The Minister for Justice is proposing to amend his new blasphemy law by providing, as a defence, that a person accused of blasphemy can “prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value” in the blasphemous matter.
He is not proposing to reduce the fine of €100,000, the onus of proof is on the defendant to prove this new line of defence, and the police may still seize and destroy blasphemous statements. The Minister’s proposed blasphemy law now reads like this:
- 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.
- For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) 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, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
- 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.
The revised amendment has been published on the Oireachtas website. The All-Party Committee on Justice will discuss it tomorrow, Wednesday May 20. We in the campaign against the blasphemy law would welcome your opinions on this development as we consider our response to it.
I don’t like it.
It still is a charter for the unreasonable to feel “outrage” and forces the alleged perpetrator of the offence to defend themselves.
I cannot see why he is proposing to legislate on Blasphemy at all. He should
be brave and legislate for the referendum to remove the reference
from the Constitution. The people will do the rest!
Comment by Conor Ryan — May 19, 2009 @ 5:23 am
That was Pat Rabbitte’s suggestion. It still doesn’t go as far as putting the onus of proof on the State to show that the ’sole intent’ of the matter was to cause outrage, as the 1991 Law Reform Commission recommended.
B
Comment by Barry Grant — May 19, 2009 @ 6:30 am
I don’t feel at all comfortable about the concept of ‘reasonable’ person and ‘religion’ in the same paragraph as a line of defence.
Comment by Helen — May 19, 2009 @ 7:49 am
Since when has any artist to prove to the State that a work is “genuine”?
Comment by Gerard Cunningham — May 19, 2009 @ 8:02 am
It’s not an amendment that’s needed (and as pointed out, the onus of proof lies on the defended here in any case).
Our campaign should focus entirely on having this stuff removed 100% – the foundation of our argument must be that blasphemy laws have no place in a civilized society. This changes nothing.
Comment by Adam Dinan — May 19, 2009 @ 8:14 am
This is just window-dressing. As Conor says, all reference to blasphemy should be removed from the Irish constitution.
And the €100,000 fine is just ludicrous.
Comment by Anthony Costine — May 19, 2009 @ 8:23 am
While I appreciate what the Minister for Justice is trying to do here (i.e. claw back a measure of freedom of speech) the law as it stands is still absurd. It is not even trying to be an Anti Hate Speech law, it is merely an anti-offensiveness law.
Anyone who feels offended can utilise to harass and intimidate a person or group who criticises religion. They may not succeed, but they can certainly be great time and money wasters.
The proposed defence clause only serves to highlight that the law is pointless and serves no purpose.
Comment by Grania Spingies — May 19, 2009 @ 9:35 am
This amendment reminds me of Haughey’s “Irish solution to an Irish problem” back in 1979, when he passed a law allowing people to buy condoms if they had a doctor’s prescription saying they needed them for bona fide family planning purposes.
Ahern just doesn’t seem to get that the problem lies in the idea of a blasphemy law, not in its detail.
Comment by Michael Nugent — May 19, 2009 @ 10:04 am
Of course a constitutional referendum is the ideal solution, but I think it is unlikely in the present climate. The problem is that the existing law is clearly dead following the Corway decision and yet the constitution still clearly states that blasphemy is to be an offence. It seems to me there are three options:
(i) Constitutional referendum which eliminates blasphemy – ideal but unlikely.
(ii) Stick with the existing position – I’d prefer this since it cannot be resurrected (like Jesus! – oops blasphemy alert). However, it does make a mockery of the constitution, (which I’m okay with).
(iii) Qualify and water down any proposed offence so that it is completely unworkable. I think it is probably unworkable in its present form given difficulty with proving intent, and general judicial queasiness about pronouncing on religious belief (i.e. what is sacred etc). Rabbite’s amendment helps in this regard, but the reasonableness test should be more subjective.
That said, the fact that it encourages people to take offence is exceptionally worrisome – this should be targeted. We have an anti-hate speech law that has never been successfully prosecuted (maybe one or two attempts) so there is hope that a blasphemy law would end up with a similar fate.
One may also be able to argue that blasphemy is incompatible with the Constitution when the document is read holistically and also with the ECHR.
Comment by John D — May 19, 2009 @ 11:26 am
They’re discussing the blasphemy law right now on tv3 Midday..
Bunch of idiots, apart from Alan Cantwell.
Comment by Maria — May 19, 2009 @ 11:27 am
While I appreciate what the Minister for Justice is trying to do here (i.e. claw back a measure of freedom of speech) the law as it stands is still absurd. It is not even trying to be an Anti Hate Speech law, it is merely an anti-being-offended law.
Anyone who feels offended can utilise it to harass and intimidate a person or group who criticises religion. They may not succeed, but they can certainly be great time and money wasters.
The proposed defence clause only serves to highlight that the law is pointless and serves no purpose.
Comment by Grania Spingies — May 19, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
I find it laughable in the current climate that this is a matter that is taking up our justice ministers time.I had regained a little respect for him subsequent to the new proposals regarding gangland suspects and in one fell swoop that respect’s been stripped away with this ridiculous, outdated and biased legislation on freedom of speech.
Comment by Kieron Ward — May 19, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
I note that while they took some of Pat Rabittes admendment into account they didn’t lower the fine to 1000 from €100,000 .That fine is still going to intimidate a lot of people not to mention court fees. And why should the defendant have to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates. Surely it is up to the prosecution to prove the reverse or are we introducing the French judicial system here?
Are there any plans to protest outside the All-Party Committee on Justice tomorrow, Wednesday May 20 as this bill is discussed further?
Comment by imokyrok — May 19, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
[...] – Dermot Ahern has co-opted some of Pat Rabbitte’s suggestions to the definition of blasphemy contained in the amendment. The text now being considered by the [...]
Pingback by Blasphemy news « The Clockwork Chartophylax — May 20, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
http://www.politics.ie/justice/70397-law-blasphemous-libel-amended.html
For todays speech from Ahern see the above link. A press Release from FG TD Charlie Flanagan in reply to Aherns attempt to justify his actions is also on the thread. It is excellent. He’s been one of the better TD’s on the issue.
Comment by imokyrok — May 20, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
It is absolutely clear to me what Fianna Fail’s Dermot Ahern thinks about blasphemy. This is what he says: “Until the Constitution is amended, it is necessary that blasphemy remain a crime and that the relevant legislation must make provision for punishment of this crime”. So there we have it. Blasphemy is a crime. It is that simple for him. But he goes even further. To expedite the punishment of this “crime” it is necessary to define it, and it it his definition which is the most harmful to our right freedom of speech.
It is his definition that I find really scary. Especially the part “matters held sacred by any religion”. This is a fundamentalists charter to stop criticism of their “sacred beliefs” because it offends them. My opinion is, in the march of human progress, enlightenment, and understanding, backed by verifiable scientific knowledge, just about all that the religious sects have left is their “sacred” beliefs. They will put up a great show of “being offended”.
Even his latest amendment put the burden of proof on the accused, which is contrary to established principle.
There is no need for any of this. It’s just the reactionary kick of a failing administration. I sincerely urge every person concerned with freedom of speech to fight this tooth and nail. Get out your envelopes, stamps and paper and write to him. It counts.
Comment by Michael Martin — May 21, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
How interesting, everybody agrees with each other. Ever heard of “the other side of the argument”, or are all your minds closed? You need to get some sort of discussion going. The usual words like “fundamentalist” and “outdated” and “biaised” being trotted out just doesn’t do it for me I’m afraid.
Comment by josephine b — July 21, 2009 @ 8:49 am
Dear people,
I’m not an Irishman and I’m trying to understand why this law was invented in the first place. Can anyone explain to me?
I see this article was written on May 19th, now it’s July 28th. Hasn’t this law been altered in the mean time? For I can’t see how a democracy can oppose freedom of speech like that.
I’d like to be blasphemous whenever I want, for whatever reason. We wouldn’t want the law to forbid anything that could offend atheists too, would we? How come the religious should have more rights than others?
Sincerely, a scared and foreign poet
Comment by David — July 28, 2009 @ 1:48 pm