1. Comment #394872 by Paul42 on July 9, 2009 at 11:17 pm

Blasphemy is a victimless crime...

Love.

Other Comments by Paul42

2. Comment #394873 by Fizzle on July 9, 2009 at 11:25 pm

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Other Comments by Fizzle

3. Comment #394874 by Raiko on July 9, 2009 at 11:29 pm

Religious people cry 'blasphemy' at almost anything that doesn't equal worshipping their preferred deity. Like me kissing my fiancee in private.

Blasphemy or 'defamation of religion' is quite badly defined and by nature a threat to all sorts of human rights, first and most importantly freedom of expression.

Asides from the obvious flaw in clashing with existing laws and human rights, how do they think they could fairly judge such a badly defined crime to begin with?

Other Comments by Raiko

4. Comment #394875 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2009 at 11:41 pm

Paul-
That is an amusing slogan, but unfortunately incorrect. Blasphemy isn't directly about an insult to God, but about causing offence to believers. That means it is more awkward to deal with than simply insisting on evidence of gods.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

5. Comment #394876 by beanson on July 9, 2009 at 11:43 pm

I'll tell you what's blasphemous- the Irish tax payer picking up 90% of the compensation bill for Priestly child rape

Other Comments by beanson

6. Comment #394878 by Fizzle on July 9, 2009 at 11:49 pm

Well, in reality Steve, it is a you say. But religiously speaking it is the deity taking offense, and since said deity is basically nonexistent, it's a victimless crime.
That's what makes this whole thing ridiculous;what the believers are doing is victimizing themselves.

Further on reality, it is clearly an erosion of free speech when you realize it's some guy taking offense at whatever it is that scorns or disregards his dogma.

Other Comments by Fizzle

7. Comment #394881 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2009 at 12:00 am

Blasphemy is a very strange thing.

It implies considerable insecurity in the believer. If they were sure of their beliefs, then why should they care what others say about God?

I believe that blasphemy is a political tool to stop people challenging the faith of believers, and reducing the power of religious institutions.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

8. Comment #394882 by JIBJABBER on July 10, 2009 at 12:08 am

First thing I saw when I followed the link was a big ad for the Templeton Foundation.

Other Comments by JIBJABBER

9. Comment #394884 by JIBJABBER on July 10, 2009 at 12:19 am

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0709/1224250319175.html?via=mr

JAYSUS!

Other Comments by JIBJABBER

10. Comment #394885 by ev-love on July 10, 2009 at 12:29 am

Appalling news, and a ludicrous situation!

But don't blasphemy laws normally date from a time when 'faith' was the default position and 'to blaspheme' was to insult a supreme being that most people ASSUMED to exist? If I'm right, doesn't it follow that the true meaning of blasphemy is nothing about 'outraged feelings' at all?

ev-love

Other Comments by ev-love

11. Comment #394886 by Rodger T on July 10, 2009 at 12:35 am

Praise the lord and pass the altar boys.

Other Comments by Rodger T

12. Comment #394888 by critica on July 10, 2009 at 1:07 am

I wouldn't be too quick to close this down. If you think about it, we can offend Muslims just by being Christian; or offend Christians by being the wrong denomination. Why, they could sue the socks off each other and we need only stand back and watch the whole thing implode!

Other Comments by critica

13. Comment #394890 by Disbelief on July 10, 2009 at 1:16 am

I agree with comment 12.

Isn't islam blasphemous to christianity and vice versa?

Doesn't having a blasphemy law that encompasses all religions make a mockery of the concept of blasphemy?

Other Comments by Disbelief

14. Comment #394891 by Ignorant Amos on July 10, 2009 at 1:18 am

Looking at the size of potential fines, might this be a revenue generator, seeing as the Celtic Tiger has had its claws clipped due to the credit crunch?

I can tell you all here that the fun hasn't started yet.

We in the north already have the flags and emblems act, where, in the work place and socialising establishments, certain types of tatoos deemed offensive have to be covered up, sports jerseys are banned and whistling certain tunes can get ya fired or chucked out in the street.

Thankfully we all love one another now....well, almost.

This law could be beneficial to the non-beliver though, in a certain twisted light. I mean if all the various and different sects, tribes and groups have the right to redress because they are offended by all the other groups bells and whistles, perhaps there is a chance they might bankrupt each other!!!!Just a thought.

Seriously though, this is ridiculous, no wonder the rest of the world take the piss out of the Irish for being "thick Micks"....when the rest of the mordern civilised world are taking steps(tiny though they be) to get out of that dark age mentality, the Irish are making laws to get back in. Ya couldn't make it up!!!

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

15. Comment #394892 by Ignorant Amos on July 10, 2009 at 1:20 am

12. Comment #394888 by critica

Ahhh!! beat me to it while I was writimg...

Great minds think alike don't they say...kidding.

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

16. Comment #394893 by bendigeidfran on July 10, 2009 at 1:22 am

Comment #394891 by Ignorant Amos

It looked like you said whistling certain tunes can get you fired.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

17. Comment #394895 by Ignorant Amos on July 10, 2009 at 1:23 am

16. Comment #394893 by bendigeidfran

That is correct......

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

18. Comment #394896 by Ignorant Amos on July 10, 2009 at 1:26 am

Each of the two tribes of christianity have tunes they identify with and that are offensive to the other....singing or whistling the the "Sash My Father Wore" in earshot of a catholic employee could lead to dismissal.

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

19. Comment #394897 by Ignorant Amos on July 10, 2009 at 1:27 am

at the very least... a verbal warning

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

20. Comment #394898 by bendigeidfran on July 10, 2009 at 1:29 am

I don't know what to say. Plenty of stupid people here too, we're just not that organised.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

21. Comment #394899 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 10, 2009 at 1:40 am

Ludicrous indeed. From the article:

So Irish law has now enshrined the notion that the taking of offence is more important than free expression

As the Irish should say, "Where's my referendum?"

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

22. Comment #394900 by Ignorant Amos on July 10, 2009 at 1:43 am

20. Comment #394898 by bendigeidfran

See link

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Flags_and_Emblems_(Display)_Act_(Northern_Ireland)_1954

After the act was repelled, Northern Ireland went ballistic....all manner of flags and banners popped up....everywhere. Workplaces became shrines to ones loyalties...it just got out of hand. Minorities working in the opposite environments felt persecuted by all the sectarian regalia....then the litigation started. Hence, employers had bring in a blanket ban and set rules. To contravene these rules can bring the equalities Commission down hard. The whole thing got outta hand. workers wearing sticking plasters to cover up rings they refused to remove, council workers refusing to wear uniforms because of the badge design, to name a couple.

Even the Isreali and Palestinian flags have been adopted here in N.I. to signify allegiance....ridiculous isn't it???

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

23. Comment #394901 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2009 at 1:45 am

12. Comment #394888 by critica

I wouldn't be too quick to close this down. If you think about it, we can offend Muslims just by being Christian; or offend Christians by being the wrong denomination. Why, they could sue the socks off each other and we need only stand back and watch the whole thing implode!

They couldn't.

It's been made a crime, not a tort or other actionable civil wrong. No one can sue anyone for blasphemy. There can't be any private prosecutions either because it's an indictable offence - only the public prosecutor can bring cases.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

24. Comment #394902 by Disbelief on July 10, 2009 at 1:49 am

@ comment 23

Wouldn't that then make all religions illegal?.

Wey Hey!

Other Comments by Disbelief

25. Comment #394903 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2009 at 1:57 am

21. Comment #394899 by ColdFusionLazarus

As the Irish should say, "Where's my referendum?"

Ireland has many problems, but I don't think a shortage of referenda is among them. The October referendum is the 29th attempted amendment (not counting abortive attempts such as the ill-starred "children's rights" proposal), and over the last 20 years they have averaged one a year.

Though exactly why we can't lump all the changes together with Lisbon II, I have no idea.


24. Comment #394902 by Disbelief

Wouldn't that then make all religions illegal?

How?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

26. Comment #394904 by bendigeidfran on July 10, 2009 at 1:59 am

Comment #394900 by Ignorant Amos

We don't seem to be a very bright species. They've both got the same god for a start. Could we put something in the water? hallucinogenic love drugs?

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

27. Comment #394905 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 10, 2009 at 2:01 am

Though exactly why we can't lump all the changes together with Lisbon II, I have no idea.

Exactly (said in my best Scouse accent)

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

28. Comment #394906 by Disbelief on July 10, 2009 at 2:02 am

Because all religions have stated differences to each other and are therefor blasphemous and so the CPS or the Irish equivalent would have to prosecute them, wouldn't they?

Sorry I'm not a lawyer and I don't think I fully understood what you said.

Other Comments by Disbelief

29. Comment #394907 by Peacebeuponme on July 10, 2009 at 2:08 am

outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion

Is this the actual wording? Does anybody have the actual wording of the proposed law?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

30. Comment #394908 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2009 at 2:11 am

28. Comment #394906 by Disbelief

Because all religions have stated differences to each other and are therefor blasphemous and so the CPS or the Irish equivalent would have to prosecute them, wouldn't they?

Well firstly, it would have to be proved that something fell within the legal definition of blasphemy. The history behind this is in the article - the constitution says that blasphemy is a crime to be punished "in accordance with law", the 1961 Act set the penalties, but nothing in it actually defined what blasphemy was. This bill does that.

Mere doctrinal differences don't count. You have to be "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred" cause "outrage" and intend to do so.

Secondly, the public prosecutor doesn't have to prosecute anything. It's a discretion in the Attorney-General that the courts have repeatedly refused to look into. For an older English example, if you're interested, google "Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers".

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

31. Comment #394909 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2009 at 2:13 am

PBUM - Here you go:

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.

* There was a govt proposal to amend this to €25,000. The bill was guillotined and I don't know if this went through.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

32. Comment #394911 by Disbelief on July 10, 2009 at 2:16 am

@ comment 30

Thanks for that, I thought I may have been overly optimistic but just a thought, does that mean that that the attorney general has the last say on what is "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred"?

Like for instance muslims demanding that xmas trees be taken down and the 3 little pigs being banned, etc, etc ?

Other Comments by Disbelief

33. Comment #394912 by AllanW on July 10, 2009 at 2:18 am

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0710/1224250388598.html

Other Comments by AllanW

34. Comment #394916 by Ignorant Amos on July 10, 2009 at 2:42 am

26. Comment #394904 by bendigeidfran

They've both got the same god for a start. Could we put something in the water? hallucinogenic love drugs?

Its funny you should mention this. At the end of the 80's and the early 90's, the dance scene in Northern Ireland went a long way to breaking down sectarian barriers among the young people. The effects of taking ecstasy in the few clubs that catered for Rave music meant that youngsters from both sides of the divide were forced upon each other with remarkable results. I have two friends who are now married to members of the "other" religion and are very happy. One of who's father was a prominent U.V.F. man and married a girl who's father done time for the I.R.A.

Of course in the early days of the dance scene the paramilitaries hadn't caught on to the lucrative drug market and were punishing any youngsters involved, no matter what denomination, thus forcing the Ulster youth together in a common goal.

When the hypocrisy of the terrorists flourished in guise of them taking over drug supply....the sectarian divide amongst the young started to open up again.

I was still serving in the forces at the time, but had reason to pop along to the odd Rave myself to see what all the fuss was about. I couldn't believe my eyes, young people from polar opposites, dancing and hugging each other, where the two would normally tearing each other to shreads.

This would probably be the biggest reason I have a view of leagalising ecstasy with all the control that would bring.

I've sometimes thought of writing a book about the whole experience giving all the detail, warts an'all.

Perhaps instead of blasphemy laws a few "E's" would be the ticket....can ya picture it? the Pope and the Ayotollah....perhaps not.

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

35. Comment #394917 by Peacebeuponme on July 10, 2009 at 2:45 am

hungarian

Sounds to me to be written in such a way that would be impossible to generate any convictions, not that that makes it ok.

I mean, pretty much anything anybody says wrt to religion has political value, which would constitute a valid defence. Would "literary" be extended to the wider artistic world an cover comedians, for example?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

36. Comment #394918 by rod-the-farmer on July 10, 2009 at 2:46 am

I ask again, can someone provide examples of what would be considered blasphemous ? I can imagine block parties in most towns, where people would line up to speak one or more of these. Can you be blasphemous remotely ? I can't afford to travel to Ireland right now, but maybe I could post an advert in a newspaper.

Blasphemers must be stoned to death (Leviticus 24:16)

That would work just as well in Ireland as many other western countries. Maybe they could have left it like that.

Suppose the following is deemed acceptable...."The stupid feckin' Liberal party leader is a criminal" but to substitute "jesus' would make it blasphemous. That falls directly into RD's point that religion is somehow more deserving of respect than politics, sports or any other topic of common discussion.

Aaaaccckk. My tummy hurts.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

37. Comment #394919 by rod-the-farmer on July 10, 2009 at 2:50 am

For those who don't already have this bookmarked, or who have not participated personally,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_Challenge

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

38. Comment #394920 by Dispiracist on July 10, 2009 at 2:52 am

I can always rely on this website for a good laugh. I notice that the ‘banned in Turkey’ website banner has gone. Given the new legislation, perhaps it’s timely to replace it with an ‘illegal in Ireland’ banner.

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.

Reasonable people are extremely rare and unusual, possibly not even fully human by normal standards. There are probably more leprechauns in Ireland than reasonable people. Seeing as most of the world’s reasonable people are already members of this website it should be easy to defend prosecutions under Irish law.

Other Comments by Dispiracist

39. Comment #394921 by Peacebeuponme on July 10, 2009 at 2:55 am

Ignorant Amos

I was still serving in the forces at the time, but had reason to pop along to the odd Rave myself to see what all the fuss was about. I couldn't believe my eyes, young people from polar opposites, dancing and hugging each other, where the two would normally tearing each other to shreads.

Great story. But it must be a lie because we all know that no good can ever come from drugs. Ever.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

40. Comment #394923 by Ignorant Amos on July 10, 2009 at 3:05 am

39. Comment #394921 by Peacebeuponme

Of course....what the feck was I thinking of....I must have been tripping at the time.

And there could be children reading these posts. I'm a feckin' disgrace.

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

41. Comment #394924 by RedBarchetta on July 10, 2009 at 3:12 am

Re the Irish Times front page article about the tree stump worship issue:
'A spokesman for the Limerick diocesan office said ... “While we do not wish in any way to detract from devotion to Our Lady, we would also wish to avoid anything which might lead to superstition,” he said.'
Nice one.

Other Comments by RedBarchetta

42. Comment #394925 by bendigeidfran on July 10, 2009 at 3:13 am

Comment #394916 by Ignorant Amos

Please write it. Maybe we should stop funding these parasitic mafia bullies - legalise it and take their drug money away. Hats off to anyone trying to police the place.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

43. Comment #394926 by Ygern on July 10, 2009 at 3:15 am

Atheist Ireland is on the case! You can follow the events on http://blasphemy.ie/ and http://atheist.ie/ or join us in planning our response to this law at our AGM this Saturday in Wynns Hotel, Dublin 2pm - 5pm.

Other Comments by Ygern

44. Comment #394927 by Michael Nugent on July 10, 2009 at 3:25 am

Senator Ivana Bacik will open the first Atheist Ireland AGM at 2 pm tomorrow, Saturday 11 July, in Wynns Hotel in Abbey Street Dublin. Members of the public are welcome to attend.

The meeting will discuss a blasphemous statement to be published in response to the new blasphemy law passed yesterday in the Oireachtas.

I've written this opinion piece about it in today’s Irish Times: http://bit.ly/11i56G

The meeting will also plan a long-term campaign to have the blasphemy law repealed, and to remove references to blasphemy and gods from the Irish Constitution.

Atheist Ireland is an advocacy group that campaigns for an ethical and secular Ireland, where the State does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion. As well as a secular Constitution, we want to see a secular education system.

We are also launching a campaign encouraging people to read the Bible and other sacred books. Objectively reading the Bible is one of the strongest arguments for rejecting the idea of gods as intervening creators or moral guides.

Please come along, and bring or invite any friends who you think might be interested in our work.

Other Comments by Michael Nugent

45. Comment #394931 by Ignorant Amos on July 10, 2009 at 3:57 am

42. Comment #394925 by bendigeidfran

Maybe we should stop funding these parasitic mafia bullies - legalise it and take their drug money away.

I hear ya!!!!

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

46. Comment #394936 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2009 at 4:23 am

32. Comment #394911 by Disbelief

does that mean that that the attorney general has the last say on what is "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred"?

No, he just has the last say on whether the prosecution goes ahead. The jury (probably) would decide what is grossly abusive etc. if the prosecution goes ahead.

35. Comment #394917 by Peacebeuponme

Sounds to me to be written in such a way that would be impossible to generate any convictions, not that that makes it ok.

Yes, that's quite deliberate. Here's part of the Minister's waffle in Committee (http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=JUS20090520.xml&Ex=All&Page=3 - they've buggered about with the pages so you might have to do expansions on the left and then flick through to page 3)

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.

And on and very much on.

38. Comment #394920 by Dispiracist

Reasonable people are extremely rare and unusual, possibly not even fully human by normal standards. There are probably more leprechauns in Ireland than reasonable people.

I'm beginning to think you might be right.

If you read it carefully, the implication of the drafting is that outraged religious adherents are by definition not reasonable. I wonder if the six people who voted on the bill actually intended to say this.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

47. Comment #394937 by kablaamee on July 10, 2009 at 4:25 am

You'd think that if you could find intelligent people on the internet that we'd have at least a few in the dáil.

Other Comments by kablaamee

48. Comment #394939 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2009 at 4:35 am

47. Comment #394937 by kablaamee

"Of these 166 [TDs], approximately 70 will have the IQ of a turf briquette. This is not an insult; it is observable fact ... the average politician is twice as likely to make a pig's mickey of filling in a simple ballot paper as is the average citizen." - Gene Kerrigan

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

49. Comment #394941 by Ignorant Amos on July 10, 2009 at 4:39 am

From a posters reply at Blasphemy.ie

As a significant minority living in Ireland, Muslims abide by the principles in both the Quran and Sunnah that lay the groundwork for peaceful cohabitation and cooperation, premised upon mutual respect and civility. Why would Atheist Ireland actively seek to break this covenant?”

We Satanists follow the the principle that each group should be freely allowed to practice their religion. My religion involves blaspheming against your gods. This principle premised on the freedom to practice one’s religion lays the groundwork for peaceful cohabitation and cooperation with your religious minority - why do you wish to break this covenant?


I just thought it was an interesting point.

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

50. Comment #394942 by Ignorant Amos on July 10, 2009 at 4:45 am

When the Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister)even has the unflattering nickname of BIFFO.....

Big Ignorant Fucker From Offaly

What chance is there?

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos