Ireland, oh Ireland

[BroomJockey]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/7171/

Wtf.

Aside from a €25,000 fine (reduced from the €100,000 originally sought by the government), the new Defamation Act gives the authorities the power to stage raids on publishers: the courts may now issue a warrant authorising the police to enter, using ‘reasonable force’, premises where they have grounds for believing there are copies of ‘blasphemous statements’.

That's right, Ireland has made it illegal to blaspheme and offend religious persons. Turns out this is way back in the original constitution of Ireland.

[Flyndaran]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/7171/

Wtf.



That's right, Ireland has made it illegal to blaspheme and offend religious persons. Turns out this is way back in the original constitution of Ireland.

I believe that that is an incorrect interpretation of the law. I'll post a direct quote from an irish person's response from another forum.

Hi all, Irish myself so would like to share my reaction.

Yes it's true that the new defamation bill has retained on statute the offence of blasphemous libel. It existed as an offence prior to this but was not used. I don't expect it will be now either. The reason it was included is because it is explicitly part of the constitution that, among other things, blasphemy is considered a crime. Although it should be noted that the proposed penalty does not include imprisonment, and the fine has been reduced from €100,000 to €25,000. It's ridiculous that it's there at all but there you go...

You have to understand that when the constitution was drawn up Ireland basically was a Roman Catholic state in all but name. The Church wielded enormous influence and ran most of the schools, charities and of course was a focal point for social organisation as most households at that time went to Mass and set great stock in what the Church's leaders in Ireland (or even their local curates) had to say on matters of faith. Even if these were in relation to governance.

Happily this is no longer the case and Ireland is a secular country, and well on the way to cleaning up these anachronisms in our laws, despite the slowness of our politicians in embracing this. The retention of this offence is, frankly, embarrassing and has caused great annoyance to Irish people everywhere. We don't support it but then the incumbent government is a lame duck administration and knows it most likely won't be reelected, so they tend not to care what we think.

The problem here is that the offence has to exist until it is taken out of the constitition by popular referendum. As there will be a vote on the Lisbon Treaty to amend the rules of the EU on Oct 2 and incorporate the treaty into the Irish Constitution, I fully expect there to be a second vote to amend the constitution to remove blasphemy as an offence, probably to be replaced by 'protection against incitement to hatred on religious grounds'.

In any case, if the Irish Supreme Court doesn't deem it unconstitutional, the European Court of Justice will and it will have to be gotten rid of then.

[BroomJockey]

And where's my incorrect interpretation? I said it's in the constitution, and it's illegal. That's what he said.

[Flyndaran]

And where's my incorrect interpretation? I said it's in the constitution, and it's illegal. That's what he said.

The point that it's somehow going to be more prosecuted now. It's not. They just tried to stop gap the issue with a more proper definition and lessening of punishment.

They can't do anything more without a hard to enact constitution change. If it's anything like amending the american constitution, then it's almost impossible to do without a near overwhelming majority and nothing more important going on.

I believe that blashphemy has never actually been prosecuted, so it's mostly a non-issue no matter how it looks to other nations.

Addendum:
Think of it as a silly law like how donkeys can't sleep in New York bathtubs.

[BroomJockey]

The point that it's somehow going to be more prosecuted now. It's not.

Actually, it has been prosecuted in the past, just not very often. There was at least one major case.

As for being more prosecuted now, it might very well be, simply because they've drawn attention to the law. You might now get extremists forcing the police's hand by levelling complaints, and under this law, they'd be compelled to act.

[Flyndaran]

Actually, it has been prosecuted in the past, just not very often. There was at least one major case.

As for being more prosecuted now, it might very well be, simply because they've drawn attention to the law. You might now get extremists forcing the police's hand by levelling complaints, and under this law, they'd be compelled to act.

Eh, when dealing with fiddly culture based laws, I tend to take the word of a local over what may seem like the obvious repurcussions.

[BroomJockey]

I tend to take the word of a local over what may seem like the obvious repurcussions.

They have people dedicated to blowing up the opposing religion. Handing them a newly polished weapon is never a great idea, and locals are Never the Best Source, after all, how many Americans thought stuff like the Patriot Act was a good idea?

[Flyndaran]

They have people dedicated to blowing up the opposing religion. Handing them a newly polished weapon is never a great idea, and locals are Never the Best Source, after all, how many Americans thought stuff like the Patriot Act was a good idea?

But it's reducing a previously almost never used law. It can't be worse than leaving it the same.

[lordlundar]

I believe that blashphemy has never actually been prosecuted, so it's mostly a non-issue no matter how it looks to other nations.

Wouldn't count on it being a non-issue. The IRA's basis of their terrorist attacks were a case of protestants vs catholics. Even if the law is never used, there's some pretty big fuel to relight a fire that's still not completely put out.

[Flyndaran]

Wouldn't count on it being a non-issue. The IRA's basis of their terrorist attacks were a case of protestants vs catholics. Even if the law is never used, there's some pretty big fuel to relight a fire that's still not completely put out.

The IRA was a group of organizations. The original renounced violence in 69'.
I'm having trouble finding anything about them more recent than a decade ago.

[Pedersen]

I believe that blashphemy has never actually been prosecuted, so it's mostly a non-issue no matter how it looks to other nations.

One thing that I find interesting to do is to pay attention a little bit to outrageous laws and the arguments for/against them.

Time and time again the same pattern is followed: Outrageous law gets proposed. People speak up and say "Wait, you could use this law in this really outrageous way!" Others speak up and say "No way. The law will never be used in that fashion. You have nothing to worry about." Finally, over the objections of the first group, the law gets passed as worded.

Within only a few months (at most) of the law taking effect, it is used in exactly the fashion that the first group warned of, and the second group ignored.

I have yet to see a single time that this pattern did not hold.

So, go ahead and believe that it won't happen. I'll wait for the news story to break about how it did.

[Flyndaran]

Have you not been reading what I actually wrote?
It isn't a new law. It's clarifying and reducing the effects of an already existing law. It's the first step in the long process of amending their constitution to remove blasphemy altogether.

[BroomJockey]

Have you not been reading what I actually wrote?
It isn't a new law.

Actually, it is. They scrapped the old one, then replaced it with this. They didn't modify the old one.

[Flyndaran]

Actually, it is. They scrapped the old one, then replaced it with this. They didn't modify the old one.

I could have sworn that it was a modification of something unremovable from their constitution.

[Pedersen]

Have you not been reading what I actually wrote?
It isn't a new law. It's clarifying and reducing the effects of an already existing law. It's the first step in the long process of amending their constitution to remove blasphemy altogether.

Oh, I've read what you wrote. Too bad you didn't actually read past the first paragraph of the article, since it would reinforce what I said. Here, allow me to quote the second paragraph for your benefit:

Aside from a €25,000 fine (reduced from the €100,000 originally sought by the government), the new Defamation Act gives the authorities the power to stage raids on publishers: the courts may now issue a warrant authorising the police to enter, using ‘reasonable force’, premises where they have grounds for believing there are copies of ‘blasphemous statements’.

Now, that's a lot to read, so let me point out the part that shows that the government has every intention of using this law in exactly the manner allowed:

Aside from a €25,000 fine (reduced from the €100,000 originally sought by the government)

That's right, the government wanted the fine to be four times higher than what it got set to be. If they wanted the law gone, if they didn't intend to enforce it, then they wouldn't want the fine so high. They'd try to lowball it, to give it the significance they feel it truly deserves.

No, Flyn, they did not do it just because they are required to by their constitution. They did it because they want to use the law on someone (or some group).

As I said, I'll be waiting for the stories to break into the media. I have no doubt whatsoever that they will.