Blasphemous libel

Discussion in 'Letting Off Steam' started by shnaek, 29 Apr 2009.

  1. shnaek

    shnaek Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    594
    Just heard about this on the news this morning.

    "Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern proposes to insert a new section into the Defamation Bill, stating: “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.”"

    Yet "Last year the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of Fianna Fáil TD Seán Ardagh, recommended amending this Article to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafting the Article along the lines of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression."

    Also "In the only Irish case taken under this article, Corway -v- Independent Newspapers, in 1999, the Supreme Court concluded that it was impossible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists”."

    The full article is here "http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0429/1224245599892.html"

    They're bringing in a crime of blasphemous libel when they have pushed and shoved the country down the proverbial toilet?! These guys with no credibility whatsoever? I can think of a few crimes that should be added to legislation long before they even look at this one.

    But on the crime itself - are we to go backwards in law now, as well as in economic matters?
     
  2. Caveat

    Caveat Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    4,007
    "Jaysus, I'm tellin' ye, that fecker Bertie has ruined this country" might count. :)
     
  3. zag

    zag Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    994
    Ah, but it would have to be libelous though . . .

    z
     
  4. Simeon

    Simeon Guest

    Can somebody scrub my posts . Please! I didn't mean to. Honest!
     
  5. Purple

    Purple Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    8,568
    The U.N. Human Rights Council, that bastion of righteous and justice, has passed a resolution condemning "defamation of religion” and has urged all member states to take this on board, though the resolution is non-binding (they couldn’t get a binding one passed).

    Maybe this has something to do with what’s going on here.
     
  6. dockingtrade

    dockingtrade Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    343
    does this mean south park will be banned, or just what cartman says to Kyle be dubbed?
     
  7. Sherman

    Sherman Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    985
    Methinks it has everything to do with a certain religion and the reaction of a tiny minority of adherents to that religion when they disagreed with some cartoons...that and our craven fear of said tiny minority.
     
  8. dockingtrade

    dockingtrade Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    343
    so the south park episode where they tried to family guy pulled for this very reason was actually art imitating life eh? hidden meanings in south park eh ... i thought that was a myth.
     
  9. mathepac

    mathepac Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    6,557
    Does this mean that Charlton Heston films like El Cid with Saracens and Crusaders could now be banned? I'm not a Charlton Heston fan, but the movie impressed me as a kid.
     
  10. Simeon

    Simeon Guest

    Ben Hur ......... wheels flyin' everywhere. Deadly :D
     
  11. DrMoriarty

    DrMoriarty Moderator

    Posts:
    5,180
    Sounds like a job for Twenty Major!

    (I'd post a link but it might be unconstitutional... :eek:)
     
  12. NorthDrum

    NorthDrum Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    301
    Careful now . . You might be caught under this new law with such bold comments as even suggesting a politician would run this country into the ground ;)
     
  13. redstar

    redstar Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    431
    The Constitution mentions blasphemy and states it is to be punishable "in accordance with the law". But no law was ever enacted so this part of the constitution was never enforced.
    Hence, this new law was created to give effect to the constitutional ban on blasphemy.

    Thats the Govts excuse, anyway.
     
  14. shnaek

    shnaek Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    594
    Have a referendum to remove the nonsense from the constitution. That's the way to handle it. Having 'blasphemy' in the constitution is an irrelevance and an embarrassment for a modern free thinking nation.
     
  15. bond-007

    bond-007 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    3,175
    Remember it was written in 1937 when the Catholic Church ran the country with an iron fist.
     
  16. redstar

    redstar Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    431
    The new blasphemous libel law is to be amended to allow artistic, scientific, political reasons as a defence.
     
  17. Superman

    Superman Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    595
    Gees that's great. Only if you can prove that whatever you've done is of merit however.
     
  18. bb12

    bb12 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    216
    why is there not more uproar about this? it's a serious breach of freedom of speech!
     
  19. bond-007

    bond-007 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    3,175
    This bound to end up in the European Court of Human Rights unless the President refers it to the Supreme Court for an Article 26 inquiry.
     
  20. Sherman

    Sherman Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    985
    Doubt the President would be able to refer this under Article 26 - President can only refer under Article 26 where a Bill would be repugnant to the Constitution. As pointed out above this Bill is in fact enacting one of the provisions of the Constitution in law so I don't see how it could be deemed to be repugnant to the Constitution.