via referendum rather than enacting this sort of ban.
But here I'd like to say a bit about some slightly less obvious problems with the law. To its credit, the legislature tried to minimize the risk that (say) the Satanic Verses, the Last Temptation of Christ, the Mohammed cartoons, and other such speech would become criminal. True, a court might well find that (1) the speech "is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion," and (2) the speech intentionally caused "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion." But presumably this danger might be mitigated by the defendant's ability to get off the hook if he shows that "a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value" in the speech.
Yet it seems to me that a court decision saying that the Mohammed cartoons or the Satanic Verses can't be punished because it has "genuine literary, artistic, [or] political ... value" would cause even more insult and social tension than the original speech itself would. At least without the blasphemy law, the government can say the speech is protected no matter how awful it might be. But with the blasphemy law, a government body must either find the speech unprotected -- or place its imprimatur behind the view that the "reasonable person would find genuine ... value" in it.
Likewise, another defense requires courts to decide which religions "employ[] oppressive psychological manipulation" "of [their] followers." Is threatening eternal damnation oppressive psychological manipulation, for instance? How about urging women to conceal themselves behind veils? I agree, of course, that religions should have the right to engage in such behavior, regardless of whether the government views it as "oppressive psychological manipulation" -- but if the law sets up "oppressive psychological manipulation" as a legal standard for determining which religions' adherents are protected from "blasphem[y]," then courts would have to apply that standard. Is religious tolerance and amity really advanced by official court decisions (and presumably jury decisions) about whether a religion practices "oppressive psychological manipulation"?
Thanks to Baran Alpturk for the pointer.
Isn't it transparently obvious that this entire section is designed to make sure Scientologists can't make any complaint under the blasphemy law?
It also occurs to me that Sunnis and Shia insult each other on a regular basis--when they are not killing each other outright. What happens when a Sunni blasphemes the Shia version of Islam, or vice versa?
Finally, a minor point. Why is the fine set forth in British Pound Sterling? Ireland has been using the Euro since 1/1/2002.
heck, one could make the same about Islam.
Wondering if there are any baal worshipers around anymore to claim that judaism blasphemizes them?
And so on.
Does using creative metaphors constitute "genuine literary or artistic value"?
The "sacred" text of my faith, the Principia Discordia, is now banned?
This law is blasphemy.
It must. I can't write that well.
I DARE them to apply this law. It will be great publicity for freedom of speech.
Preamble:
Article 6
Article 44
(In recent years, christian-democratic politicians have been talking about strengthening the law, while a number of liberal politicians have suggested abolishing it altogether. So far, it's still on the books.)
I presume that only the state can initiate prosecution for blasphemy, so let's hope that no prosecutor ever charges anyone with this offense. Of course, just having such a law on the books cannot help but have a chilling effect. (The Fallaci case, outrageous as it was, was a civil one, not the state prosecuting any individual for what they have said or written.)
Wouldn't that apply to expounding the doctrine of Original Sin? Isn't telling people that they are guilty for even existing "oppressive psychological manipulation"?
The transparently obvious today may be conveniently forgotten by others who wish to use the law to their advantage down the road
Did you really make a "First!" post 20 posts in a thread where the very first post made the same point?
Indeed. How do the catholic camps meant to 'save' homosexuals from themselves not fall under "oppressive psychological manipulation"?
How about any type of corporal punishment in and standardized religious education in say a catholic/muslim/jewish school not also qualify?
It looks like the Irish are just trying to follow the French attempt to weasel their way out of applying their religious laws consistently (by the cult demarcation). Why are they so afraid of the flying spaghetti monster?
Remember, a Walt Disney nature documentary (The Vanishing Prairie) was banned in Chicago by "reasonable" persons acting in accord with "community standards."
If that is the best manner any lawmaker can come up with of defining something as being either legal or illegal, said lawmaker should be made to spend a year in exile a minimum of one thousand miles from home - preferably where he/she does not understand the predominant language.
Section 4 of the blasphemy law obviously (to a traditional Irish weltanschauung) applies to anyone who isn't a loyal member of Mother Rome.
Simple really, Rome is True Religion and all else is evil cult (see Council of Trent fully reaffirmed by Vat. II).
Ah Europa, thou who seeketh to undo the Battle of Chrysopolis
......
I predict it will begin by being implemented against smaller groups (JW's, Mormons, the Scientologists we all abhor, etc.) move up against moderate groups (Baptists, Pentacostals and others who actually read their bibles) and then move to remove the larger opponents (mainline Protestants, Islam, etc...........).....
As long as the Atheists attend Mass and bow to the Priestly class they will be tolerated....
Reminds me of a song, "The more things change, the more they stay the same......."
exactly. which religion's negative reinforcement principles do not fall under the umbrella of "employing oppressive psychological manipulation of its followers or to gain new followers"? this law is a joke.
I wouldn't necessarily want to live this way. There is, however, a huge gray area between countries which don't live up to our standards, on the other hand, and countries which do really depraved things like massecring their citizens on the other. We have to have the ability to conduct foreign policy with countries whose norms are far worse than this, and this requires a certain thickness of skin.
This is precisely what the Roman Catholic Cult has been doing to human beings for thousands of years.
Shall we look and see how blasphemy was dealt with in the past by this Patriarchal system.
Look closely at what the Holy Trinity really was?
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/murderers.htm
The Holy Trinity:
When a sinner had "blasphemed the holy name of god", or when he had perhaps told some truth about the local priest, it was customary to apply the holy trinity.
The Iron mask was heated in an open fire until red hot, then put upon his head.
The scourge, also red hot, was then applied to his back.
After the mask had cooled, it was removed from the sinner, taking skin (and usually eyeballs) with it.
The prisoner's mouth was then opened and red hot pincers were used to remove the prisoner's tongue.
It is interesting to note that the Holy Trinity was designed not to cause death, so that the maimed, blinded and mute prisoner could live out his days as a burden to his family and as a testimony to what happens when one lets his tongue wag too freely.
Exactly.
Who needs court corporations- designed to make money out of human beings- who often do not even understand this legal jargon in the first place.
One could always say they had no knowledge of committing this "crime" of blasphemy.
I mean, how can you insult an invisible man made God?
As for cults- now that is a joke.
I was once deemed a member of a Cult in Eire, so I asked who are the other members, because I sure do not know anyone else that thinks the same as me?
Oh , just you was the reply- so you see how crazy Ireland really is- the court can deem you a member and a leader of a cult with just 1 human being in it.
Worse still, the Judge agreed.
That is what happens when you free yourself from the Catholic Cult and think for yourself.
...tee hee.
The statute's decision to create a hierarchy of denominations, with a established church, and recognized dissenting churches, and a further tier of cults that do not receive the benefit of the protections affford to religions, is hardly new.
Also fascinating, is that the "substantial number of the adherents of that religion" clause does not appear to have geographical limitation other than the intent of the person uttering it. A comic intended to outrage the five Jewish families at your local school might be non-criminal. A comic intended to outrage five hundred thousand people in Israel, in contrast, might be criminal. Indeed, this might even be true for the same comic. The vile act of bullying intended by the author might be non-criminal; but the assistant principal's decision that the comic deserved a world audience and should be posted on the Internet might merit a criminal sanction.
The "he or she publishes or utters" clause also poses an interesting hypothetical. Suppose that you design a computer program that randomly develops insulting utterances and publishes them, knowing that some might be blasphemous in some religion, but without knowing precisely who or how in advance. Is the computer program designer at fault? Or, is the computer itself the violator? And, if the computer either a "he" or a "she"?
Marlboro cigarettes from $ 16.20 per carton.
Camel cigarettes from $15.29 per carton.
L&M cigarettes from $12.99 per carton.
Cheap cigarettes at http://www.cheap-24h.com
And other.....
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.