Irish blasphemy law passes.

I'm depositing this one like a steaming pile of Montezuma's Revenge, and then fleeing before the incoming wank storm.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Blasphemy, under this law, is defined thusly:

Quote :

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

Nicely ambiguous, don't you think? The article provides a few examples of what could be considered "grossly insulting" and cause "outrage" among various groups.

Quote :

Atheists can be prosecuted for saying that God is imaginary. That causes outrage.
Pagans can be prosecuted for saying they left Christianity because God is violent and bloodthirsty, promotes genocide, and permits slavery.
Christians can be prosecuted for saying that Allah is a moon god, or for drawing a picture of Mohammed, or for saying that Islam is a violent religion which breeds terrorists.
Jews can be prosecuted for saying Jesus isn’t the Messiah.

There's more.

Quote :

Ireland’s Blasphemy Bill not only criminalizes free speech, it also gives the police the authority to confiscate anything deemed “blasphemous”. They may enter and search any premises, with force if needed, upon “reasonable suspicion” that such materials are present.

• The local Freethinkers society, with its copies of Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
  
• The video store, with copies of The God Who Wasn’t There
  
• The history teacher, who uses The Dark Side of Christian History to teach her class.
  
• The library, with its collection of books deemed blasphemous.
  
• Even the homeowner who lets the wrong person know he has a copy of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses

The entire text of the legislation is at the bottom of the linked article.

I don't want to say too much, because I'm honestly too disturbed to make sense at the moment. If I lived in Ireland right now, the police could obtain my name from the public roster of the non-theist club I belong to on campus, forcibly enter my home under suspicion of owning "blasphemous" materials based on said membership, seize about a quarter of my bookshelf, my computer, and anything else they can stretch this completely fucking ambiguous law to cover. That gives me belly rumblins.

Oh fuck you, Ireland.

:blink: What the Hell? This sounds rather Medieval.

Quote :

Jews can be prosecuted for saying Jesus isn’t the Messiah.

Wat.
Thats. That's what they believe.

Look on the bright side. Maybe this is Ireland's attempt to get everyone to shut the fuck up about religion.

I knew that Ireland was fucked up with warring sects of Christianity, but this is insane. What were they thinking? Other than "Yay! More power for us!" There had to have been something to make this bill pass.

The conflict in Ireland wasn't really rooted in religious differences, though. If this is a reaction to that, (and to the best of my knowledge it'd be a pretty damn late reaction,) it'd be attacking the wrong thing.

Well that bollocks any plans I had of moving to Ireland. Last I checked, the Republic of Ireland was a free country, so I have no idea what the fuck they're thinking with this.

Snakey wrote:

Oh fuck you, Ireland.

Good contribution, Dianne.

Quote :

Irish atheists are horrified by new legislation making blasphemy illegal, and punishable by a 25,000-Euro fine.

Either the Euro has fallen in value so much that it's existence rivals the Peso in uselessness, or that is totally unreasonable.

Quote :

Satirizing religion in any way, shape, or form, if it “causes outrage”, is now a prosecutable offense in Ireland.

And given that every religion contains at least a few Pro Butthurters who will be outraged over ANYTHING, atheism included, in a decade Ireland will be populated entirely by ex-cons.

This kind of thing is why Europe lost the Ryder Cup.

If any of you had bothered to read the linked articles from the Irish Times and Irish Independent (you know, the ones that are actual Irish sources and not hysterical American scaremongering), you'd realise that blasphemy has always been illegal here. It's in the Constitution. I've never heard of anyone actually being prosecuted for it. Never. The new legislation merely reduces the maximum fine for blasphemy by 75%.

Also:

Quote :

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

What the bill is actually about is the libel laws.

In b4 customary dogpile on Cyberwulf

Actually she didn't say anything unreasonable this time as far as I can tell.

True, but it always finds a way to happen anyway, it seems.

*adjusts her John Deere cap, munches happily on a cheeseburger, and wipes her greasy fingers on her American flag t-shirt*

:lolinsane:

Bamshalam wrote:

True, but it always finds a way to happen anyway, it seems.

Usually there's a reason.

Cyberwulf wrote:

blasphemy has always been illegal here. It's in the Constitution. I've never heard of anyone actually being prosecuted for it. Never. The new legislation merely reduces the maximum fine for blasphemy by 75%.

Well, that's interesting. If it's a benign law that noone obeys why not get rid of it? Let's make a thoughtful discussion abou...

Quote :

Atheists can be prosecuted for saying that God is imaginary. That causes outrage.

...I'm going to start wanking now. I'm not sure when I'll stop.

Psy-4 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

blasphemy has always been illegal here. It's in the Constitution. I've never heard of anyone actually being prosecuted for it. Never. The new legislation merely reduces the maximum fine for blasphemy by 75%.

Well, that's interesting. If it's a benign law that noone obeys why not get rid of it? Let's make a thoughtful discussion abou...

Quote :

Atheists can be prosecuted for saying that God is imaginary. That causes outrage.

...I'm going to start wanking now. I'm not sure when I'll stop.

Be sure to use a tissue and clean up afterwards, kk?

If it's actually a loosening of the anachronistic blasphemy laws then I'm all for it. I guess in that case all the scaremongering is because it's drawn attention to the fact that such laws exist in the first place.

Cyberwulf wrote:

If any of you had bothered to read the linked articles from the Irish Times and Irish Independent (you know, the ones that are actual Irish sources and not hysterical American scaremongering), you'd realise that blasphemy has always been illegal here. It's in the Constitution.

Is that supposed to be comforting?

szaleniec wrote:

If it's actually a loosening of the anachronistic blasphemy laws then I'm all for it. I guess in that case all the scaremongering is because it's drawn attention to the fact that such laws exist in the first place.

That's exactly what I think happened, because the atheist blogs are all buzzing about it. If it's an arcane law that never gets used, that's something at least. But the mere fact that it exists is bothersome to me. I, for obvious reasons, don't agree with blasphemy laws.

Quote :

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

This in particular concerns me. Why should anyone have to prove that a "reasonable person" (There goes that vague terminology again. What is reasonable?) would find merit in their book collection? Why should they be subjected to a search and seizure of their home, and then spend a good deal of money defending their personal beliefs in court merely because someone got butthurt over them?

If the law has always existed, and this recent amendment has drawn attention to an archaic law that violates freedom of speech and personal liberty, then I say kill, pussycat, kill.

I think that clause means that people can now use an "artistic merit" defense of so-called "blasphemy" where they couldn't before. So... it's a step in the right direction?

But I don't know Irish law.

Will they block "offensive" web sites like they do in China?

Psy-4 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

blasphemy has always been illegal here. It's in the Constitution. I've never heard of anyone actually being prosecuted for it. Never. The new legislation merely reduces the maximum fine for blasphemy by 75%.

Well, that's interesting. If it's a benign law that noone obeys why not get rid of it?

because it's much easier to ignore laws like that than take the time to excise them. (See Anti-sodomy laws in many states)

Also, anti-miscegenation laws. Good times.

Freezer wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

blasphemy has always been illegal here. It's in the Constitution. I've never heard of anyone actually being prosecuted for it. Never. The new legislation merely reduces the maximum fine for blasphemy by 75%.

Well, that's interesting. If it's a benign law that noone obeys why not get rid of it?

because it's much easier to ignore laws like that than take the time to excise them. (See Anti-sodomy laws in many states)

Except in this case, they're not ignoring it, they're bringing in a new version because (IIRC) the bit of legislation that originally contained the blasphemy law along with other stuff is being withdrawn. I seem to remember reading in the paper here that the person responsible for bringing in the new law says it's a law no-one can actually realistically be prosecuted under. The only reason the new one's being brought in, supposedly, is that there's maybe a requirement in the Irish Constitution to have some sort of anti-blasphemy/protection of religion stuff.

The list of mainstream beliefs that are now technically prosecutable is spot-on and shows the uselessness of blasphemy laws in a multi-cultural society. It's like having a law against criticizing the state but extending it to all states anywhere, or any possible form of government (which would basically shut down all political discourse if fully enforced).

Keith Fraser wrote:

Freezer wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

blasphemy has always been illegal here. It's in the Constitution. I've never heard of anyone actually being prosecuted for it. Never. The new legislation merely reduces the maximum fine for blasphemy by 75%.

Well, that's interesting. If it's a benign law that noone obeys why not get rid of it?

because it's much easier to ignore laws like that than take the time to excise them. (See Anti-sodomy laws in many states)

Except in this case, they're not ignoring it, they're bringing in a new version because (IIRC) the bit of legislation that originally contained the blasphemy law along with other stuff is being withdrawn.

That's right. What's actually happening is that the libel laws have been changed. This is because a woman named Monica Leech successfully sued Independent Newspapers for saying she was having an affair with the then minister Martin Cullen, and was awarded contracts and other perks as a result. She was awarded a fabulous cash prize which Independent Newspapers now have to stump up. The new libel laws mean that newspapers can now publish retractions/apologies without admitting liability and having to pay damages.

Quote :

I seem to remember reading in the paper here that the person responsible for bringing in the new law says it's a law no-one can actually realistically be prosecuted under. The only reason the new one's being brought in, supposedly, is that there's maybe a requirement in the Irish Constitution to have some sort of anti-blasphemy/protection of religion stuff.

Also correct. And to change the Constitution there has to be a referendum (see the myriad of abortion referenda over the past twenty years).

Melissa wrote:

Will they block "offensive" web sites like they do in China?

You aren't listening, dumbass. The law's been in place for years, they're simply reducing the maximum fine for blasphemy. No "offensive" sites have been blocked by the Government.

VB wrote:

Is that supposed to be comforting?

No, the bit about nobody ever being charged with it within my lifetime is meant to be comforting.