It seems that while we were distracted with such incredibly important things as Michael Jackson’s death and Papi’s steroid use, Ireland went and made blasphemy illegal.
That’s about US$35345 folks. And what constitutes blasphemy, you might be asking.
Seems to me that this law would prevent an atheist from speaking his views (or publishing them, or writing song lyrics about the subject, etc.).
IMO this is a totally misguided application of the judiciary, but obviously it has it’s supporters, or it would not have passed into law.
Does anyone think this is a good law?
Would anyone like to see a law like this in the US?
Does anyone think it likely at all that the US would ever pass a law like this?
What kind of legs does this law have? Will it stand up in court? Or public opinion?
I mean, can Richard Dawkins deliver a lecture in Ireland without having to cough up the E25k fine, with this law in place?
No one asked me (they never listen anyway), but I’m gonna have to give a big thumb down to this whole concept. Prolly a good thing I don’t drink or care for the Pogues, eh, because I won’t be going to Ireland while this law is on the books.
The law is an appalling one, but I cannot understand your interpretation of it.
We in Ireland are are not abused, insulted or outraged at hearing somebody express views with which we disagree. On the contrary, we rather like it; it provides a basis for conversation, and even argument, which on the whole we consider to be a good thing. Consequently the expression of atheist views is not considered blasphemous. Richard Dawkins can lecture all he likes; I’m sure that will come as a great relief to him.
Please, please tell me that where you live disagreeing with someone’s opinion is not considered abusive, insulting and outrageous. That would create a social and intellectual climate far more repressive than anything this law is going to do.
UDS, I can only go by the information I have, and according to the author of the linked article, John Allen Paulos (author of Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up),
I’m heartened to hear from at least one person living there that this may not happen, but having a law on the books which may allow it to happen is, to me, still too much.
I don’t ever want to hear anyone yelling "Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I’m being repressed! " in real life, eh.*
*Okay, maybe there’s a few I wouldn’t mind hearing say that in real life, but not for the reasons this law gives, right.
Does anyone think this is a good law? Not I
Would anyone like to see a law like this in the US? Hell, no, is my opinion.
Does anyone think it likely at all that the US would ever pass a law like this? If the Palintologists ever take over.
What kind of legs does this law have? Will it stand up in court? Or public opinion? Not sure about Irish law, but it would be overturned in the U.S., probably by a 7-2 to 9-0 vote.
No offence to John Allen Paulos, but he’s a Professor of Mathematics at an American university, and I don’t think he has any particular qualifations to tell us how Irish law is interpreted and applied. To be quite honest, if that’s his opinion, I’d be more worried about freedom of speech in Temple University than in Ireland.
OK, as pointed out above, blasphemy has always been illegal in Ireland. There have been no prosecutions since independence in 1922, nor indeed for many decades before that. So the chances of prosecution are not great.
If it were to be prosecuted, it would be prosecuted like any other crime. If charged, there would be right to a jury trial, and if convicted a right of appeal to a higher court.
Who gets to say whether this is a good law? Ireland has a constitutional separation of powers, so this is mainly a matter for the legislature. The courts have a limited jurisdiction to strike down legislation, not on the basis that it isn;t good, but on the basis that it is inconsistent with the constitition.
From his article, it seemed that this was a new law. I mean he does say
Is it the same old law with updated penalties? Or did he get everything wrong only to seem like an attention whore (or something)?
Is freedom of expression, or speech, or communication embodied in your constitution? And how could this blasphemy law not conflict with that, if it is?
The issue is that the Irish Constitution says that there shall be a law against blasphemy. Specifically, it says:
In 1961, Ireland passed a law called the Defamation Act, which changed Ireland’s libel laws and said in relevant part:
Jump ahead to 1995, when Ireland passed a referendum allowing divorce (which had been illegal in Ireland until then). After the referendum passed, the newspaper the Sunday Independent printed a political cartoon, which showed a priest holding a communion chalice and wafer and three politicians turning away from him. The caption said “Hello progress, goodbye Father.” (The slogan of the anti-divorce side had been “Hello divorce, goodbye daddy”). Someone took offense at this, and asked the High Court to let him sue the paper for violating the blasphemy law. The High Court said that merely criticizing the Christian religion isn’t blasphemous, and besides, it wouldn’t be in the public interest to allow a prosecution to go forward. He appealed this to the Irish Supreme Court, and in 1999, they made a ruling, saying, first, that the cartoon isn’t blasphemous, and secondly, more generally, there’s no legal definition of blasphemy in the law. They ruled that, while there had been a common law definition of blasphemy, it had been thrown out by the Constitution by the provision guaranteeing religious equality under the law, and that the Defamation law never defined what “blasphemous libel” was.
So, in 2008, there was a committee to suggest constitutional reforms which had said, basically, "Get rid of the blasphemy portion of the Constitution, because the Supreme Court had made it a dead letter anyway, and besides, modern states shouldn’t go around prohibiting blasphemy anyway.
This brings us up to the present, where the Justice Minister pushed through the new blasphemy law, saying basically, “It’s either this or amend the Constitution, and a constitutional referendum would be expensive.” Everybody agreed the blasphemy law was a bad idea, and the the Justice Minister’s argument was stupid, and then they went ahead and passed it.
Captain Amazing has it. Blasphemy has always been a crime; the various pieces of legislation have been about setting the penalties and (most recently) defining exactly what it is. Proof, if proof be needed, of the foolishness of relying on Paulos for reliable information (except, I hope, reliable information about mathematics).
Under the Constitition it has to be a crime- a hangover from the pietistic 1930s when the Constitution was drafted. (Think of it as the Irish equivalent of a wholly anomalous right to keep and bear arms, though on the whole the Irish anomaly is probably less, um, fatal.) This will not change unless some government is willing to hold a referendum on the issue. The conventional wisdom is that referendums are unpopular with voters, and a referendum to abolish a crime for which no-ne has ever been prosecuted would be seen by many (though not by me) as a waste of money.
What, you think that if Jews say Jesus is not God, or Christians say He is, they’re both doing it just to piss off the other group? That’s the other leg of “the way the law is written”, on my admittedly casual and naive reading.
