Speaking in the Seanad this Thursday, Senators Jillian van Turnhout and Ivana Bacik both asked Eamon Gilmore, who is Ireland’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, to take a strong line in support of Alexander.

Atheist Ireland thanks both Senators for their quick response to this case. We also thank Senator Ivana Bacik for her request in the Seanad on Wednesday for a full debate on the Irish blasphemy law and its national and international impact.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout:

I welcome the Tánaiste’s commitment to Internet freedom through his work as chair of the OSCE. It is on this note that I draw his attention to the recent arrest of a 31 year old Indonesian civil servant, whose name I will supply to the Tánaiste separately, for having questioned the existence of God on his Facebook profile page. He has been charged under Indonesian law prohibiting blasphemy and faces five years imprisonment if found guilty.

The reason I raise this case with the Tánaiste is that Indonesia is one of a number of Islamic states that has cited Irish blasphemy legislation in support and defence of its own. Irish blasphemy law was cited as an authority in support of Indonesia’s constitutional court decision to uphold its law prohibiting blasphemy in 2010.

While I fully support the repeal of this law, I do not believe the intention of the blasphemy legislation introduced by Mr. Dermot Ahern in 2009 was to infringe upon the rights to freedom of expression, religion, belief and conscience in Ireland. Nor do I think it is a desirable consequence that our law is being used to support such infringements, including against Christian religions in Islamic countries anywhere else in the world.

I consider this as much a foreign affairs concern as a domestic concern. I welcome that this law is up for review in the programme for Government.

Senator Ivana Bacik:

I would like to echo Senator van Turnhout in urging the Tánaiste to take a strong line in support of the Indonesian civil servant she mentioned. We need to examine our blasphemy law because it is clearly having a repressive effect in Indonesia, Pakistan and other countries. I know the matter will be reviewed as part of the constitutional convention, but I believe the law should be repealed. Perhaps progress can be made more quickly in this regard.

Here is the Seanad transcript of the above contributions and here is Senator Bacik’s request the previous day for a full debate on the Irish blasphemy law. Atheist Ireland asks everybody who reads this to contact your local politicians, your local Indonesian embassy, and the Indonesian Government to call for the immediate release of Alexander Aan.

Here is Senator Bacik’s contribution on the Seanad Order of Business:

I call for a debate on blasphemy law. There was an excellent briefing yesterday from Professor David Nash of Oxford Brookes University, a leading expert on blasphemy, who spoke about the international impact of the passage of the 2009 Defamation Act in Ireland, particularly section 36, which created a new statutory offence of blasphemy. There was an excellent debate on it in this House, and many colleagues participated in it.

There is an issue as there was an adverse international impact, with certain countries adopting Irish arguments on blasphemy and using this to bolster prejudice against different religions, even Christian religions in Islamic countries. We have also seen that Ireland has gone against the EU norm in adopting a new statutory definition of blasphemy based on a definition of offence.

It is outdated and I am glad it is up for review in the programme for Government. We must move forward by having a debate in the House on how we can ensure incitement to religious hatred laws are strengthened in the Statute Book. We no longer need an offence of blasphemy.

Our campaign against this law took a different and less confrontational focus when the previous Justice Minister accepted that the law should be repealed, and again when the new Government was elected and has outlined the process by which it intends to address the issue, i.e. through a Constitutional Convention which should be established next year to address this and other Constitutional issues.

Because of these developments, and also because Atheist Ireland was at the time a new organisation and we did not want to be defined solely by our opposition to the blasphemy law, we have been focusing publicly on other issues including the need for a secular education system. However, in the background, we have been actively continuing the campaign against the blasphemy law.

If you would like to help with any of this you are most welcome to do so. You are also welcome to help with other parts of our campaign for an ethical secular Ireland. In the past year, as well as campaigning against the blasphemy law:

Please get involved. You can find more information here on how to Join Atheist Ireland and help us to build an ethical and secular Ireland free of blasphemy laws and with separation of church and state.

Starting today, Thursday May 6th, Atheist Ireland member Paul Gill will walk the length of Ireland, from Mizen Head in Cork to Malin Head in Donegal, to highlight the need to vote Yes in the coming Irish blasphemy referendum.

On January 1st, the day Ireland’s new blasphemy law became operational, Atheist Ireland published 25 blasphemous statements on our website. We continued lobbying at home and at European Parliament level. We also supported two blasphemy-themed art exhibitions in Dublin.

In March Justice Minister Dermot Ahern said he will propose a referendum later this year, along with other referendums, to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Constitution. Paul’s walk will encourage people to campaign for, and vote yes in, this referendum.

Appropriately, Paul’s walk started on May 6th, which is International Day of Reason. And to mark the start of Paul’s walk, we now publish 25 quotes on the Irish blasphemy referendum and the right to freedom of expression.

The first five quotes are specifically relevant to the coming referendum, which will ask the Irish people to remove the offence of blasphemy from the Irish Constitution:

“We are of the view that there is no place for the offence of blasphemous libel in a society which respects freedom of speech. The strongest arguments in its favour are (i) that it causes injury to feelings, which is a rather tenuous basis on which to restrict speech, and (ii) that freedom to insult religion would threaten the stability of society by impairing the harmony between the groups, a matter which is open to question in the absence of a prosecution. Indeed, we consider the absence of prosecution to indicate that the publication of blasphemous matter is no longer a social problem.”
Irish Law Reform Commission Report on the Crime of Libel, 1991. Commissioners: The Hon Mr Justice Ronan Keane, Judge of the High Court, President; John F Buckley, Esq, BA, LLB, Solicitor; William R Duncan, Esq, MA, FTCD, Barrister-at-Law, Associate Professor of Law, University of Dublin; Ms Maureen Gaffney, BA, MA, Senior Psychologist, Eastern Health Board; Research Associate, University of Dublin; Simon P O’Leary, Esq, BA, Barrister-at-Law

“The retention of the constitutional offence of blasphemy is not appropriate. The contents of the offence are totally unclear and are potentially at variance with guarantees of free speech and freedom of conscience in a pluralistic society. Moreover, there has been no prosecution for blasphemy in the history of the State. In so far as the protection of religious beliefs and sensibilities is necessary, this is best achieved by carefully defined legislation along the lines of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 which applies equally to all religious groups, but which at the same time took care to respect fundamental values of free speech and freedom of conscience.”
Irish Constitution Review Group, 1996. Members: Chairperson Dr TK Whitaker, David Byrne SC, Dr Alpha Connelly, Mary Finlay SC, Dermot Gleeson SC, James Hamilton BL, Mahon Hayes, Gerard Hogan FTCD, BL, Professor Áine Hyland, Dr Finola Kennedy, Professor Michael Laver FTCD, Dr Kathleen Lynch, Diarmaid McGuinness BL, Dr Dermot Nally, Dr Blathna Ruane BL

“The right to freedom of expression implies that it should be allowed to scrutinise, openly debate, and criticise, even harshly and unreasonably, belief systems, opinions, and institutions, as long as this does not amount to advocating hatred against an individual or groups… An insult to a principle or a dogma, or to a representative of a religion, does not necessarily amount to an insult to an individual who believes in that religion…. A democracy must not fear debate, even on the most shocking or anti-democratic ideas. It is through open discussion that these ideas should be countered and the supremacy of democratic values be demonstrated. Mutual understanding and respect can only be achieved through open debate. Persuasion, as opposed to ban or repression, is the most democratic means of preserving fundamental values… Certain religious groups have undoubtedly shown increasing sensitivities in this regard, and have reacted violently to criticism of their religion… Democratic societies must not become hostage to these sensitivities and freedom of expression must not indiscriminately retreat when facing violent reactions… The threshold of sensitivity of these groups and of anyone who would feel offended by the legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression should be lowered… The Commission finds: (a) That incitement to hatred, including religious hatred, should be the object of criminal sanctions; (b) That it is neither necessary nor desirable to create an offence of religious insult simpliciter, without the element of incitement to hatred as an essential component. (c) That the offence of blasphemy should be abolished (which is already the case in most European States) and should certainly not be reintroduced.”
Venice Commission Report on Freedom of Expression and Religion, 2008. The Venice Commission advises the Council of Europe on constitutional matters. This report was co-written by the Commission’s Irish member, Finola Flanagan, Director General and Senior Legal Advisor in the Office of the Irish Attorney General.

“In a modern Constitution, blasphemy is not a phenomenon against which there should be an express constitutional prohibition.”
Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, 2008. Members: chairperson Sean Ardagh TD, vice-chairperson Jim O’Keeffe, plus TDs Thomas Byrne, Michael D’Arcy, Tom Hayes, Brendan Howlin, Michael Kennedy, Denis Naughten, Ned O’Keeffe, Mary O’Rourke and Michael Woods; and Senators Dan Boyle, Denis O’Donovan, Eugene Regan and Alex White.

“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.”
Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, 2009. The Minister was replying to a parliamentary question about Ireland’s opposition at the UN to an Egyptian motion on combatting defamation of religion. The Islamic States have been trying to have this passed for a decade now. Since Ireland passed the new blasphemy law last year, the Islamic States have adopted the wording of our law as best practice for international blasphemy laws.

The next twenty quotes are about the right to freedom of expression:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

“No-one has the right not to be offended.”
John Cleese

“I am not an ordinary playwright in general practice. I am a specialist in immoral and heretical plays. My reputation has been gained by my persistent struggle to force the public to reconsider its morals.”
George Bernard Shaw

“The problem with writing about religion is that you run the risk of offending sincerely religious people, and then they come after you with machetes.”
Dave Barry

“Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless.”
Leo Tolstoy, On Life and Essays in Religion

“If I had a large amount of money I should found a hospital for those whose grip upon the world is so tenuous that they can be severely offended by words and phrases yet remain all unoffended by the injustice, violence and oppression that howls daily.”
Stephen Fry

“The sound of tireless voices is the price we pay for the right to hear the music of our own opinions.”
Adlai Stevenson

“Did you ever hear anyone say: That work had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me?”
Joseph Henry Jackson

“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.”
Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights

“A truly great library contains something within it to offend everyone.”
Jo Godwin

“Once you permit those who are convinced of their own superior rightness to censor and silence and suppress those who hold contrary opinions, just at that moment the citadel has been surrendered.”
Archibald Macleish

“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”
Salman Rushdie

“The basic right to freedom of opinion is the most immediate expression of the human personality in society and, as such, is one of the noblest of human rights. It is absolutely basic to a liberal-democratic order because it alone makes possible the constant intellectual exchange and the contest among opinions that form the lifeblood of such an order; it is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom”
German Constitutional Court, Luth case

“Being offended is a natural consequence of leaving the house.”
Fran Lebowitz

“In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.”
Alfred Griswold, New York Times

“We played a gig and we had a song that was offensive to people of the Jewish persuasion, and we led off with it, and they were offended by it, and that was that.”
Santiago Durango

“Free inquiry requires that we tolerate diversity of opinion and that we respect the right of individuals to express their beliefs, however unpopular they may be, without social or legal prohibition or fear of success.”
Paul Kurtz, A Secular Humanist Declaration

“Being offended is part of being in the real world.”
Courtney Love

“I did that joke in Alabama, in Fife, and these three rednecks met me after the show. ‘Hey, buddy! C’mere! Mister funny-man, c’mere! Hey, buddy, we’re Christians, and we don’t like what you said.’ I said: ‘So forgive me.’ Later, when I was hanging from the tree…”
Bill Hicks, Relentless

“But what is wrong with inciting intense dislike of a religion, if the activities or teachings of that religion are so outrageous, irrational or abusive of human rights that they deserve to be disliked intensely? To criticise people for their race is manifestly irrational, but to criticise their religion is surely a right. The freedom to criticise or ridicule ideas – even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is a fundamental freedom.”
Stephen King, Irish Examiner

A new art exhibition titled Blasphemous opened (appropriately) on Good Friday in the Irish Museum of Contemporary Art (IMOCA) in Lad Lane, off Baggott Street, Dublin 2. It’s the second art exhibition to highlight and challenge the new Irish blasphemy law, which became active on 1st January 2010.

Since then, the Irish Justice Minister has responded to the campaign against the law by saying that he will propose a referendum, later this year, to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution, thus enabling the blasphemy law to be repealed.

This makes the new exhibition in IMOCA not just a challenge to the blasphemy law, but also a celebration of artistic freedom, and freedom of expression generally. The exhibition runs until 25 April and is open from 12 noon to 5 pm every Friday, Saturday and Sunday, or by appointment through contacting IMOCA.

The Minister has told the Sunday Times that “I was only doing my duty” in bringing in the new blasphemy law, and that “there was an incredibly sophisticated campaign [against me], mainly on the internet.”

Atheist Ireland thanks everyone who has helped to make the campaign against this new law as effective as it has been to date. It is now important we maintain the pressure on this issue to ensure that the referendum happens as proposed and, more importantly, that it is won.

We reiterate our position that this law is both silly and dangerous: silly because it is introducing medieval canon law offence into a modern plularist republic; and dangerous because it incentives religious outrage and because its wording has already been adopted by Islamic States as part of their campaign to make blasphemy a crime internationally.

The following is the text of the article in today’s Sunday Times:

Ahern proposes a referendum on scrapping blasphemy law

Dermot Ahern, the justice minister, is proposing that a vote to remove the criminal offence of blasphemy be held as part of a planned series of referendums this autumn, writes Stephen O’Brien.

Ahern, who was criticised for increasing the fine for blasphemy to €25,000 last year, said he never regarded the provision in the new Defamation Bill as anything more than a short-term solution.

“There was a lot of nonsense about that blasphemy issue and people making me out to be a complete right-winger at the time,” he said. “There was an incredibly sophisticated campaign [against me], mainly on the internet. I was only doing my duty in relation to it, because clearly it is in the constitution. The attorney general said ‘there is this absolute, mandatory thing… it is an offence, punishable by law.”

A final decision on a blasphemy referendum rests with the cabinet, but if Ahern remains justice minister after this month’s reshuffle, he is likely to propose that it be added to the autumn list. The government is already committed to referendums on children’s rights and establishing a permanent court of civil appeal.

The plebiscites are expected to take place in October, on the same day as the a vote for a new directly elected mayor of Dublin, and three Dail by-elections in Donegal South-West, Dublin South and Waterford.

“I said [last year] that I didn’t want a wasteful standalone referendum on blasphemy in the middle of an economic crisis,” said Ahern. “My preference was to reform [the blasphemy provision] in the short term and to have a referendum in the medium term when it could be bundled with a number of others.”

A defamation bill was already in preparation when Ahern became justice minister in May 2008.

Ahern then said he had three options: to abandon the bill; to hold a single-issue referendum to remove the constitutional reference to blasphemy; or to update the references in the 1961 Defamation Act.

Opting for reform, he said he had removed the seven-year jail sentence from the old legislation.

A blasphemy art exhibition in Dublin during February is a direct response to the new Irish blasphemy law. It’s a fascinating show, and well worth a visit.

It is on in the Oonagh Young Gallery in James Joyce Street (formerly Corporation Street) off Talbot Street until Saturday 27 February, and is open from 12 to 6pm every Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

This Wednesday at 7pm there is a special screening of Rocky Road to Dublin and The Making of Rocky Road to Dublin, which should be watched by anyone interested in secularism and censorship in Ireland.

Admission is free, and members of the public are welcome.

The theme will be the Atheist Ireland campaigns against the Irish blasphemy law, and for a secular constitution and a secular education system.

The following quote from PZ Myers about the desecration of communion hosts is among the 25 blasphemous quotes that Atheist published a month ago when the Irish blasphemy law became operational:

“You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”

While in Ireland, PZ will also be speaking about science and creationism at UCD on Tuesday Feb 2nd, and at NUI Galway on Thursday February 4th, at meetings organised by the UCD Secular Humanist Society and the NUI Galway Skeptic Society and ZooSoc. You can get details on tickets for these events, subject to availability, by emailing ucdhumanistsociety@gmail.com or k.mcinerney3@nuigalway.ie