Originally Posted by Mutante

What happens when it becomes difficult to criticise religion, religious practice, religious behaviour, religious attitudes or religious people?

It becomes even more difficult to expose the dark side of religious life.

Shutting down free expression about religion is always about silencing the truth about abusive behaviour of one kind or another.

Originally Posted by basil

Originally Posted by Relyt

They're also kissing the ass of militant Islamists and letting them have their way every single time they complain about something.

Originally Posted by Dermot Ahern, Minister for Justice

OPINION: Successive governments have been advised to reform the law on blasphemy; the only alternative to legislation would be a referendum, writes DERMOT AHERN .

THE 1961 Defamation Act provides that a person can be both fined and imprisoned for a maximum of seven years for the crime of blasphemous libel. The Government is moving to reform that Act, while respecting our Constitution, which requires that blasphemy must be punishable by law.

My intention is to remove the possibility of prison sentences and private prosecutions for blasphemy, currently provided for in Irish law. The only credible alternative to this move is a blasphemy referendum which I consider, in the current circumstances, a costly and unwarranted diversion.

Originally Posted by John Waters

It is true that we now live in a culture where what passes for humour is often elevated beyond merit, but the right to speak and joke freely remains as precious as the right to religious freedom. In truth, because both relate to the fundamental impulses of humanity, they are almost co-terminous.

Humour is one of the cornerstones of democratic debate, a safeguard against pomposity and fanaticism, but also a way for the public conversation to convey the deeper human reactions to events.

A joke gives voice to what is beyond the frontier of the acceptable, and all of us, including those who take offence, need this to remain possible.

Originally Posted by Pat Rabbitte TD

Thank you for communication concerning the government decision to include
a section on blasphemous libel in the Defamation Bill. The Bill is at
Committee stage and the proposed new section has not yet been reached.

The Labour Party is opposed to the inclusion of such a section. We support
the proposal from the Constitutional Review Group to remove the reference
in the constitution by way of referendum.

Tactically we have taken a "belt and braces" approach i.e. if the Minister
refuses to excise the reference in the Bill our amendment will seek to
constrain the government's proposal. According to this morning's
newspapers, the Minister intends to press ahead.

Sincerely

Pat Rabbitte TD

Originally Posted by The Irish Times - Letters

Madam, – Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern defines blasphemous matter as that which 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” (Page 1, April 29th). I hold freedom of speech as sacred as the adherents of any religion hold their scripture, and find his proposal to restrict this freedom grossly abusive, insulting and outrageous. – Yours, etc,

BRENDAN FINAN,
Cornageeha,
Sligo.


Madam, – In a modern secular democracy the law of blasphemy is an unwelcome anachronism. It is peculiar that the people through their elected representatives would choose to restrain the expression of views that criticise a particular set of thoughts or opinions, let alone to criminalise such expression.

The proposed introduction of the crime of “blasphemous libel” will create a statutory criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to €100,000. A blasphemous libel will occur when a person utters something that was both intended to be, and also was considered by a substantial number of adherents to a religion to be, grossly abusive or insulting to matters held sacred by that religion.

This suggests that the likelihood of a crime having been committed will depend in large part on the sensitivity to criticism of the adherents to a particular religion. Thus, for instance a performance by a comedian on the Late Late Show; a cartoon representation of certain religious icons; or a robust journalistic criticism of religious views or the manner in which a religion conducts itself could all be the subject of a serious criminal investigation.

The time and scarce resources of the Garda Síochána, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the courts inevitably will be directed towards responding to complaints from people that their religion has been grossly offended. Of course not all views that touch on religion are protected in this way. One can without fear of prosecution grossly abuse the fundamental world views held by humanists, agnostics and atheists.

How is it right that the expression of a thought or view about a religion (however robustly or offensively expressed) could lead to a serious criminal conviction? Surely the correct approach for confident religions in a modern pluralistic democracy should be to call for the removal from the Constitution of the reference to blasphemy in the first place, rather than by reinvigorating in statutory form an anachronistic and largely extinct concept? – Yours, etc,

BARRY O’DONNELL,
Lower Kimmage Road,
Harold’s Cross,
Dublin 6W.


Madam, – I read with interest that the Government is ignoring the recommendation of the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, and is proposing to add a new crime of blasphemous libel to the Defamation Bill (Page 1, April 29th).

The proposed wording mentions “matters held sacred by any religion”. Should I anticipate prosecution of those who “utter blasphemy” against Scientology, Mormonism, Ashanti mythology, Zoroastrianism, Baltic polytheism and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Religion should not receive special treatment in the marketplace of ideas. – Yours, etc,

MICHAEL McELREE,
Station Road,
Glenageary,
Co Dublin.


Madam, – Leaving aside the eerie coincidence of the timing of Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern’s proposal to alter the Defamation Bill on the day of such disastrous unemployment figures, surely there is a fundamental problem with the basic premise of his argument.

How can anybody be charged with blasphemy unless there is irrefutable proof of a god’s (or gods’) existence?

Furthermore, which gods will be covered by this Defamation Bill? Does it cover “cults”?

Is my copy of The Life of Brianon DVD now deemed proof of blasphemy?

I had hoped that Ireland had moved towards a more inclusive and secular society which respects the free expression of every person regardless of their beliefs.

This is another reason to question our Government’s grasp of reality. – Yours, etc.

GAVIN WHEATLEY,
Portobello,
Dublin 8.


Madam, – In relation to the Minister for Justice’s wish to introduce a “blasphemy law” protecting religion from criticism. “Blasphemous matter”, he says, is defined as 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 he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

I feel outraged that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin. All the current evidence points to a given person being born gay, just as they are born Irish or Indian. Thus there is, in my eyes, no difference between homophobia and racism. The Church are guilty in my eyes of racism.

I feel outraged by the treatment of women in some Muslim countries, where they live in fear of God and society if they dare not submit to Allah. (see Ayann Hirshi Ali’s brilliant autobiography) I feel outraged by these things but I do not feel that people should not be able to believe them. Why should someone who supports these views have to protection of the law when they get outraged at my beliefs?

This is a huge step backward as a society and a progressive secularist culture. This is a horrible disemboweling of free speech.

People have a right to their religious beliefs, but no religion should be legally protected from criticism. – Yours, etc,

GRAHAM COOKE,
James Walk,
Rialto,
Dublin 8.


Madam, – The Dáil is discussing the revival of the laws against blasphemy. What next – revival of the Inquisition? The burning of heretics?

I can only think of two reasons for it: 1. It is a smokescreen to obscure the awful news, to make us think about something else. 2. To try to prevent artists from making uncomplimentary pictures of politicians who think that they are better than mere mortals. – Yours, etc,

ANDREW OGDEN,
Johnstown,
Naas,
Co Kildare.


Madam, – Is it too cynical of me to wonder about a connection between attempts by Dermot Ahern to introduce a crime of blasphemous libel, and the Tánaiste’s trip to the Persian Gulf to drum up investment? – Yours, etc,

PAUL WILLIAMS,
Circular Road,
Kilkee,
Co Clare.

Originally Posted by RightOn

This has probably been asked already..... but any link AT ALL with Ahern and COS ?

Originally Posted by themadhair

I doubt it. Bertie has always been a bit of an anti-secularist, and combined with recently courting investments from the Saudi’s the timing makes sense.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

I assume he was referring to Dermot Ahern, not Bertie.