The Defamation Bill is scheduled for debate in the Dail tomorrow morning, Wednesday 8 July. The debate for the entire Bill is restricted to one hour or less. This means that there will be little or no time to properly discuss the blasphemy sections.
Here is the full wording of the blasphemy sections, and the amendments that are being proposed to them. Please contact your TDs today and ask them to vote for amendments number 22 and 26, which would delete the blasphemy sections from the Bill.
Proposed amendments to the blasphemy sections:
Overall, there are 33 amendments proposed to the Defamation Bill. Five of these relate to the blasphemy section. They are amendments numbers 22 to 26.
Amendment 22 would delete the entire section on the offence of blasphemy. This is proposed by Charles Flanagan of Fine Gael and Aengus O Snodaigh of Sinn Fain.
Amendment 23 would change the fine from €100,000 to €1,000. This is proposed by Pat Rabbitte of the Labour Party.
Amendment 24 would change the fine from €100,000 to €25,000. This is proposed by Dermot Ahern, Minister for Justice, who said at Committee stage that he would do this.
Amendment 25 would exclude from the definition of “religion” an “organisation or cult (a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or (b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation (i) of its followers, or (ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.” This is proposed by Pat Rabbitte of the Labour Party.
Amendment 26 would delete the entire section on the seizure of blasphemous material. This is proposed by Charles Flanagan of Fine Gael and Aengus O Snodaigh of Sinn Fain.
The wording of the blasphemy sections:
Section 36 of the Bill covers publication or utterance of blasphemous matter. Section 37 covers seizure of copies of blasphemous statements. The full text of these sections is:
36. Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(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.
37. Seizure of copies of blasphemous statements.
(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorising any member of the Garda Siochana to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Siochana of all copies of the statement to which the offence related that are in the possession of any person, (c) specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Siochana.
(2) A member of the Garda Siochana may (a) enter and search any premises, (b) seize, remove and detain any copy of a statement to which an offence under section 36 relates found therein or in the possession of any person, in accordance with a warrant under subsection (1).
(3) Upon final judgment being given in proceedings for an offence under section 36, anything seized and removed under subsection (2) shall be disposed of in accordance with such directions as the court may give upon an application by a member of the Garda Siochana in that behalf.
37. Seizure of copies of blasphemous statements
Does that allow them to come in an take “The Life of Brian” from my DVD collection?? Or is it exempt, because it used to be banned, but it was dropped?
Comment by Stiofán — July 7, 2009 @ 11:05 am
I have written to our Green TD’s, which I acknowledge is not enough on its own to stop this idiocy getting through. How are they likely to vote, does anyone know?
Comment by Colm Ryan — July 7, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
How are the Greens likely to vote?
Wild guess – with the Government.
Comment by Feardorcha — July 7, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
If this goes through, Ireland will loose about a kazillion coolness points.
Comment by The Seklly Rocker — July 7, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Unfortunately, it seems like Colm Ryan is right. I have recived the following response from Paul Gogarty:
START QUOTE
It might be helpful if I clarify the information that Green Party Ministers and our parliamentary party were given in relation to this part of the legislation.
My understanding is that blasphemy part is being put in by the Minister responsible (Dermot Ahern) under advice from the Attorney-General, who said that it would not be possible to leave it out under the Constitution. Changing this would require a referendum, as you mentioned yourself.
Although it is fair to say that the AG’s advice is just qualified legal opinion, he is likely to be correct in this instance, so the question circles around such a referendum. A referendum on blasphemy and church and state relations, while long overdue, could be divisive and distracting from more pressing economic concerns. It would also take a considerable time to come up with a suitable wording, certainly not in time for the Lisbon + protocols referendum.
Secondly there is again an all-party committee working on reforming the constitution. If and when its recommendations are completed a package of measures could be put to the people of Ireland, including issues relating to church and State, something we strongly support as a Party. But the problem is that any such reform is a good time away and the blasphemy issue needs to be addressed right now according to the AG’s advice.
I am certain that the relevant legislation is not a retreat back to the days when Catholic bishops ruled the roost, nor is it a wooly sop to fundamentalists from minority religions in Ireland. If anything it could be seen as a sticking plaster. From what I understand it will be extremely difficult to prove any tort of blasphemy in a court of law, as commentary on religious issues will be permissable under ‘artistic’, ‘political’ or ’scientific’ grounds. So free speech should actually be enhanced or at least remain as is until we actually get around to an updated Bunreacht na hEireann.
END QUOTE
Comment by Tom — July 8, 2009 @ 10:50 am
Thanks Tom.
Sticking plaster – they call legislation that includes phrases such as “authorising any member of the Garda Siochana to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling)”, “liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000″ and “directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Siochana of all copies of the statement to which the offence related” – sticking plaster.
Even a reduced fine of 25,000 euro is a lot to pay for Band-Aid.
What a mess.
Comment by Colm Ryan — July 8, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
One of the problems with section 36/37 is that technically, if someone says something against anothers belief, they will protest, causing them both to be punishable. And when they go rooting through the dwelling, to find the “copies of the statement to which the offence related” they will no doubt be causing “outrage” to the victims. As such, they will have the right to go up against the law, since it is oppression of free speech. Removal of “copies of the statement” could certainly include things such as a bible, or a crucifix hanging on the living room wall. Removal of these items suggests that they are wrong, which under section 36 is punishable by a 100000/25000 euro fine. It’s a chain of bad events, and this law is no doubt going to lead to riots if it passes.
Comment by Rewanday — July 11, 2009 @ 8:44 am
wow, where does one begin to discuss a law that takes us back to the times of the inquisition and renders obsolete the idea of freedom of expresion just to name a couple of the principles that are the basis of any democracy. Mind boggling, isn’t it?
Comment by Joe Harrison — January 3, 2010 @ 12:55 am