You may have heard, early last month, that Ireland has passed a new law regarding blasphemy. There also seems to be some confusion on the matter – is this a new law, making blasphemy illegal where it was previously not? Or is it perhaps a reform of an older law, which actually reduces the sanction on this offense from prison time to a fine? Either way, atheists and secularists of all stripes are up in arms, and a lot of them seem to be ignorant of the facts. When freethinkers start leaping to the defensive just from the very mention of words such as “blasphemy”, without examining the details, how can we claim the moral high ground? How are we better than fundamentalists? If we are to debate credibly, we need to be able to marshal the facts. This, in my mind, is one of the most important distinguishing aspects of the sceptical and secularist movements.
So, what are the facts in this case?
The Irish Constitution requires a law making blasphemy an offense. Such a law was not passed until 1961, but did not satisfactorily define blasphemy – this led to the 1999 Supreme Court ruling that the current law was unenforceable. Instead of amending the constitution to remove the necessity of the law, however (which would require a national referendum), it was decided that it would be easier to enact a law that was enforceable. This passed in early July.
So, in effect, blasphemy is now illegal in Ireland, and while this has apparently always been the case, it is now a cogent and enforeceable law with a specified definition and penalty (and a hefty penalty at that – up to €25,000). It will however likely not be operable until late October, due to necessary modifications in the rules of court to accommodate it. There is a significant campaign to repeal the new law, and indeed it seems that there are good reasons to consider it to be in conflict with the constitution – not to mention the European Convention on Human Rights.
All this information is available at the excellent website Blasphemy.ie, and what is presented here is intended as a summary, attempting to clarify a situation which seems to be widely misunderstood.
So what’s the bottom line here?
Blasphemy is now functionally illegal in Ireland. This is a result of recent legislation which did not introduce it as an offense but rather clarified the law to a point at which it was enforceable. This was ostensibly done to avoid the costs of a referendum – which, as mentioned, would be necessary were Ireland to alter the constitution and remove the need for a blasphemy law. But, as Padraig Reidy points out, a referendum is planned for October on the issue of the Lisbon Treaty (a generally unrelated matter) – so why not save a few Euros and combine the two? And why set the penalty for blasphemy so high? Surely if it were a token law for the sake of convention, it would warrant only a token penalty. Does this perhaps hint at an ulterior motive for enacting the new legislation?
I am clearly not in a position to comment on that possibility. Anybody who is would be gratefully welcomed if they cared to enlighten me. Suffice it to say that I have been a little disappointed by the sparse and superficial coverage this story has received – as usual, the reality is a bit more complicated.
To stay updated with this case, head to blasphemy.ie.
Vincent said...
1I don’t know about any ulterior motive in enacting the legislation, nor any facts whatever. Nor am I in a position to comment on whether this matter is being handled well or badly; democratically or in some biased manner over the heads of the people of Ireland. Politics as we all know is a very rough approximation of democracy, and I applaud Ireland for being able to debate things that could not freely be protested about in Iran, say.
But having done five minutes of research on this I discover that what you complain about is part of the laws of Defamation in Ireland. No one would argue I think that laws are required to protect against libel and slander, even when free speech is held sacred.
Putting blasphemy alongside seems sensible to me. We have seen the effect of causing offence against Muslims, for example the Danish cartoons; in cases where it was not an issue of free speech but gratuitous protest against the principle of respect.
It is a terrible evil if those who are offended use violence, because that is the only way they can defend themselves. They must feel like children bullied in the playground, who when they try to fight back get punished, whilst the original bullies go free.
Christians, at least in Great Britain, don’t traditionally use violence to defend themselves. Perhaps they just take it “in good part” or as we say, with a sense of humour. But laws are still needed to avoid Muslim terrorism.
But if sceptics become militant in Europe – and putting atheist propaganda on the side of a bus is an act symbolic of militancy – then they must expect some defensive action by the conservative-minded.
What’s at stake here is merely tact and good sense. In Ireland, there has been an established Church, like it or not, for hundreds of years. What is needed is gentleness and understanding of the traditions which have held society together. Things will change by themselves, over time, when they are ready. Meanwhile, let the sceptics be sceptical without bothering the believers. Then we can live in peace and harmony.
08/11/09 4:54 AM | Comment Link
darkwinter said...
2Nobody is entitled to a right to not be offended. We should not curtail freedom of speech just because we fear violent reprisals from people who are unwilling to have their beliefs questioned.
An advert on a bus, partiularly one which is worded in equivocal and intentionally inoffensive language, is not an act symbolic of militancy. For the most part it was intended to let those who have no faith know that they are not alone, and that atheism is a legitimate choice. To describe this as militant is absurd. Placards bearing slogans such as “death to religion” or “burn all of faith” would be militant.
As for letting the sceptics be sceptical without bothering the believers, how about letting the believers believe without bothering the sceptics? I entirely agree that harmony is what we need – and a law curtailing our freedom of expression so as to avoid offense is not the way to achieve it.
08/11/09 9:06 AM | Comment Link
Vincent said...
3But the believers do believe without bothering the sceptics! With the traditional exceptions of course: Jehovah’s witnesses at your door, Mormons in white shirts and ties, hovering on the street …
With such well-known and well-tolerated exceptions, in UK where you and I live it has been centuries since believers bothered sceptics.
Are we to have an argument about what militancy is? Anyhow, I said “symbolic of militancy”. Most conflict is symbolic and doesn’t involve killing and burning.
“Let those who have no faith know that they are not alone”? Which country are you talking about? the vast majority of our fellow-citizens have no faith, and they know they are not alone.
Is atheism a “choice”? A “legitimate choice”? This is peculiar language.
08/12/09 10:26 AM | Comment Link
Kylie BattName said...
4чё то не очень…….
……
04/11/10 7:20 PM | Comment Link
Kylie Batt said...
5Всё выше сказанное правда. Можем пообщаться на эту тему. Здесь или в PM….
……
05/19/10 10:26 AM | Comment Link