Blasphemous libel

shnaek

Registered User
Messages
599
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?
 
"Jaysus, I'm tellin' ye, that fecker Bertie has ruined this country" might count. :)
 
Can somebody scrub my posts . Please! I didn't mean to. Honest!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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 ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
Remember it was written in 1937 when the Catholic Church ran the country with an iron fist.
 
The new blasphemous libel law is to be amended to allow artistic, scientific, political reasons as a defence.
 
why is there not more uproar about this? it's a serious breach of freedom of speech!
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Back
Top