Comments on: Jesus H. F****** Christ

By: Pat Donnelly

Pat Donnelly — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:30:42 +0000

church’s dammit!

By: Pat Donnelly

Pat Donnelly — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:25:12 +0000

There is no obligation on the legislature to pass any laws. They may do so. The SC was testy with them as they wanted no part of a blasphemy prosecution in the 1990s. They said they needed legislation to punish anyone as the common law offence was vague and inconsistent with the need for certainty under the constitution.
Why now? Well they fucked up the economy and the churches knickers are around its ankles so why not? After all we all know how important it is…. don’t we? It will entertain for years to come!

By: Eamonn

Eamonn — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:24:02 +0000

I wronly pre-empted the president’s decision in fact. She has decided the law is constitionally sound and it has been signed into law. See you at mass!

By: Eamonn

Eamonn — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:05:47 +0000

You may be interested in the latest developments with the Defamation Bill. The president has decided to take an Article 26 Reference and test the constitutionality of the Bill so she may not sign it into law just yet.
This process only takes 60 days and if the Bill is deemed to comply with the constitution then it can never be challenged again.

By: Eamonn

Eamonn — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:34:40 +0000

It was certainly debated at the early stages of the Bill but it looks like there was no amendment actually inserted into the Bill until this year. While the reaction here is fairly muted to the blasphemy proposals can you imagine holding a referendum in relation to this at the current time!

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=6059&&CatID=59&StartDate=01%20January%202006&OrderAscending=0

By: Eamonn

Eamonn — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:20:55 +0000

It has been recommended many times that the provision be deleted from the Consitution..now that it is in the limelight again they might think about holding another referendum which would undoubtedly be passed by a big majority I reckon, although the Irish public may vote otherwise as an anti-government vote. Not that such an outcome would prevent the same question being put to the people again a few months later until they vote the right way, which is more of an insult to any freedom of expression values than the blasphemy provisions!

DeValera when drafting the Constitution suggested that the Constitution did not create a new offence of blasphemy but simply represented a constitutional enshrinement of the existing common law offence of blasphemy. It hasn’t really been an issue in Irish law apart from one Supreme Court case in 1999 which
was unsuccessful.

There are further cases which were taken to the European Court of Human Rights which support the proposition that it is not a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights to have laws against blasphemy
http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/religion/Otto.html
Also Lemon v UK

I would find it very unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted for blasphemy under the new proposed legislation. It is simply a means to and ends

By: Jaedi

Jaedi — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:06:54 +0000

Another question for you – do you know when the blasphemy provision was first introduced into the Bill? Was it in an early draft? – it is a 2006 bill after all. It would appear that it was added quite late in the process – probably due to a legal review of the constitutationality of the Bill. If that’s the case, then it was quite badly handled if you ask me. Those kind of things need to be carefully handled from a political point of view.

By: Jaedi

Jaedi — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:06:00 +0000

Thanks for the clarification. It is still a half-measure, though. The main (and intentionally exaggerated) point I was trying to make is that, although blasphemy laws possibly cannot be repealed for unconstitutionality or incompatability with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, they are widely considered as out-dated. Considering that there is no specific definition of "blasphemy", I also see it as wide open to abuse should very conservative (politically appointed?) judges be appointed to the High Court or Supreme Court. England and Wales abolished their blasphemy laws in 2008 and we introduce them (I suppose I should say "update them" considering the constitutional reference) in 2009?? When do they plan to have a referendum on the subject? With regard to your point that the last prosecution for blasphemy was in 1909, I stand corrected, although you'd think that they wouldn't have bothered including it in the original 1937 constitution. The 72 years since it was adopted should have allowed sufficient opportunity to modernise it by referendum. It would be interesting, though, to see if a referendum eleminating the blasphemy paragraph from the constitution would be passed - even in 2009 (crisis notwithstanding)! Concerning your point about Wingrove v. The United Kingdom, that was in 1996. A recommendation of the Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2007 “considers that blasphemy, as an insult to a religion, should not be deemed a criminal offence” (Recommendation 1805, 2007). Whether or not an Assembly Recommendation could be referred to as supporting material in a court case is another matter - perhaps you could inform us on that subject? Any matter that could be considered blasphemous may still be subjected to prosecution under other exiting laws if it forms an attack on a particular ethnic or religious group. The new blasphemy law does permit reasonable matter for political, artistic use, etc, but it is still rendered redundant and will never be enforced under any reasonable administration.

By: Eamonn

Eamonn — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:54:31 +0000

I think you are being a bit sensationalist to say the least. The Constitution of Ireland explicitly states that under Article 40 (4)(i) “The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”

You can’t have a law on defamation and repeal the Defamation Act 1961, which makes blasphemy an offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment, without legislating for it again, as it would be unconstitutional. The new Act also repeals the common law offences of defamatory libel, seditious libel and obscene libel. The only other option would be to have a referendum on the same day as Lisbon, which would be best, but would be political suicide and therefore not an option for an Irish political party.

The case law has determined that it is acceptable for the purposes of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights for a state to retain a blasphemy law
http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/expression/wingrove_uk.html

To be deemed blasphemous under the new the utterance has to be 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
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned,to cause such outrage. Only the DPP can bring a prosecution for blasphemy and the last prosecution for the offence was in 1909. It is, as usual, an Irish solution to an Irish problem but one that can’t be avoided!