Ireland has always had the crimes of blasphemy and sedition written into the Constitution, but due to vaugeness, the courts never enforced them.
Enter our Justice, Equality and Law Reform Minister, who has introduced blasphemy legislation with a maximum penalty of €100,000 for blasphemous or seditious material.
However it should be noted that only the state can now take prosecutiond for blasphemy, and not members of the public.
So. Do dopers think that blasphemy laws still have a place in society?
In a society that is based on a single homogeneous religion, that does not tolerate dissent? Sure why not. It keeps them from being hypocritical.
In Ireland, I have no idea, not being that familiar with how homogeneous the culture of religion is. I gather it is close to 100% roman catholic, but I could be wrong.
Roman Catholic is the majority, but a huge number of these are lapsed or á-la-carte, and there are decent numbers of other religions. We have lots of Athiests, a load of Protestants, and about 2500 Jews.
I’d say it’s the responsibility of every Irish citizen with half a brain to make it clear to their elected representatives to vote against such legislation.
Thsi doesn’t necessarily end their political careers. People can have continuing careers as independent (non-party) politicians, or after a suitable interval the whip is restored.
Plus, I think Laudenum oversimplifies a little. Government ministers have to pay attention to their own backbenchers; if a government policy is causing dissatisfaction, backbenchers do have the capacity to influence government policy. The result may be not that this measure is voted down in the parliamentary process, but that it is withdrawn or modified by the government before being voted on. Plus, in committee (which is where this measure is being introduced) the atmosphere is often a little less partisan; it’s not unusual for their to be quite open discussion, and some attempt to acheive consensus, when a bill is in committee.
A core requirement for a republic is the right to offend (and to be offended). When we criminalize ideas beyond the most basic (incitement, conspiracy…) issues wher said ideas directly cause the loss of life, liberty or property through the incitement or execution of deception, violence or theft, we inhibit the flow of ideas that otherwise enhance the life of the republic.
Citizens need to learn how to process discord and conflict without using the state to punish each other for not keeping the “correct ideas” in the “correct box.”
I find the whole thing insulting and embarassing. The Government is incredibly unpopular at the moment. This may be a move to try and bolster it’s core Catholic vote before the local elections. If it is it won’t work. The economy is going to crush them.
It sounds like some of our locals (those with literally half a brain) have taken up residence and citizenship in Ireland. If such a law is passed, I think that all good Irish women and men should have a Blaspheme Day and hurl their insults under the windows of the office of the Justice, Equality and Law Reform Minister.
My suspicion is that it’s a quid pro quo for the civil partnership legislation, which is rather clearly being held up by the (still powerful) cultural right. What is amazing about this is that the Labour Party don’t seem to be opposing it, but simply tabling amendments to soften it and reduce the penalties.
The Fianna Fáil backbench aren’t going to give a shit about this. If people want to put pressure on the Government it’s the Green TDs who need to be lobbied heavily. I don’t see this amendment going down well amongst the leafy liberal middle class they represent… and they did used to have an admirably strong civil liberties platform.
They exist even if not written in the laws of the state. People are regularly ostracized and companies boycotted for what people take as blasphemy. So they do have a place, should they ave a place is another question.
No. Similarly I thought it was idiotic when the UN considered (or adopted, I forget) language that said respect for religion is a human right. This was largely done at the behest of countries that wanted to ignore most of the other human rights in order to enforce strict religious observance, of course.
People have the right to practice their religions without fear of being persecuted or arrested. Blasphemy laws go far beyond that.
which seems pretty reasonable to me. I can’t see who would have a problem with that.
I would add that freedom of expression (speech) should also be pretty much universal except when it causes immediate and direct danger or similar urgent motives.
I cannot see where something like a billboard saying “God does not exist” could be prohibited and I am quite sure the European commission on Human Rights would void any punishment for that. On the other hand if blasphemy is something grossly offensive with no redeeming value except the intended offense then I can see how it would not be permitted and I do not think it would be permitted in America either.
In America you can get six years in jail for airing Hezbollah TV which is the American equivalent of blasphemy.
one is that everyone should be allowed to say, promote, vote and enact anything. Anything less than that is nefarious.
one goes that while democracy is fine and dandy, a majority of people are absolute morons. Is antisemitism or fascism OK when it’s approved by the majority ? I didn’t think so.
the last one goes “If some thoughts cannot lead to good things, then it is necessary to punish those thoughts”. Which is, again, fine and dandy when applied to thought like Holocaust denial or stalinism, and much less fine when applied to criticism of religion, or criticism of stalinism.
Cue first mind.
On the whole, though, all three minds agree that the vagueness of the OP’s law is what makes it really WRONG. In all caps. You could basically prosecute any speach whatsoever under that law. “Blasphemy and sedition” pretty much encompasses any and all forms of dissent, doesn’t it ?
