Irish Blasphemy Law

don · 07-21-09 12:41 pm

(I present this law story because the motivation of the law makers surprised me. They would rather do away with the blasphemy law altogether, but they can't unless they change the constitution; which would be too costly. In this post, the news story is presented. In the next post we will examine the strange context to this event of law. Note that this news report misses the context.) Irish law makes it illegal to speak blasphemy July 21, 2009 By Colleen Tang, CBC News<blockquote> If you visit Ireland after October, you'd better watch what you say about God. A blasphemous slip of the tongue could cost you 25,000 euros under revamped legislation that will soon be signed into law. Blasphemy is an act of challenging or offending a religious belief. In recent years, western countries such as England have been taking blasphemy laws off the books, or changing their focus so that they cover hate-related crimes in general. Ireland has taken a different approach, updating its legislation but maintaining a focus on religion. In Ireland, it has been a crime to publish blasphemous material since 1961, although nobody has ever been convicted. The Seanad, the Irish senate and upper level of parliament, passed the Defamation Bill in July that makes uttering blasphemy a crime as well. The bill was originally proposed in 2006. It worked its way through parliament and received final approval on July 10 this year, when it passed by a slim margin of 23-22. Lorraine Weinrib, a law professor at the University of Toronto, says the bill is a modern update of blasphemy laws. "I don't see this as a new thing as much as an old thing that hasn't quite disappeared in Ireland," she says. "Unlike the old blasphemy laws which only protected the dominant religion [Roman Catholicism] … this one seems to protect all religions, so it kind of has a modern equality bent to it," Weinrib adds. But blasphemy laws can have an impact on freedom of expression, Weinrib says. "They create a crime where one of the basic elements of the crime is subjective outrage of particular people. So there's really no objective measure, and this can cause a disruption in the modern understanding of the relationship between religion and the public space of a liberal democracy." Even so, Weinrib points out that under Ireland's new legislation, in order to be found guilty, there has to be proof that the offender intended to cause outrage with a statement that is abusive or insulting. The statement also has to produce a violent reaction. The bill states that a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if: * 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. * He or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage. The bill puts the onus on a 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. "I think we're talking about central issues — for example, a depiction of Christ as a homosexual … many religious people find this outrageous and their reaction is intense," says Weinrib. "The intent of the outrage still needs to be proven in this case." Ireland is not alone in having laws that take aim at blasphemy. Canada lists blasphemous libel as a crime under the Criminal Code, which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. But the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees free speech rights that supersede the blasphemy law. The Canadian code says, "No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject." Many countries have abolished their blasphemy laws in recent years. In Britain, the Church of England (and by default, Christianity) was protected from blasphemy up until last year when the government reviewed the law. The U.K. voted to abolish blasphemy laws on Jan. 10, 2008. In the United States, blasphemy has never been considered a crime. In countries where Islam is the state religion, blasphemy is still considered a serious offence. In countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, the penalty for blasphemous crimes can be execution. A number of Islamic countries have been pursuing an international anti-blasphemy resolution at the United Nations that would restrict any speech that is offensive to any religion. But that approach assumes everyone is religious, Weinrib says, and issues can crop up when two religious groups have contradictory points of view. <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/20/f-ireland-blasphemy-law.html" target=_top>http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/20/f-ireland -blasphemy-law.html</a> </blockquote> (Message edited by Don on July 21, 2009)

don · 07-21-09 1:06 pm

The Irish Blasphemy Law in Context Background: The <a href="http://tinyurl.com/mykwkq" target="_blank">1937 Irish Constitution</a> reads at 40.6.1.i<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0040/sec0013.html#zza40y1961s13" target="_blank">The 1961 Defamation Act</a> reads:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:quote to be put here. Section 13 13.—(1) Every person who composes, prints or publishes any blasphemous or obscene libel shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both fine and imprisonment or to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years. [GA] ( a ) In every case in which a person is convicted of composing, printing or publishing a blasphemous libel, the court may make an order for the seizure and carrying away and detaining in safe custody, in such manner as shall be directed in the order, of all copies of the, libel in the possession of such person or of any other person named in the order for his use, evidence upon oath having been previously given to the satisfaction of the court that copies of the said libel are in the possession of such other person for the use of the person convicted.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> (Message edited by Don on July 21, 2009)

elaine · 07-21-09 2:22 pm

Can't wait till the Comedy Central has their take-off on this. With Stewart a Jew and Colbert a Catholic (one of them majored in theology in college) they are very knowledable on religious matters. Last night Stewart mentioned that Sanford (S.C. governor, and a proclaimed Christian) was seeking forgiveness and restitution with his wife. Stewart said that it so easy for Christians, they could merely ask forgiveness while he had to give up bacon! Blasphemy is as old as the Bible, and probably older. Is it like beauty: in the ear of the listener to define? Interesting law for a Catholic country. Given the horrific crimes committed by them in that country with poor children, it's so hypocritical.

don · 07-21-09 3:01 pm

The Irish Blasphemy Law in Context Background: The <a href="http://tinyurl.com/mykwkq" target="_blank">1937 Irish Constitution</a> reads at 40.6.1.i<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0040/sec0013.html#zza40y1961s13" target="_blank">The 1961 Defamation Act</a> reads: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:13.—(1) Every person who composes, prints or publishes any blasphemous or obscene libel shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both fine and imprisonment or to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years. [GA] ( a ) In every case in which a person is convicted of composing, printing or publishing a blasphemous libel, the court may make an order for the seizure and carrying away and detaining in safe custody, in such manner as shall be directed in the order, of all copies of the, libel in the possession of such person or of any other person named in the order for his use, evidence upon oath having been previously given to the satisfaction of the court that copies of the said libel are in the possession of such other person for the use of the person convicted.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Government Intent on Repealing the 1961 Defamation Act, including Section 13. Dermot Ahern, Ireland's Justice Minister explains:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:In the Bill, we are repealing the Defamation Act 1961. The continuation of the current provision at section 13 of that Act is not a desirable option. Section 13 provides for both monetary and prison sanctions in regard to blasphemous or obscene libel, offences which were presumed to exist at common law. However, the decision of the Supreme Court in the 1999 case of Corway v . Independent Newspapers - the only blasphemy case brought since the Constitution came into effect - held that the common law offence of blasphemous libel did not survive the adoption of the Constitution. That decision created an anomaly in regard to the obligation in respect of the Constitutional provision. Therefore, to continue with and complete the reform of our defamation legislation, I must respect the advice of successive Attorneys General that there is a constitutional obligation and imperative on me not to leave a legal void following a repeal of section 13 of the 1961 Act. It is not just me as Minister; the Oireachtas is not entitled under the Constitution to leave that legal void. <a href="http://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2009-07-09.113.0" target="_blank">http://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2009-0 7-09.113.0</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Before 1937<blockquote>Some common law re: blasphemy existed.</blockquote>1937<blockquote>According to the Supreme Court, these common laws ceased when the Constitution was adopted.</blockquote> 1961<blockquote>The Defamation Act became law. </blockquote> 2006-2009<blockquote>The Government decided to repeal the Defamation Act. If the Constitution had not called for a law against blasphemy, this would be the prime time to drop the law. But, the constitution mandates a blasphemy law. The Government did not want to seek to change the constitution. Thus, they had to make a new law about blasphemy.</blockquote>Ahern explains further:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:We have three options on this. We can have a referendum and change this. We can pass a section dealing with blasphemous libel in order to comply with the Constitution, or we could just drop this Bill altogether. That was an option. Some people have suggested that we could repeal the entire Act and leave section 13, which contains the existing offence of blasphemous libel. However, we cannot do that because of the Corway case. The Corway judgment stated that there was a need to address this issue, and it stated that we effectively had to come back to address the existing offence of blasphemous libel. We cannot repeal the entire Act and leave section 13 in place. Even if we could leave section 13 in place, it would leave in place the possibility of imprisonment for blasphemous libel. It would leave the possibility that a private citizen could bring a prosecution for blasphemous libel. Our amendment takes out the threat of imprisonment, so there will only be a fine that is being reduced from €100,000 to €25,000. Some people have suggested that we should reduce that further. I would like to do that, but then the offence will be brought into the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and I think we would all prefer if it was dealt with in the High Court. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Ahern concludes:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:I am pleased the Bill will finally be passed today. As I stated earlier, it is not legislation I would have liked on my Christmas card list. We should now proceed to pass it into law, at which point I hope the President will sign it. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>This new law does not represent an aggressive policy against blasphemy. On the contrary, this new law defangs the law on blasphemy. The prison provision is removed. Fines are reduced as low as possible. If fines were less, the lower courts would have to try the cases. The Government wanted the cases to remain with the higher courts. So, here we have a blasphemy law where the media of the world presents Ireland as the last hold out. It is not that simple. (Apologies for the repetition with the earlier post.) .

elaine · 07-21-09 3:45 pm

Ireland is only the last of first world countries. Try something like that in Somalia, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries to find out the extent of blasphemy. Remember the artist in Denmark who drew a caricature of Mohamed?

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 07-21-09 12:41 pm

Irish Blasphemy Law

#2 07-21-09 1:06 pm

Re: Irish Blasphemy Law

#3 07-21-09 2:22 pm

Re: Irish Blasphemy Law

#4 07-21-09 3:01 pm

Re: Irish Blasphemy Law

#5 07-21-09 3:45 pm

Re: Irish Blasphemy Law

Board footer