Irish Anti-blasphemy law

[Brucelles]

This is from Atheist Ireland, published on the blasphemy Ireland blog:

From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic States led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.

Therefore AI published 25 blasphemous quotes here, one or two of which contain rude words.

Personally, I am appalled. This is just a repression of free speech law. All that is necessary now is to declare oneself offended by a remark in a religious mood and the utterer of the remark can be fined €25,000.

This is a family forum so I won't swear, but I will say this:

Transubstantiation is an idiotic and infantile doctrine, easily disproven.
Jesus Christ was not the son of God, or even a clone implanted by an emissary of God.
Mohammed did not receive the Koran directly from the mouth of God; he made it up.
Moses was a liar and aider and abettor of crimes against humanity.
There are no gods, except the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and even his noodles are not infinite.

You can read this in Ireland, so sue me.

[Salazaar]

Lies!

The Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodles are infinite and glorious. I'm going schism and declare a jihad on you.

[Saracen]

.... All that is necessary now is to declare oneself offended by a remark in a religious mood and the utterer of the remark can be fined €25,000.

I agree this law is a retrograde step, and I'm glad I don't (currently) live in a state that has this. It is, in my opinion, a disgrace.

But, I have to say that even from what you quoted, your characterisation of it there seems misrepresents what it's saying.

Your post quoted "grossly abusive or insulting", and "intentionally causing outrage" and even then "among a substantial number of adherents".

Clearly, this is far more restrictive than a chance remark someone of a religious persuasion takes as offensive.

But even so, I still find it objectionable.

Can anyone prove God, whichever religion you refer to, even exists? How many adherents are a "substantial" number? How offensive does it have to get before it's "grossly" offensive, and who decides that? And so on. Who decides what is offensive and what isn't, and on what criteria? Is it offensive if I say in a debate "I believe Allah doesn't exist" or, as per one recent example, do I have to publish cartoons (the nature of which I would have found offensive were I a Muslim)?

It certainly goes some way to providing censorship of publication or even discussion of views on religion that a "substantial number of adherents" might not like. It's a dangerous start on a slippery slope and makes me glad I don't live in Ireland. The real danger will be on how it's used in practice.

[father smurf]

does it apply to material hosted in ireland? or just read in ireland?

If it's hosted in ireland - theres going to be a lot of people shifting hosting!

[daniel_owen_uk]

Sounds crazy to me, why do we pander to people's beliefs that have no basis of fact.

Stupid illiterate dog worshipers

[TheAnimus]

Does this mean if I create a church which deams Labour to be an offensive term, anyone who utters it would get a fine?

If so I love that idea, just so long as its me controlling the definition of what is grossly abusive!

Vegetarian meat imitation products I think are insulting, so anyone who shows pictures of them should be fined.

This could be brilliant.

[father smurf]

Do they class Jedi or Scientology as religions?

[megah0]

"Not having seen the language of the new law I am left wondering how it defines the actions that cause offence. I assume that, since this is a blasphemy law, it says something like “to utter or to write”. On the other hand, it could be broader – “to undertake any action”. If it is broader, it should be pointed out that there are plenty of religious people who find the mere existence of atheists outrageous. If so, atheists could perhaps be prosecuted for their existence. Even if that is too much of a stretch, surely many theists find its outrageous that many atheists are willing to publicly state that they are nonbelievers. Indeed, I expect that many theists find it outrageous that there are people who are willing to state their disbelief in their particular god, even if those people do happen to believe in some other deity. This makes it potentially possible to prosecute everyone, since everyone does not believe in somebody else’s god."

I particularly liked this quote from the site.

[Saracen]

Do they class Jedi or Scientology as religions?

Good point, and I meant to include that, especially Scientology.

And what about the Christmas fairy? Or Leprechauns? Or the Purple Bug-Blatter Beast of Praal? What about people who worship those? Is in insulting if I suggest the beast is pink, not purple?

Where's the line?

[Phage]

I'm afraid that's it's worse than you think.
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDe...18&SESSION=899
Our glorious leaders in Westminster would like to go further.

[Saracen]

"Not having seen the language of the new law I am left wondering how it defines the actions that cause offence. I assume that, since this is a blasphemy law, it says something like “to utter or to write”. On the other hand, it could be broader – “to undertake any action”. If it is broader, it should be pointed out that there are plenty of religious people who find the mere existence of atheists outrageous. If so, atheists could perhaps be prosecuted for their existence. Even if that is too much of a stretch, surely many theists find its outrageous that many atheists are willing to publicly state that they are nonbelievers. Indeed, I expect that many theists find it outrageous that there are people who are willing to state their disbelief in their particular god, even if those people do happen to believe in some other deity. This makes it potentially possible to prosecute everyone, since everyone does not believe in somebody else’s god."

I particularly liked this quote from the site.

Maybe atheists should take to worshipping the Great God Athe, whose sole commandment is to worship no God but him or even him.

That'd get them out of a bind, though perhaps into a linguistic morass.

[daniel_owen_uk]

I am correct in thinking this law is mainly intended to stop the media publishing anything that could cause offence on a grand scale?

P.S Am I the only person that laughed when I read "where's the line" with a line directly underneath it?

[Saracen]

....

P.S Am I the only person that laughed when I read "where's the line" with a line directly underneath it?

Not now you're not. I sure as hell laughed now you pointed it out.

PS. Am I allowed to say "hell" or does it insult those that don't believe in it?

[JPreston]

Laws like this would be easily struck down if the theotards who wrote them could be locked in a room with their counterparts from other religions, as the mutual contradictions between religions mean that the basic tenets of each is extremely blasphemous to the rest.

But the purpose of locking them in a room isn't to make them see that, it's just to incarcerate them forever so the rest of us don't have to deal with their idiocy any more.

[father smurf]

But the purpose of locking them in a room isn't to make them see that, it's just to incarcerate them forever so the rest of us don't have to deal with their idiocy any more.

Amen to that

[megah0]

An another quote from the original link with which I agree fully:

"If your religion is not compatible with freedom of speech, the problem is not with freedom of speech."

I see this is more evidence that rather than offer up proof (and by proof I mean multiple independent reliable sources, this excludes the bible and I would imagine the vast majority of holy texts) that whichever religion and its religious icons have ever existed or have any basis in truth the at all the church(es) would much rather make it an offence to question them. Far easier!