1. Comment #395692 by RPizzle on July 12, 2009 at 10:39 pm

I am utterly shocked that such a law could even see the light of day.

However, I'm actually somewhat heartened that this may serve as a rallying point for the secular community.

Being an American, I'd almost hope for something like this to happen...if only to get other Atheists to stand up and be counted.

I really do hope that this law goes down in flames. My hats off to the Irish Atheists.

Other Comments by RPizzle

2. Comment #395694 by superwolf on July 12, 2009 at 10:43 pm

I'm reading this and I don't know if it's because I overdid it on the dessert tonight, but I'm having real trouble conceiving that this is possible. Too much time with sheep and beer?

Other Comments by superwolf

3. Comment #395698 by Dr Doctor on July 12, 2009 at 11:13 pm

Laws enacted to control criticism are the first sign of a panicking establishment.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

4. Comment #395699 by Kimpatsu on July 12, 2009 at 11:14 pm

i foresee a lawsuit at the European Court of Human Rights in the futrue, as this law clearly contradicts the European Union's laws on freedom of speech.

Other Comments by Kimpatsu

5. Comment #395707 by Alternative Carpark on July 12, 2009 at 11:43 pm

Fecking Hell!

Oh wait, does that count?

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

6. Comment #395712 by Shane McKee on July 13, 2009 at 12:06 am

Green and pleasant silicon valley? We've a pretty major recession problem going on here, and the economy is shot to feckery. However, the law is spectacularly ridiculous, and will be widely broken; a few test prosecutions might be taken, and will fail, and the law (and the bigots who set it up) will be seen as the arse that it is.

Other Comments by Shane McKee

7. Comment #395713 by ashtonjaymz on July 13, 2009 at 12:25 am

Wow, this is actually quite terrifying.

Other Comments by ashtonjaymz

8. Comment #395716 by MrPickwick on July 13, 2009 at 12:39 am

Well, I guess it's blasphemy time in Ireland. A nice occasion to show how ridiculous this is.
Who goes first?

Other Comments by MrPickwick

9. Comment #395717 by godless_hoor on July 13, 2009 at 12:41 am

Other Comments by godless_hoor

10. Comment #395718 by critica on July 13, 2009 at 12:50 am

It's at times of economic turmoil, socially and politically difficult decisions, when genuine leadership is called for, that you see this kind of vacuous moralising. It’s nothing more than lesser minds, unequal to the task of real governing, latching onto the quick, easy and ultimately meaningless appeal of offering up their pious actions to promote themselves as a focus for attention. Get over it. Do your job.

Other Comments by critica

11. Comment #395719 by Follow Peter Egan on July 13, 2009 at 12:50 am

Wow, this is actually quite terrifying.

Quite. This hasn't been said enough.

England's just repealed the age-old blasphemy laws. This is a terribly ill-advised step for Ireland. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the heathens release their statement to test the law.

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

12. Comment #395720 by Fidgaf on July 13, 2009 at 12:52 am

It's a FANTASTIC law.

"The law, which makes the publication or utterance of blasphemous matter a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine."

Every single priest in Ireland or others of the same lying ilk will immediately get fined €25,000 and every single publisher of scripture or holy text receives similar punishment.

I think I'm right that for any one flavour of holy word (34,000 different denomonations, sects and cults of Christianity alone) will be blasphemy to several others.

The Muslims can gripe about the Christians' blasphemy, the Christians can gripe about the Muslims' blasphemy, the Hindus' can gripe about the Muslim and Christian blasphemy and FSM can gripe about the blasphemy of every other religion.

At €25,000 a hit all religions should be bankrupt within a very short while.

This is a very cunning ploy by the Irish government to full its coffers with the church's money.

Look out Pope - The Irish are after your gold mountains.

:D

Other Comments by Fidgaf

13. Comment #395721 by friendlypig on July 13, 2009 at 12:59 am

As a second generation Englishman but genetically Irish (lapsed Roman Catholic) on my Mothers' side and Scots (C of S) on my fathers side, I truly thank god that I am an Atheist.

But, don't you see that the only way to prevent superstition is to have religion; it really is the only way ;OD

Other Comments by friendlypig

14. Comment #395723 by Fidgaf on July 13, 2009 at 1:08 am

Should we write to the Pope and demand an immediate response against the blasphemous Protestants, Latter Day Saints, Nontrinitarians and Messianic Jews?

Once done with the Christian blasphemers, he can move on to the Dharmic religions, far eastern religions, folk religions, traditional religions, diasporic religions and about 500,000 others.

BLASPHEMERS! The lot of them.

Other Comments by Fidgaf

15. Comment #395725 by Disbelief on July 13, 2009 at 1:38 am

@ Fidgaf

Nah sorry, I thought that but Hungarianelephant put me straight on another thread.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,4043,Who-asked-for-Irelands-blasphemy-law,Padraig-Reidy-Guardian

Check out Comment 30

Other Comments by Disbelief

16. Comment #395730 by Flapjack on July 13, 2009 at 1:53 am

Middle ages? I thought Blasphemy laws have a more ancient pedigree than that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

Other Comments by Flapjack

17. Comment #395731 by hungarianelephant on July 13, 2009 at 1:54 am

Nice of Senator Bacik to turn up and tell Atheist Ireland how important its establishment is.

Pity she didn't get round to saying anything about the blasphemy law when it was passing through the Senate.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

18. Comment #395734 by Fidgaf on July 13, 2009 at 2:03 am

@Disbelief:

That just seemed weasel words to not act upon a law.

Was that the Oireachtas' intention? To pass an unusable law?

Curiously, the Catholic Encyclopaedia specifically states a phrase that is blasphemous:

"Jesus Christ was a bastard and his mother was a whore"

Even more amusing as it's a correct statement. Perhaps a variant of that could be used as a test case?

Muslims state quite clearly:

"Blasphemy in Islam constitutes speaking ill of Muhammad or of any other prophet mentioned in the Qur'an, or to claim that there is more than one god or that Jesus Christ (the son of Mary) is the son of God (5.017), or to speak ill of God".

I wonder who is going to decide exactly what blasphemy is?

Not having read the new law, I guess I should stop speculating until it's clearer.

As it happens, I was going for satire more than a debate. I'll leave that to better educated persons than myself.

Other Comments by Fidgaf

19. Comment #395735 by RightWingAtheist on July 13, 2009 at 2:04 am

Is a legal penalty even necessary? If someone commits blasphemy in Ireland, won't the leprechauns get them?

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

20. Comment #395740 by WilliamP on July 13, 2009 at 2:23 am

To all Irish citizens:
Last night I recieved a vision from god that told me that the only way to worship him is to blaspheme against all religions. If you do not do so, your soul will be condemned to hell, so you should follow my teachings and be saved. As my followers, go forth and get yourselves recognized as a religion under Irish law. Then oppose this blasphemy ban as an affront to your right of religious freedom.

Other Comments by WilliamP

21. Comment #395741 by Roland_F on July 13, 2009 at 2:26 am

For similar reasons e.g backwards religious inspired laws, Turkey is objected from many to join the EU.

Other Comments by Roland_F

22. Comment #395743 by Dr Doctor on July 13, 2009 at 2:28 am

Roland_F, Nedim Gursel won his case though, and is quoted as saying that Blasphemy laws have no place in a secular republic like Turkey.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

23. Comment #395746 by Vaal on July 13, 2009 at 2:42 am

Does this mean that showing Father Ted is blasphemous, or showing Dave Allen reruns? How utterly ridiculous, what birdbrain in Ireland is responsible for this fatuous draconian law?

You would have thought that the recent harrowing Catholic abuse scandal would have inspired the opposite effect on Irish judiciary, and politicians. The judiciary seem to be completely out of touch with the Irish population, as most Irish that I know are extremely irreverent, and proud of it, so I suspect this law is doomed to failure, as the absurd anachronism it is. It also doesn't bode well for integration with Northern Ireland.

I would recommend anyone who hasn't seen it to watch the film "Evelyn" with sterling acting by Pierce Brosnan about the horrors of institutional religious dogma being taken seriously in a court of law. Very eye-opening.

Other Comments by Vaal

24. Comment #395750 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2009 at 2:54 am

Let's deal with this idea that blasphemy is a victimless crime. I think that is wrong. The victim is clearly God.... but that has to be wrong, unless he can be shown to exist. Ok then, the victim is clearly the poor believers who have been offended. But that has to be wrong, as they almost never do the complaining. It is the leaders of religious communities. But that is so so weird. Why should people need some leader to insist that they have taken offense? In any other area of society such an arrangement would look completely barmy. Imagine if there was a law which protected football teams from public statements saying they were rubbish. People would think the legal system had gone mad.

The real victim of blasphemy is everyone, as they live under damned stupid laws.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

25. Comment #395751 by rod-the-farmer on July 13, 2009 at 2:55 am

Thanks Fidgaf for the examples of blasphemy. My next question is, "Can I post an advert in the Irish Times newspaper, containing those very words, comeplete with my full name and address, and then be charged with blasphemy ?" Would they even accept such an advert ? If not, there are problem other newspapers who would, just for the circulation growth and ad revenue from many others like me, once their willingness was made public.

I am a Canadian only two generations removed from Ireland, so that should give me a head start over all others outside Ireland who wish to participate. I believe there is already an agreement between Canada and Ireland on extradition, so hopefully they will request it in my case.

Oooooh, I am SO excited !

EDIT I have just sent an inquiry off to the Irish Times, asking if they will accept an advert, using the exact phrase Fidgal suggested above. I told them my purpose was to test the new blasphemy law. I will let you know their response. Hopefully they accept my advert. Once they accept one, they may be bound to accept all. Phase II is to have someone actually IN Ireland to press the relevant authorities to stamp out this example of blasphemy by laying charges. I will offer my self for extradition. Oooooh, I am all a-quiver.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

26. Comment #395752 by JAMCAM87 on July 13, 2009 at 3:01 am

Yes Steve, if the all-powerful one, the almighty god does exist then he most certainly needs protecting from us horrid humans who want to use his name in vain. He's quite touchy apparently.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

27. Comment #395754 by CaptainMandate on July 13, 2009 at 3:05 am

I'm scared to visit Ireland now. I'm sure there are some lovely old churches there but I couldn't visit.

As an atheist, would it be blasphemy to enter one£

Can you fart in church£

If so can I take a shit in the font£

where does one draw the line£

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

28. Comment #395763 by mjwemdee on July 13, 2009 at 3:59 am

I just feel sorry for all the leprechauns.

Other Comments by mjwemdee

29. Comment #395765 by hungarianelephant on July 13, 2009 at 4:05 am

Apologies for reposting this material, but as some people are still wondering what the Irish blasphemy law is all about, here it is (Defamation Bill 2006):

36. Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.

(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*.

(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.

* This is actually the text when last published in committee on 20 May. There was a ministerial amendment to change €100k to €25k. The reports say that no amendments were debated so I don't know whether this went through.

This is a criminal matter and not a civil one. No one can sue anyone else. Also, since it's on indictment only, there can be no private prosecutions. Only the DPP's office can bring a prosecution, which means that the Attorney-General gets the final say in whether to prosecute.

Please don't waste your money on trying to place ads in the paper. It doesn't matter whether the RC church considers something blasphemous - only whether it would cause "outrage" amongst a "substantial number of adherents".

This is some of the committee debate. The first person speaking is the minister who introduced it, Dermot Ahern:

As regards the offence of blasphemous libel, I believe we would all agree that the optimal approach, and certainly the one I would probably find most preferable, would be to abolish it altogether. However, we are where we are in regard to what is in the Constitution.
...
My proposal for a new section 35 has regard to the constitutional provision, the decision of the Supreme Court in the Corway case in 1999 and the earlier recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. This new section includes a definition of "blasphemous matter" along the lines proposed by the commission in its report. In addition, the term "outrage" as proposed by the commission is used so as not to widen the scope of the offence. There is also a requirement for a mens rea for the offence. A person should only be criminalised for the offence if he or she intended to cause outrage. We must avoid criminalising a person who might not have known that the matter in question was insulting because he or she was not aware of the teachings of a particular religion. The provision does not include a definition of religion; that interpretation must be left to the courts. The term "religion" was used in the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 where it was clearly intended that all religions be covered without being defined. The new section also provides for a monetary sanction only, with the removal of the prison sanction. I am also ensuring that any future prosecutions are taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions and not by individuals, as has occurred on several occasions since 1961.

In addition, my revised proposal now includes, in a new subsection 35(3), a defence in proceedings for an offence under this section whereby the defendant may prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates. My proposal mirrors somewhat that proposed by the Labour Party. However, it requires, in regard to the onus of proof, for "genuine value" as opposed to merely "any value". It does not include the broad and somewhat vague "social value" test.
...
Without incurring the expense of holding a referendum*, I am including as much as possible with regard to what is, in effect, an arcane concept. Because of the constitutional imperative, I propose the inclusion of a changed section that will raise the bar pretty high for a possible prosecution.

Deputy Charles Flanagan (FG): The Minister commenced what he admitted was a rather lengthy explanation of the reason for the inclusion into the Bill of this new section by speaking of his visits to Rome and what he did while there as though it bears any relevance to the Bill. I can draw one inference from his visits to Rome, which is that he certainly has engaged in something of a circus in respect of this legislation. His belated attempt to introduce a good defence procedure makes the Bill less operable than was the case heretofore.
...
Although the Minister proposed this provision as an attempt to justify the reason blasphemous libelshould be enshrined in legislation, he has ensured that this section of the Bill is completely unworkable. This is a classic example of an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

* What this is all about: The reason this is being introduced is because the Constitution says that "blasphemy shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law". The Corway case was an attempted blasphemy prosecution under the 1961 Act. That prescribed the penalty but did not say what blasphemy actually was. So the Supreme Court overturned the conviction, effectively saying that there was no such offence.

This bill repeals the 1961 Act and hence the penalty for the non-offence. Ahern says he is constitutionally obliged to insert an offence of blasphemy. So here we are.

The alternative is to amend the constitution to delete the references to blasphemy. This has been ruled out on the ground of cost, though it has not been explained to us why we cannot have a referendum in conjunction with Lisbon II in October.

(Edited for clarity)

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

30. Comment #395769 by Peter_on_Sax on July 13, 2009 at 4:24 am

Under the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) legislation, any EU member state can issue a warrant for the arrest and extradition of a suspected criminal. The arrest warrant is enforceable in all EU member states.

For example, Gerald Fredrick Töben allegedly posted material "of an antisemitic and/or revisionist nature" on his website, which he writes from his home in Australia. To publish such material is an offense in Germany, so the German courts issued an EAW. While changing planes at London Heathrow last October, Töben was arrested, even though his alleged offense is not a crime in the UK. Some 50 days later the case was dropped due to a lack of detail and Töben was released from the British prison.

With the introduction of Ireland's new blasphemy law, I conclude that, anyone in the World who might have caused "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion" should be wary of even stepping foot in the EU for fear of extradition to Ireland to face blasphemy charges.

Other Comments by Peter_on_Sax

31. Comment #395771 by Bolland on July 13, 2009 at 4:36 am

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who observed that the best way to get a bad law repealed was to enforce it strictly. We should only hope that this is what occurs.

Other Comments by Bolland

32. Comment #395780 by Fidgaf on July 13, 2009 at 5:00 am

@ rod-the-farmer

I'm not quite right (blame a quick read)

The quote came from the Catholic Encyclopedia here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm

Under the sub-heading:

Blasphemy in civil law

I'm not sure if that example strengthens or weakens what you want to do.



While re-reading the quote:

"Blasphemy, by reason of the significance of the words with which it is expressed, may be of three kinds" had me laughing.

"...may be of three kinds" had me thinking of Monty Python and the inquisition sketch. :D

Other Comments by Fidgaf

33. Comment #395786 by DeepFritz on July 13, 2009 at 5:27 am

For goodness sake - go out and VIOLATE the laws!!!

Other Comments by DeepFritz

34. Comment #395789 by mmurray on July 13, 2009 at 5:35 am

Jehovah.

(Duck)

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

35. Comment #395793 by Humanist Wikitopian on July 13, 2009 at 5:50 am

16. Comment #395730 by Flapjack: Middle ages? I thought Blasphemy laws have a more ancient pedigree than that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

Thanks for this, it made my day, I'd forgotten just how brilliant the Life of Brian really is.

It's a shame that it's not a compulsory part of the National Curriculum. ,-)

Other Comments by Humanist Wikitopian

36. Comment #395795 by rod-the-farmer on July 13, 2009 at 6:00 am

Re Hungarianelephant I see my tiny efforts at provoking this ridiculous law, not wasting my time & money. Either they agree to place the advert, or they tell me they cannot. That raises the spectre of pre-censorship, due to fear of criminal charges. This is a great deal of fun already. One can imagine local media reporting that the newspaper refuses to carry adverts meant to challenge the law. If Ahern truly wanted to solve the gap in the legislation, he should have proposed a bill changing the constitution to remove the blasphemy business. Nothing like the clear light of reality to shine on the work of the idiotic.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

37. Comment #395796 by Flapjack on July 13, 2009 at 6:02 am

Mmurray - "I'm warning you, If you say 'jehova' once more...!"
@ Humanist Wikitopian...
Enjoy the movie while it's still allowed!

Other Comments by Flapjack

38. Comment #395802 by mmurray on July 13, 2009 at 6:13 am

@Flapjack

Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah

@Humanist Wikitopian

Excellent Easter or Xmas viewing so you can avoid Songs of
Praise or whatever nauseating offerings are be shown.

Michael

PS: What happens if we go onto a website in Ireland that accepts comments (assuming they exist) and make blasphemous remarks ?

Other Comments by mmurray

39. Comment #395803 by bendigeidfran on July 13, 2009 at 6:20 am

mmurray - You're only making it worse.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

40. Comment #395804 by Stella on July 13, 2009 at 6:20 am

Hear, hear. I can't believe so few people are willing to stand up and speak out against this.

Other Comments by Stella

41. Comment #395811 by hungarianelephant on July 13, 2009 at 6:43 am

37. Comment #395795 by rod-the-farmer

I see your point, rod, but in order to make it work you're going to have to make sure that you're breaking the law. The new legal definition of blasphemy is not the same as what the Catholic church says it is. The bar has deliberately been set fairly high. Printing a disagreement on doctrinal matters isn't going to cut it.

To do this you will have to publish something "grossly" abusive or insulting, intend to cause "outrage" and actually achieve that. Short of portraying Jesus as a goat-worrier, I doubt there's much you could do with respect to Catholicism. The muzzies, of course, are an entirely different kettle of fish.

Given where the bar is, the newspapers would undoubtedly duck the question, giving you a little speech about how they defend freedom of expression but do not see that it is their place to go out of their way to give offence. Had you tried to place the same stuff last week, you would probably have got the same answer.

The Irish papers were every bit as supine as their British counterparts when the Mohammed cartoons were doing the rounds.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

42. Comment #395820 by Frankus1122 on July 13, 2009 at 6:58 am

Thanks hungarianelephant for the clarification.

It doesn't matter whether the RC church considers something blasphemous - only whether it would cause "outrage" amongst a "substantial number of adherents".

So could the child sex abuse scandal be considered as blasphemous?

How could anything be more outrageous to adherents of Roman Catholicism than to have those men who administer the holy sacraments so defile themselves and their parishioners? Are not their actions a slap in the face (or perhaps more crudely and accurately a 'fuck in the ass') of the Catholic Church?

Other Comments by Frankus1122

43. Comment #395823 by DoctorE on July 13, 2009 at 7:03 am

Blasphemy law.. what is that, what does it say?
Its says god cant protect himself, if the religious think they must protect the most powerful guy in the universe... well then god sucks

Can you imagine if other superheros "work" like god, like Batman, Batman would not do anything except for crying like a baby about all the bad villains, of course we would not see Batman or nuthing, just some idiot who says Batman is sad and the people must protect his sorry crying ass

Other Comments by DoctorE

44. Comment #395832 by PERSON on July 13, 2009 at 7:34 am

44. Comment #395823 by DoctorE on July 13, 2009 at 7:03 am
Ah, but if Batman fought the villains, because he is so kick-ass he would kill EVERYONE. So he waits. And cries.

Other Comments by PERSON

45. Comment #395853 by JonLynnHarvey on July 13, 2009 at 8:48 am

Blasphemy wasn't even a civil offense in England until the 17th century, and then was used in dreadful ways including prosecuting the publication of some of Percy Shelly's poetry. It's clearly just a power-grab.

Other Comments by JonLynnHarvey

46. Comment #395887 by merry-v on July 13, 2009 at 9:24 am

I wonder if any statement causing that level of outrage could be handled under (presumably) existing public order laws anyway. which makes the blasphemy law redundant (as well as embarrassing and stupid)

Other Comments by merry-v

47. Comment #395889 by BlueCollar8theist on July 13, 2009 at 9:28 am

I feel bad for any Irish construction workers. I know the string of blasphemy which pours from my mouth, upon say, mashing my thumb with a hammer, would make religious statues blush. It really does make it feel better, and I cannot imagine being fined for such a thing. Point of fact, I deny that even 'God' could resist hopping about and being blasphemous (how would that work, exactly??) upon mashing a finger or toe.

Other Comments by BlueCollar8theist

48. Comment #395915 by Flapjack on July 13, 2009 at 10:21 am

Doctor E - I realise you thought that god as a superhero was a new notion. Hate to bust your bubble but someone's already had a very similar idea. If you thought Power Rangers was ropey, just wait till you clap eyes on this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDx4XyHND0s&feature=related
"Holy communion Batman!"

Other Comments by Flapjack

49. Comment #395930 by GBile on July 13, 2009 at 10:53 am

Lugh is a sissy.

Well, that will keep me out of Ireland for the near future.

Other Comments by GBile

50. Comment #395936 by Frankus1122 on July 13, 2009 at 11:22 am

Comment #395915 by Flapjack

And this:

http://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/godman.html

Other Comments by Frankus1122