http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/20/f-ireland-blasphemy-law.html
QuoteIf you visit Ireland after October, you'd better watch what you say about God.
A blasphemous slip of the tongue could cost you 25,000 euros under revamped legislation that will soon be signed into law.
Blasphemy is an act of challenging or offending a religious belief.
In recent years, western countries such as England have been taking blasphemy laws off the books, or changing their focus so that they cover hate-related crimes in general. Ireland has taken a different approach, updating its legislation but maintaining a focus on religion.
In Ireland, it has been a crime to publish blasphemous material since 1961, although nobody has ever been convicted. The Seanad, the Irish senate and upper level of parliament, passed the Defamation Bill in July that makes uttering blasphemy a crime as well.
The bill was originally proposed in 2006. It worked its way through parliament and received final approval on July 10 this year, when it passed by a slim margin of 23-22.
Lorraine Weinrib, a law professor at the University of Toronto, says the bill is a modern update of blasphemy laws.
"I don't see this as a new thing as much as an old thing that hasn't quite disappeared in Ireland," she says.
"Unlike the old blasphemy laws which only protected the dominant religion [Roman Catholicism] ... this one seems to protect all religions, so it kind of has a modern equality bent to it," Weinrib adds.
But blasphemy laws can have an impact on freedom of expression, Weinrib says.
"They create a crime where one of the basic elements of the crime is subjective outrage of particular people. So there's really no objective measure, and this can cause a disruption in the modern understanding of the relationship between religion and the public space of a liberal democracy."
Even so, Weinrib points out that under Ireland's new legislation, in order to be found guilty, there has to be proof that the offender intended to cause outrage with a statement that is abusive or insulting. The statement also has to produce a violent reaction.
The bill states that a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if:
* He or she publishes or utters 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.
* He or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
The bill puts the onus on a 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.
"I think we're talking about central issues — for example, a depiction of Christ as a homosexual ... many religious people find this outrageous and their reaction is intense," says Weinrib. "The intent of the outrage still needs to be proven in this case."
Ireland is not alone in having laws that take aim at blasphemy.
Canada lists blasphemous libel as a crime under the Criminal Code, which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. But the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees free speech rights that supersede the blasphemy law.
The Canadian code says, "No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject."
Many countries have abolished their blasphemy laws in recent years. In Britain, the Church of England (and by default, Christianity) was protected from blasphemy up until last year when the government reviewed the law. The U.K. voted to abolish blasphemy laws on Jan. 10, 2008.
In the United States, blasphemy has never been considered a crime.
In countries where Islam is the state religion, blasphemy is still considered a serious offence. In countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, the penalty for blasphemous crimes can be execution.
A number of Islamic countries have been pursuing an international anti-blasphemy resolution at the United Nations that would restrict any speech that is offensive to any religion. But that approach assumes everyone is religious, Weinrib says, and issues can crop up when two religious groups have contradictory points of view.
Clearly Faust needs to file complaints about people blaspheming against Eris.
Yeah, I heard about this the other day, but never got a chance to look into it.
And the European Convention on Human Rights is of no help here either. Check out our supposed super liberal criminal's charter's take on freedom of expression:
QuoteArticle 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Emphasis mine.
Meh, all those places east of the Atlantic never figured out that whole Freedom thing very well anyway.
:lulz:
Not like Us USAIANS!
\
:mullet:
The real laugh is that, if you listen to the right wing press, the ECHR is way too permissive and is, in the words of several major politicians "a criminal's charter".
Ironically, this is the same segement of the press that tends to idolizes America and its freedoms. Dissonance much? :lol:
No, they hate America and hate its freedoms. They're just good enough to attack it by perverting the language around it.
The europe stuff is a criminals charter though, really? You guys don't even have protection against self incrimination.
Pretty much every freedom in the ECHR is ammended with "except in accordance with the law". I expect one day soon even article three will be changed to reflect that. It already has been, de facto, it just needs de jure recognition.
"We guarantee that you will always have the right to follow whatever local laws are put in place by your overlords elected representatives."
Sounds like a WIN to me.
Actually, its the Common Law interpretation, which is you have the right to do anything except where the law says otherwise.
British legal scholars helped write it, which makes the other main criticism of the ECHR from the right, that it is a foreign imposition, completely hilarious.
Hm...and Canada has anti-blaspheming laws, too, huh? Interesting. But they're superseded by the right to free speech laws. So it was just basically a token effort at protecting the religious.
Quote from: Jenne on July 21, 2009, 04:04:03 PM
Hm...and Canada has anti-blaspheming laws, too, huh? Interesting. But they're superseded by the right to free speech laws. So it was just basically a token effort at protecting the religious.
I think I went over this before...
It is in violation of charter, but it has never been challenged before. And in law if something not used or challenged it just sits there. It's a throwback law from the British system (which wasn't changed till the early 80's)
we also have indecency laws which have been used and unsuccessfully challenged
:sad:
I thought the British ditched common law a while back?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 21, 2009, 06:01:26 PM
I thought the British ditched common law a while back?
I don't know to be honest... we didn't get our constitution till the Constitution Act of 82
Before that we just more of less used the British one.
From what I know (which is
not an expert amount of knowledge mind you) indecency can be used cause it's technically an action and blasphemy is on the books but will only be used against citizens of other countries trying to enter the country for the purpose of blasphemy or hate speech (they succeeded with not allowing Fred Phelps group into the country but failed when they tried to stop David Icke)...
either way it's stupid and think most people would agree, but because there's no real case in the public eye no one seems to care.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 21, 2009, 07:58:47 AM
Clearly Faust needs to file complaints about people blaspheming against Eris.
And when they say "This court will come to order", he needs to jump up and holler, "NOW THE JUDGE IS DOING IT, TOO!"
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 23, 2009, 05:56:26 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 21, 2009, 07:58:47 AM
Clearly Faust needs to file complaints about people blaspheming against Eris.
And when they say "This court will come to order", he needs to jump up and holler, "NOW THE JUDGE IS DOING IT, TOO!"
:lol:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 23, 2009, 05:56:26 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 21, 2009, 07:58:47 AM
Clearly Faust needs to file complaints about people blaspheming against Eris.
And when they say "This court will come to order", he needs to jump up and holler, "NOW THE JUDGE IS DOING IT, TOO!"
:mittens:
To quote someone on the radio awhile back "This is an Irish solution to an Irish solution"
Basically it boils down to the constitution having a provision for blasphemy and the governement too shit scared of the electorate to hold a referendum to remove said provision even though no church group in the Republic even wants this part of the defamation bill.
So what our Justice(Ha!) Minister has done is create a law where you have to go REALLY far out of your way to ever get prosecuted let alone convicted of anything. Such a stupid roundabout way of accomplishing what could be solved with an extra ballet paper in our next referendum(October, for Lisbon 2: The Search for Democracy)
But one interesting thing thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion
How difficult would it be to prove outrage amoung a substantial number of discordians? And could we find a discordian soliciter(No chance really) to do this for shits and giggles.
I'm sure there are discordian lawyers it might be harder to find one that was never disbarred.
Though you don't really want a lawyer for this, the point is to demonstrate the insanity of the law, not to win.