Atheists challenge Ireland’s new blasphemy law

[DJ13]

‘Grossly abusive or insulting’ comments can now result in $35,000 fine

Sun., Jan. 3, 2010


LONDON - Atheists in Ireland are risking possible prosecution with an audacious online challenge to the country's new blasphemy law.

Under the law, which went into effect Friday, a person can be found guilty of blasphemy 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."

The penalty is a fine of up to 25,000 euros, or more than $35,000.

In a bid to demonstrate that the law is outdated and largely unenforceable, a group named Atheist Ireland published on its Web site on Friday 25 potentially blasphemous quotations from figures such as Jesus Christ, Muhammad, George Carlin, Pope Benedict XVI and Mark Twain, who opined in 1909: "When the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. . . . He slays, slays, slays!"

"Two days ago, there was no question over whether these quotes were legal. Now there is a question, and that is very bizarre," Michael Nugent, the group's chairman, said in an interview Saturday.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34671425/ns/world_news-washington_post/

[Electric Monk]

1. dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7381654

[GreenStormCloud]

2. What a ridiculous law.

In the wake of the global Islamic uproar over some books, notably "The Satanic Verses", and over the Danish cartoons, I can understand what Ireland is trying to do. They are trying to keep people from offending earch other. But free speech is more important. There is no right to be free from being offended. If one's faith can be damaged by a cartoon, or a picture of your diety in a jar of urine, then one's faith is weak and fragile.

[WeDidIt]

3. Blasphemy is a victimless crime. n/t

[TheWraith]

4. My religion finds blasphemy laws offensive.

I hearby demand the arrest of the Irish parliment.

[Taitertots]

6. My religion finds being offended to be offensive

Oh no, now we are guilty of it too.

[ngant17]

5. this law is blasphemy against aetheism

it is rational and logical to question the innate lunacy of religions in general.

[jgraz]

7. FSM adherents should start demanding that pasta be treated as sacred

Maltreatment of any noodly object would be considered highly offensive to their religious beliefs.

[DavidDvorkin]

8. Shame on the atheists

They should be quiet and polite. That's the way to change attitudes. The louder and more visible they are, the greater the backlash. However, if they keep their place and speak only when spoken to and ask very nicely for some consideration, then they can be sure that the Christian authorities will give it to them.

That must be true, because I read something to that effect on DU.

[struggle4progress]

9. (xpost from early GD thread) This may involve peculiarities of Irish politics in unexpected ways:

The Irish laws were originally based on the English law. The last imprisonment in the UK for blasphemy was John Gott in 1921; the last blasphemy conviction in the UK was in 1977; and the UK blasphemy law was finally abolished in 2008

There seems to have been no successful prosecution for blasphemy in Ireland within living memory; however, blasphemy is explicitly illegal under the 1937 constitution, though an unsuccessful prosecution in 1999 produced a Supreme Court decision indicating no one knew "of what the offence of blasphemy consists." The expected route of blasphemy law enforcement was the 1961 defamation law, which allowed for up to seven years imprisonment. With Parliament's abolition of blasphemy laws in 2008, the Irish set out to consider how to abolish their own: the point of view that won was, not to amend the constitution, but to repeal the prison sentences of the 1961 defamation law and redraw the law with such explicit exemptions as would make successful prosecution very difficult

In view of the context, I predict that this action by Atheist Ireland will provoke no prosecutorial response

The Irish Times - Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Blasphemy provisions clash with Constitution
... The common law historically punished blasphemy against Christianity as one aspect of the crime of libel. In a successful prosecution against Gay News magazine in 1977, the English courts confirmed the continuing existence of the crime. In an unsuccessful attempt to begin proceedings against Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses in 1991, they held that it did not protect Islam. Most recently, in another unsuccessful attempt to commence a prosecution against Jerry Springer - The Opera in 2007, they held that the modern justification for the crime lies in the risk of public disorder. The European Court of Human Rights has held that, although blasphemy can infringe the right to freedom of expression, it can be justified, provided that there is a good reason for the infringement. In the Jerry Springer case, the court held that this reason must be the risk of public disorder, and not the mere fact of insulting religious beliefs, however deeply held. The blasphemy provisions of the Defamation Bill make it an offence to cause outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of a religion by intentionally publishing material that grossly abuses or insults matters held sacred by their religion. This is actually quite narrowly drawn, and there is a further saver for publications of genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value. Moreover, the maximum €25,000 fine is relatively light. It is therefore neither a trap for the unwary, nor a charter for religious cranks, nor even a check upon valuable public discourse. Nevertheless, the offence is still of dubious constitutionality ... http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0722/1224251063583.html

The Irish Times - Friday, May 1, 2009
Position of blasphemy in our Constitution cannot be ignored
< DERMOT AHERN>
... THE 1961 Defamation Act provides that a person can be both fined and imprisoned for a maximum of seven years for the crime of blasphemous libel. The Government is moving to reform that Act, while respecting our Constitution, which requires that blasphemy must be punishable by law. My intention is to remove the possibility of prison sentences and private prosecutions for blasphemy, currently provided for in Irish law. The only credible alternative to this move is a blasphemy referendum which I consider, in the current circumstances, a costly and unwarranted diversion ... Among my proposed amendments was a proposal in regard to the treatment of the issue of blasphemy in our law. It is wrong to state that we have no law in this area and that I am creating a new offence. Currently, section 13 of the 1961 Defamation Act provides for sanctions, both monetary and prison, where a person might be convicted of publishing a blasphemous libel. That section will be repealed, along with that whole Act by the new legislation ... I have taken the opportunity of ensuring that private prosecutions for blasphemy can no longer be brought by ensuring it is not a summary offence and that all prosecutions have to be brought by the independent prosecutor, the DPP. I have also removed the punishment of imprisonment and instead imposed a fine. The Labour Party in its proposed suggestion in regard to my amendment does not propose deletion of it, but rather to make a proposal as to the penalty involved ... The revised provision in regard to blasphemy requires at least three elements to be present: that the material be grossly abusive or insulting in matters held sacred by a religion; that it must actually cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion; and, crucially, that there be an intent to cause such outrage. Such intent was not previously required ... http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0501/1224245748066.html

... In 1855, the burning of a Bible led to the last blasphemy prosecution in Ireland before the founding of the Free State. Prosecutions for blasphemy in Ireland effectively ceased when the Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1869 ... http://blasphemy.ie/history-of-irish-blasphemy-law/

... The .. Irish Constitution .. contains provisions which state that "the publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent material is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law" – but there is no actual law against blasphemy. On the single occasion that an attempt was made to prosecute a satirical Irish newspaper under this provision - Corway v Independent Newspapers, in 1999 - the Supreme Court eventually concluded that it was not possible to say "of what the offence of blasphemy consists". For these reasons, the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, last year recommended that the Constitution be amended to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafted to bring it into line of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, providing a positive right to freedom of expression ... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/08/ireland_blashpemy

Obituary: Denis Lemon
PETER BURTON
Saturday, 23 July 1994
Denis Edward Lemon, newspaper editor and restaurateur: born Bradford-on-Avon 11 August 1945; Editor, Gay News 1972-82; died Exmouth 21 July 1994.
AFTER his trial in 1977 at the Old Bailey on a charge of blasphemous libel, Denis Lemon became something of an international celebrity: he was the first man to be convicted in Britain on such a charge in more than 50 years ... He published Kirkup's poem in 1976 because he thought 'the message and intention of the poem was to celebrate the absolute universality of God's love', although he admitted it was 'probably not a great work of literature'. Not everyone viewed the poem in the same light as Lemon and an outraged reader dispatched a copy to Mary Whitehouse who instigated a prosecution for blasphemous libel. Judge Alan King- Hamilton disallowed expert testimony on the literary, sociological or theological qualities of the poem - Margaret Drabble and Bernard Levin were allowed to appear as character witnesses on Lemon's part. John Mortimer appeared for the defence, but Gay News Ltd and Denis Lemon were found guilty - Lemon being fined pounds 500 and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, suspended for 18 months and subsequently quashed by the Court of Appeal ... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-denis-lemon-1415565.html

The gay poem that broke blasphemy laws
By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk • January 10, 2008 - 12:50
... Mary Whitehouse, founder of the National Viewers and Listeners Association, (NVLA) announced her intention to sue in December 1976 after she read the poem entitled The Love That Dares To Speak Its Name by James Kirkup, published in Gay News. Denis Lemon was sentenced to nine months suspended imprisonment and fined £500 ... An appeal against the conviction was rejected by the House of Lords. It still 'illegal' to publish the poem in the UK ... http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6519.html

... In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution ... http://travors.com/post/311346765/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes

Britain's House of Lords abolishes blasphemy laws
By Kim Murphy
Los Angeles Times / March 6, 2008
LONDON - A funny thing happened last November when Britain launched a righteous protest over the arrest in Sudan of a British school teacher who was accused of insulting religion by naming a class teddy bear Mohammed. The Sudanese ambassador was summoned; Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued a protest. It didn't take long, though, for someone to point out that Downing Street was standing on diplomatic quicksand: Britain itself has a law making blasphemy a crime. Thus began a period of collective soul-searching on free speech and secularism, traditional values and the church that anoints Britain's queen. It culminated yesterday in a 148-87 vote in the House of Lords to abolish the laws on blasphemy after a wrenching, two-hour debate ... http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/03/06/britains_house_of_lords_abolishes_blasphemy_laws

<earlier GD thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7377093&mesg_id=7377093 >
<R/T thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x231485 >

[struggle4progress]

10. Link to the text of the 2009 Defamation Act:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/index.html

At issue is Section 36:

(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 €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.

So for the purposes of successful prosecution, one must deliberately set out to outrage a large number of people, one must succeed in outraging those people, and one must do so without introducing any genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value