Wednesday, April 29, 2009
“in relation to matters held sacred by any religion..”
Future Taoiseach spotted this first and noted the suggested amendment by Labour Justice spokesman Pat Rabbitte. The Irish Times reports that the Irish government’s Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern proposes to insert a new section into the Defamation Bill, stating: “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 €100,000.” And
“Blasphemous matter” is defined as 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 he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”
It’s in keeping with the recent resolution by the UN Human Rights Council. But it’s not in keeping with the stated opposition to that resolution by the EU representative. Perhaps they’ll bring back the Committee on Evil Literature while they’re at it. Or re-rename the Irish Film Classification Office. Still, those touched by His Noodly Appendage will be pleased.. Bloody supernaturalists.. Adds Clockwork Chartophylax and, separately, Irish Eagle have some thoughts. And Carol Coulter in today’s Irish Times
Explaining Ireland’s vote at the December UN meeting, in response to a question from Green TD Ciarán Cuffe in the Dáil last month, Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin said: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” He went on to distinguish between this and discrimination based on religious belief and incitement to hatred, pointing out that Ireland supported a UN resolution on “Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief.” Has our policy on the defamation of religion changed since last December and, if so, why?
Pete Baker @ 01:11 PM
I’ll be well and truly fucked then. I’ll have to go anonymous.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 02:17 PMIt is impossible to enact a generic blasphemy law and still maintain religious liberty. What might be “abusive or insulting” to your religion could be an intrinsic doctrine in mine. If interpreted literally this law would in effect result in the banning of all non-universalistic religions.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 02:44 PMStick up that cross there, Seamus and pass me that box of nails.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 03:10 PMCO
What might be “abusive or insulting” to your religion could be an intrinsic doctrine in mine.
Sinn Fein’s Antichristian religion would be difficult to police.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 03:15 PMAyatollah Ahern needs to rein in the Spanish/ PC correct / religious inquisition and Rabbitte should be properly ashamed of himself .
For far too long the churches Protestant and Catholic on this island have abused the powers allowed to them by both indulgent states. Now that they see and feel the wind blowing against them and their influence waning this is a last ditch effort to protect their market share .
I feel outraged and upset by the despicable and irresponsible behaviour and lying words of many of our bankers and politicians over the past several years .
Could Ahern pass another bill fining those in the banking , insurance and building development sectors a million euro for their ‘real ’ theft of the monies of the Irish taxpayer .
There’ll be no sharia law in Ireland . If Muslims want Sharia law they know where to go . And they can take any wannabee Catholic and Protestant or Jewish ayatollahs with them as well !
It’s an absolute disgrace that FF would attempt to bring in a bill like this . They have truly lost touch with the irish electorate .
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 03:30 PMPete,
The key words in the Irish legislation are “grossly abusive or insulting” and “intends”.The UK for its part uses “threatening words or behaviour” and has also since put in “intends” into its Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.
Half the criminals in the country are walking free because of that word “intends”.
The question is which is the higher standard: “threatening words or behaviour” or “grossly abusive or insulting”?
Personally, I’d say the Irish phraseology permits greater free speech thanks to the presence of “grossly”.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 03:45 PMAny religion that feels the need for legislation to protect it from being “insulted” isn’t worth defending, or even paying any attention to.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 04:02 PMGeorge .
Define ‘grossly’ . Langerland’s taking the michael of the church , politicians etc could be seen as gross by sensitive souls . Father Ted was considered too gross to be aired on RTE ?
kevin ,
‘Any religion that feels the need for legislation to protect it from being “insulted” isn’t worth defending,’
You and I may believe that but half a billion uneducated and brain washed muslims in the middle east won’t get that message for another 500 years maybe :(
’ or even paying any attention to.’
You had beeter pay attention . I’ve already written to my local TD’s suggesting that if they want my vote next time they better scrap this nonsense of a bill . I suggest those who favour free speech AND freedom of religion and no religion do likewise .
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 04:13 PMPeter, As Wiki records, this move is at odds with UK practice, although the old law still stands.
Thanks to the C of E as much as anyone, blasphemy is defunct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_KingdomThe failure of the evangelical group Christian Voice to gain permission to prosecute the BBC for blasphemy by transmitting Larry Springer: the Opera hammered the last nail in blasphemy’s coffin - the same BBC that is generally seen in ROI. Has John Charles McQuaid risen from the dead? (Funny reactionary things happen in recessions…)
Wiki naturally leaves out NI, a but the Human Rights Act applies there too. We may assume that pro-Islamic appeasement mainly accounts for the fashionable pro-blasphemy surge.Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 04:37 PMBrian Walker,
this move is at odds with UK practiceYou are comparing oranges with pears.
Firstly the UK’s common law of blasphemy related only to the established church and established religion so as such was unconstitutional in Ireland as it fell foul of the Constitutional protection of equality before the law.
This forbids a situation where one citizen’s religion enjoys protection from insult but another citizen’s religion does not.
Naturally, the UK does not have to deal with such constitutional niceties but in the end had to dispense with its common law of blasphemy for this very reason (equality) when it put the ECHR on a statutory footing.
The legal position in Ireland is also necessarily different than the UK as blasphemy was also designated a crime in the 1937 Constitution.
This means the Oireachtas cannot decriminalise the crime of blasphemy, even if it wanted to, it can only define what the crime is.
I might add that there has yet to be a conviction for the crime of blasphemy. The last one came in the 1850s under the now defunct common law of blasphemy.
Greenflag,
I assume there is no definition. How could you define such a term?So we would have a situation where first a person would have to prove that the insult was a “gross” one and secondly that the person “intended” it to be a gross insult.
Good luck to anyone trying to get a conviction on that one.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 06:40 PMPete,
It is not in keeping with the resolution you refer to, which was a cautious compromise on an issue that, as I’m sure you are aware, remains a major threat to the UN itself. On that day the UNHRC passed that it:
“notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001”
The promotion of the issue of cartoons is something of a smokescreen in this regard. Though clearly there are regimes who would wish to use this to further increase their authoritarian nature, it should be noted that among them are some allies of the UK/US. I’m sure you recall Reg Empey shaking hands with the King of Malaysia recently, a country in which, according to Amnesty’s ‘08 report:
“Restrictions on the right to religious freedom remained. People wishing to convert out of Islam continued to face barriers to having their conversion recognized by the civil courts.”
The reason I don’t think this amendment could possibly be accepted can be seen in the vote division on the resolution you mention. China/Russia for, UK against, US strangely absent. On such a topical issue in international relations, it seems highly improbable that Ireland would side with Iran over the US.
In any case, I certainly hope it’s rejected and that Rabbitte’s reputation suffers as a consequence.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 06:42 PMDamian
It is in keeping with a resolution which called for a strengthening of laws against the defamation of religion.
And this amendment to the Defamation Bill, George, is an apple compared to the pear in the UK legislation you’re pointing at which, as you say, refers to “threatening words or behaviour” - as an incitement to racial or religious hatred.
Look again at what Ahern is proposing.
“grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion
Those [highlighted] are the key words.
It’s an amendment to the Defamation Bill.
Look again too at the Irish Times report.
Last year the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of Fianna Fáil TD Seán Ardagh, recommended amending this Article to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafting the Article along the lines of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 07:12 PMPete,
The resolution did not call for strengthening of laws against defamation of religion. I’m pointing out that you should be careful not to simplify an issue that goes to the core of international relations.
I can see why you are concerned. But it is a long and complicated resolution that includes the following:
“expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities; deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against any religion, as well as the targeting of religious symbols and venerated persons; emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations only as provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and general welfare”
The compromise therein was reinforced in Geneva recently when those countries who voted for this resolution accepted that the incitement to hatred resolutions in place are sufficient, and the agreed resolution on racism was passed - despite the US, whose absence was in fact due to their opposition to discussing reparations for colonialisation, as well as the attacks on the Israel. That may just be the end of this issue, naive as that may sound, though it certainly won’t be enough to unite the voting blocs at the UN.
I’m not saying there isn’t a campaign to pass a resolution outlawing defamation of religion, rather that it is a part of a much wider argument, which reveals some Western hypocrisy. It is not only freedom of expression that is being protected, but some debatable positions inside that admittedly convincing trojan horse.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 07:37 PMThis is outrageous.
Telling the truth about Islam could send you to jail….but I’m sure any insulting of Judaism or the RC Church will never qualify as gross or insulting enough
FREE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 07:44 PM“US, whose absence was in fact due to their opposition to discussing reparations for colonialisation”
What a joke. Millions of millions have fled their backward, oppressed, miserable countries to come to the US, and still do, a black man is elected president in a landslide, the rate of interracial marraige here is much higher proportionally than any other country…yet the US is still an imperialistic, racist society-the cause of the whole world’s ills???
The reason the US wasn’t there is because of bunch of countries that don’t recognize the basic rights of their own citizens were trying to pass leglislation limiting free speech. The UN is a failure as an institution and in many instances proves to be a complete joke.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 07:49 PMPete,
as an incitement to racial or religious hatred.As I pointed out, the UK had to remove its blasphemy law when it put the ECHR on a statutory footing due to equality issues.
Pretty much the only area where you can now face criminal sanction for attacking a religion in the UK is under the 2006 Incitement to Racial Hatred Act. That’s why I mentioned it.
The test is “threatening words or behaviour”.
It’s an amendment to the Defamation Bill.Look again too at the Irish Times report.Last year the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of Fianna Fáil TD Seán Ardagh, recommended amending this Article to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafting the Article along the lines of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression.
I’m perfectly aware what bill is being amended, Ireland’s Incitement to Hatred Bill has been in place since 1989, although it doesn’t mention religion specifically so is not relevant.
As I have already pointed out, the common law of blasphemy never had legal effect in an independent Ireland due to its unconstitutionality.
By the way, this proposed amendment of Ardagh makes no difference as blasphemy is a designated crime under the Constitution already. This is the salient point. It cannot be removed simply by removing references to it in statute.
Any statute or the ECHR for that matter is subordinate to the prime constitutional law, which states:
“The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”
This sentence has be read in conjunction with the constitutional right to freedom of expression. The reality is that Ardagh’s redrafting would change nothing legally.
Oddly enough, the statutory offence of blasphemy under the 1961 Defamation Act is also, for all intents and purposes, constitutionally inoperable due to the fact that blasphemy is not defined.
If I was worried about anything in this amendment it would be the defining of the term “blasphemous matter” as this gives a very small foundation to build on the constitutional crime of blasphemy.
The foundation to date has been so slender that not a single conviction has accrued in the 70-year existence of the Constitution.
That said, the use of the words “gross” and “intends” make this amendment about as meaningful legally as Ardagh’s in my view.
If an Irish court, even in the heyday of Archbiship McQuaid, has never been willing to convict under the much vaguer constitutional provision on blasphemy, why should it now sticke the boot in and narrowly interpret the meaning of “gross” and “intends”?
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 08:02 PMDamian
The full text of resolution (A/HRC/10/L.2/Rev.1) on combating defamation of religions is linked in the original post above. Here’s that link again. I’ll let readers make their own minds up about what it says.
It might help if you pointed to something on your reference to “the compromise therein was reinforced in Geneva recently”.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 08:02 PMGood luck to anyone trying to get a conviction on that one.
George,
And pity the poor bastard that has to spend a small fortune in defending him or her self.Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 08:21 PMGeorge
“By the way, this proposed amendment of Ardagh makes no difference as blasphemy is a designated crime under the Constitution already. This is the salient point. It cannot be removed simply by removing references to it in statute.
Any statute or the ECHR for that matter is subordinate to the prime constitutional law, which states:
“The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”
This sentence has be read in conjunction with the constitutional right to freedom of expression. The reality is that Ardagh’s redrafting would change nothing legally.”
Apart from removing blasphemy as a designated crime under the Constitution..
*shakes head*
As the Irish Times report noted
At the moment there is no crime of blasphemy on the statute books, though it is prohibited by the Constitution.
Article 40 of the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech, qualifies it by stating: “The State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
“The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent material is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”
That’s what the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution had recommended amending.
Instead Ahern wants to define defamation of religion “in relation to matters held sacred by any religion..”
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 08:23 PMI’m working on information contained in this (subs reqd) article:
and a recent Arte documentary:
http://www.arte.tv/fr/semaine/244,broadcastingNum=1014253,day=6,week=18,year=2009.html
The article detailed the behind-the-scenes negotiations carried out by diplomats to reach the agreement at ‘Durban II’. It includes the following:
“To reach this consensus, apart from the efforts of the Russian Youri Boychenko, it was Ibrahim Salama, one of the assistants to Ms Pillay, who did the uphill climbing. In the last few months, this affable Egyptian has crossed the world and back passing messages…
Finally, on the problem of blasphemy, Mr Salama managed to defuse the bomb, by convincing [Muslim countries] that international law already forbids incitement to racial or religious hatred against individuals. Steps crowned in success: on Tuesday 21st April, the conference would unanimously, among those present, adopt the much-discussed resolution.”
Excuse my hasty translation.
Note the timeframe, i.e. developments since the resolution you rightly cite, and the acceptance of “against individuals”, as opposed to the kind of law proposed by Mr Rabbitte’s amendment. That is the crux of the freedom of expression argument internationally, and why I am relaxed that his efforts will fail.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 08:26 PMDamian
“on Tuesday 21st April, the conference would unanimously, among those present, adopt the much-discussed resolution.”
Which resolution did they adopt?
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 08:29 PMSorry Pete, that ought to have read “much-discussed declaration.” My mistake.
I think the declarations key point, in this regard, is:
“13. Reaffirms that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; reaffirms further that all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared offence punishable by law, in accordance with the international obligations of States and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression;”
http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/Durban_Review_outcome_document_En.pdf
Apologies again, it was a hasty translation. I do think the issue has been resolved for the moment, and that its recurrence will depend on many other factors relating to the “war on terror”, if I might use the expression.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 08:39 PMThe EU pays lip service to freedom of expression but where this right is most endangered (the Internet) it is the EU itself that is endangering it by introducing its trademark creeping control regulations and by deliberately refusing to protect that freedom of expression as a right. As is consistent with the EU’s PC censorship agenda and with its step-by-step methods of gaining power by chicanery and stealth, freedom of speech is to be finessed to remove the ‘expression’ part, leaving the plebs free to hold opinions but not free to express them. The Irish government doesn’t even spit without asking the EU for permission and guidance on which bucket to spit in, so you can bet your last euro that this censorship is fully consistent with the EU’s actual (but undeclared) position. If nothing else, we southerners can now arrest Ian Paisley the next time he sets foot on the Boyne site for publishing claims that the Pope is the anti-christ or for anyother insult to what is “held sacred” down here.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 08:43 PMPete,
Apart from removing blasphemy as a designated crime under the Constitution..*shakes head*
Yeah, a referendum to rewrite this Article, which has resulted in zero blasphemy convictions in the its past 72 years of existence should be high on the Irish government’s to do list in the current situation.
Forget the children’s rights provisions and all the other issues, this thing is important.
*shakes head*
As the Irish Times report noted
At the moment there is no crime of blasphemy on the statute books, though it is prohibited by the Constitution.
Don’t believe everything you read in the papers, even the Irish Times. They don’t always know best:
Article 13(1) of the 1961 Defamation Act:
13.—(1) Every person who composes, prints or publishes any blasphemous or obscene libel shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both fine and imprisonment or to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years.
Read it yourself:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0040/sec0013.html#zza40y1961s13
That’s what the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution had recommended amending.As I’ve already explained, the situation regarding the statutory inoperability of blasphemy provision in the Defamation Act 1961.
It is on the statute books but is judicially inoperable (since a 1999 Supreme Court decision) due to the lack of a definition.
Hence, I explained my slight concern about the introduction of the definition for “blasphemous matter” and the foundation issue.The other question is, as I said, how operable the new amendment would be with “gross” and “intends” and why the courts would suddenly jump at narrowly interpreting these terms when they have broad brush of the original constitutional provision?
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 08:48 PMDamian
So the UN-HRC resolution classing defamation of religion as a breach of human rights and as a form of “contemporary racism”, which includes a request to the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, remains in place.
Posted by on Apr 29, 2009 @ 08:52 PM
