Happy New Censorship!

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "Happy New Censorship!" by AndromedasWake.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/news/happy-new-censorship/

 

[Sarge084]

One step into the future, two steps back into medieval times.

And there was me thinking that the Irish were wanting to be taken seriously, after years of being the butt of jokes they fought for the chance to prove they were not the bumbling simpletons of the old Irish jokes, then this!! Did you hear the one about the Irishman, the bible and the law? No, it's not funny at all!

Pete

 

[rabbitpirate]

Happy New Year, welcome to 1010.

 

[AndromedasWake]

Happy New Year, welcome to 1010.

In some ways, it'd be an improvement. At least Simon Cowell wouldn't have broken music yet.

 

[ThereIsRedemption]

Happy New Year, welcome to 1010.

In some ways, it'd be an improvement. At least Simon Cowell wouldn't have broken music yet.

Not when the internet has anything to say about it *points to christmas number 1*
The law is ridiculous, It wont last. I'm surprised the UN hasn't got involved already.

 

[MillionSword]

So what about creating a religion that renders other religions blasphemous? This already exists in religion to a certain degree, but a new one like the church of FSM that is specifically made for this can be easily done I think.

 

[rabbitpirate]

So what about creating a religion that renders other religions blasphemous? This already exists in religion to a certain degree, but a new one like the church of FSM that is specifically made for this can be easily done I think.

I have to say that my first thought was kind of along those lines in that every religion pretty much considers every other religion to be blasphemous. There is no need for the creation of a new religion, all that is needed is for the current religions to utilize this law to its full extent. Just as theists often consider the very existence of atheists to be blasphemous, Christians consider the Muslim faith to be blasphemous and vise versa. The ultimate result of a law like this, taken to its extreme, is that it ends up being blasphemous to state any opinion about any god what so ever. A Christian could not state that their God is the only god without it being considered blasphemous by someone of another faith.

Could this law result in people having to keep their faith personal and out of the public eye? Nah, it will just be used to shut up atheists. In fact even if it did result in the kind of thing I outlined above I would be against it. I am all for people proclaiming any kind of stupid belief they want, I just wish that people wouldn't take them so seriously and expect others to give them the respect they have neither earned nor deserve.

 

[Aught3]

Do we know whether the Irish government is planning to have people prosecuted under this new law? Many countries have blasphemy laws that are not enforced and nobody is bothered by them. As I understand it the Irish constitution requires that this kind of law be on the books so it was a case of changing the constitution (difficult) or adding a new law (easy). I'm not saying that this new law is a good thing but shouldn't we wait until it is used before we start denigrating Ireland, religions, or the politicians themselves?

 

[Nuckpang]

Oy, I've been following this blog for a while, and the first time I've been moved to post is in defence of the Irish government? Sheesh, not how I saw my first foray into this community

Hi, I'm Nuckpang/Stephen, an Irish dude with far too much time on his hands and an interest in this debate. I've been following it since the laws were first proposed and was more than a little peeved when I saw the headlines flying around the world and blogs like this one being posted. "Ireland Outlaws Blasphemy" is an incredibly misleading take on this issue, although I take my hat off to Aught3; you got it pretty much right when you said "the Irish constitution requires that this kind of law be on the books so it was a case of changing the constitution (difficult) or adding a new law (easy)".

The back story to this is that the Irish constitution has for some time referred to a blasphemy law which didn't exist in Ireland's law books. This left a legal black hole and the government was legally required to define blasphemy. As things stood, the government had just been plunged into economic hell, had just lost a referendum on the issue of the Lisbon Treaty and were on incredibly thin ice, so given the choice of a) passing a small law with little fuss or b) forcing the entire country to hold a referendum to change the constitution, with all the debates, publicity, money spent campaigning and political attacks of opportunity that go with it, they unsurprisingly decided to go for option a). The law was brought into Dail Eireann (i.e. the House of Commons), debated, and passed. Legal hole plugged: finito. The downside was that headlines and news stories which essentially amounted to "Oh look, crazy Catholic Ireland is at it again" were fired off around the world without any real investigation and were picked up by people like Richard Dawkins and other members of the rationalist community (such as this magnificent forum) and give the impression that Ireland's wandering cheerfully back into the Dark Ages.

So yes, there's a blasphemy law, but how dangerous is it to free speech? I mean, the majority of European countries have blasphemy laws. The Netherlands, that bastion of liberal values and craziness, has laws on blasphemy. Up until 2008 the England and Wales had laws on Blasphemy, and I think Scotland and Northern Ireland still do. The thing is, although it looks backwards and crazy as a headline, when you get down to reading many laws on blasphemy they tend to amount to nothing more than anti-hate speech. To quote the actual law itself "It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates." In the words of the minister who wrote it, it has been drafted to "make it virtually impossible to get a successful prosecution".

So, while I enjoyed the list of 25 blasphemous quotes, none of them actually break the law. I could paint "Jesus sucked Donkey Cock" on my chest and run through the streets of Dublin wearing nothing but a jockstrap and probably argue that it had "artistic merit".

Sorry for being so long winded about this but I did want to be through, and although I think it's as crazy a situation as the next person I'm getting tired of people flying off the handle and claiming that Ireland is about to start burning people at the stake for blasphemy. The fact is that Ireland is incredibly backward in many ways, but this isn't really one of them and it distracts from the real, genuine problems that we have, such as rights for gay couples (or any relationships outside of traditional marriage), abortion and an atrociously bad record on environmental protection.

Thanks for putting up with my ranting, and I hope this is the first of many (more jolly) posts on this forum.

tl;dr version: The law had to be brought in, it's been drafted so almost nothing counts as blasphemy, it will never be used, it's not that big a deal.

 

[5810Singer]

I could paint "Jesus sucked Donkey Cock" on my chest and run through the streets of Dublin wearing nothing but a jockstrap and probably argue that it had "artistic merit".

I'll sponsor you to do it.

What's your favourite charity?

 

[borrofburi]

The back story to this is that the Irish constitution has for some time referred to a blasphemy law which didn't exist in Ireland's law books. This left a legal black hole and the government was legally required to define blasphemy. As things stood, the government had just been plunged into economic hell, had just lost a referendum on the issue of the Lisbon Treaty and were on incredibly thin ice, so given the choice of a) passing a small law with little fuss or b) forcing the entire country to hold a referendum to change the constitution, with all the debates, publicity, money spent campaigning and political attacks of opportunity that go with it, they unsurprisingly decided to go for option

Why not c) continue to ignore it?

So yes, there's a blasphemy law, but how dangerous is it to free speech?

Very.

I mean, the majority of European countries have blasphemy laws. The Netherlands, that bastion of liberal values and craziness, has laws on blasphemy. Up until 2008 the England and Wales had laws on Blasphemy, and I think Scotland and Northern Ireland still do. The thing is, although it looks backwards and crazy as a headline, when you get down to reading many laws on blasphemy they tend to amount to nothing more than anti-hate speech.

It *is* backwards and crazy, and I oppose the blasphemy laws in those countries as well. Why is ireland singled out? Because those other laws are remnants from backwards times that were never properly eradicated, while Ireland is just now, actively, in modern times, making such a backwards law.

To quote the actual law itself "It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates."

So it's a moral majority thing?

The fact is that Ireland is incredibly backward in many ways, but this isn't really one of them and it distracts from the real, genuine problems that we have, such as rights for gay couples (or any relationships outside of traditional marriage), abortion and an atrociously bad record on environmental protection.

I understand that kind of reasoning. It's the same reason I don't waste too much time or effort on the "In God We Trust" on US money, despite being opposed to it.

tl;dr version: The law had to be brought in, it's been drafted so almost nothing counts as blasphemy, it will never be used, it's not that big a deal.

I hope so.

 

[obsidianavenger]

Do we know whether the Irish government is planning to have people prosecuted under this new law? Many countries have blasphemy laws that are not enforced and nobody is bothered by them. As I understand it the Irish constitution requires that this kind of law be on the books so it was a case of changing the constitution (difficult) or adding a new law (easy). I'm not saying that this new law is a good thing but shouldn't we wait until it is used before we start denigrating Ireland, religions, or the politicians themselves?

even if it is unlikely to be enforced now, and, indeed, many countries have them and don't enforce them, it opens the door for anyone who wanted to try to get such laws enforced, and it supports the mistaken belief that some ideas are sacred and need protecting. this does put it in perspective, and i am much less shocked knowing the history, but i would say having any law on the books proclaiming "we can prosecute people for expressing a belief that hurts someone elses feelings" is a dangerous precedent.

 

[Aught3]

even if it is unlikely to be enforced now, and, indeed, many countries have them and don't enforce them, it opens the door for anyone who wanted to try to get such laws enforced, and it supports the mistaken belief that some ideas are sacred and need protecting. this does put it in perspective, and i am much less shocked knowing the history, but i would say having any law on the books proclaiming "we can prosecute people for expressing a belief that hurts someone elses feelings" is a dangerous precedent.

Yeah, I think I could be tempted that far. I'd rather see an attempt at prosecution before I get all up in arms about it, so I support Atheist Ireland in trying to break the law.

 

[rabbitpirate]

Oy, I've been following this blog for a while, and the first time I've been moved to post is in defence of the Irish government? Sheesh, not how I saw my first foray into this community

I just want to thank you for your post, if for no other reason than for reminding us that there is often more to the story than meets the eye. As good skeptics and rational thinkers the very last thing we should do is just accept a news story as true just because it fits with our personal views on an issue. If nothing else your post remined me that everything I knew about this story came from one side of the fence and that I am doing myself a diservice by not looking at both sides of the issue.

That said however I still see this as a bad thing even if the law is worded in such a way as to make it useless. My take on this is fairly simple, if your constitution, in the 21st century, calls for a blasphemy law and the choices are to enact one or rework the constitution, well, then you should rework the constitution, or at the very least add an amendment.

I am all for limiting out and out hate speech, it is just that this strikes me as a pointless way to do so. If the law really is as toothless as you claim then what is the point of it? How does it limit hate speech if it is worded in a way that makes it useless? If it can be used then it of course can be misused.

Then of course as Aught3 brought up such laws open the door for the introduction of similar laws that do have bite to them. People, organisations and even religions, to an extent, should be granted protection from out and out hate speech. Ideas on the other hand? Well I think that if an idea is shown to be wrong and even potentially dangerous then it should be critisized at every oportunity. Blasphemy laws protect ideas, not the people that hold them, from attack.

Anyway once again thanks for your post, I will try to remember to look at both sides before letting myself be led to a gut conclusion. Please keep posting.

 

[Aught3]

^I did not bring up a slippery slope argument :evil:

 

[rabbitpirate]

^I did not bring up a slippery slope argument :evil:

Sorry, that's wasn't what I mean to imply. And looking back it seems it was obsidianavenger and not you. Sorry I must have got your comments mixed up. My bad. :?

 

[Aught3]

Okay all's well and good then

 

[Nuckpang]

Ah, so much to reply to, so little time...

I just want to thank you for your post, if for no other reason than for reminding us that there is often more to the story than meets the eye. As good skeptics and rational thinkers the very last thing we should do is just accept a news story as true just because it fits with our personal views on an issue. If nothing else your post remined me that everything I knew about this story came from one side of the fence and that I am doing myself a diservice by not looking at both sides of the issue.

Thank you for the warm welcome, and while I have a feeling that I agree with you all on 99% of the issues here, I've already set myself up as Devil's Advocate here, so I may as well keep on cheerfully digging this hole for myself

That said however I still see this as a bad thing even if the law is worded in such a way as to make it useless. My take on this is fairly simple, if your constitution, in the 21st century, calls for a blasphemy law and the choices are to enact one or rework the constitution, well, then you should rework the constitution, or at the very least add an amendment.

I completely agree. The right thing to do in this situation would have been to go to the polls and try to get a change to the constitution, but unfortunately the Irish political landscape of the time was (and still is, to a large degree) not one where this was realistically possible. The government had just taken a hefty blow from other political groups who opportunistically attacked them over another political issue (The Lisbon Treaty) and won, so if the government was seen to go up against the religious groups of the country (a largely sleeping dragon, but potentially a strong political force) it would have been political suicide for them. I don't think it was right, but I do think it was understandable.

As for the Irish constitution, it's a weird beast of a thing. It requires a national referendum to make any changes at all to it, and I don't think amendments can be easily tacked on as they are in the case of the American constitution (apologies if that's misrepresenting how the American political system works, I'm not an expert on it), so there are quite a few things in there that should really be changed, but haven't been in the 70 or so years that it's been around. I would love to see the reference to blasphemy removed, just like I'd love to see the sections which say that the Catholic Church has a "special position in Irish society" and which say that a woman's place is in the home (yeah, that's actually implied into our constitution) removed. As I said before, Ireland is incredibly backwards and weird in many ways...

I am all for limiting out and out hate speech, it is just that this strikes me as a pointless way to do so. If the law really is as toothless as you claim then what is the point of it? How does it limit hate speech if it is worded in a way that makes it useless? If it can be used then it of course can be misused.

Sorry, I should have been more clear, when I was talking about limiting hate speech I was talking about blasphemy laws in general rather than this one in particular. However, it's not really a claim I should have made, given that I haven't read the details of too many countries' laws on blasphemy. Although in this case I think it is a fair analogy, in that the kinds of blasphemous statements that you'd have to make would to break this law would have to be so extreme that they would probably amount to hate speech. Unfortunately for this law, those kinds of statements would already have been covered by existing legislation, making the blasphemy law even more worthless, which brings me back full circle to the point I was trying to make in my first post: This isn't a law about blasphemy, it's a law about laws.

The government didn't bring this because they wanted to limit free speech, and they don't care one whit about whether their citizens technically blaspheme or not; the reason this law was brought in is because there's a bit of old paper which says that a law needs to exist. The government doesn't necessarily support the spirit of a blasphemy law (in fact there have been several members of the two political parties involved who came out and said very clearly that they don't support it), but they were required by Irish law to create this piece legislation.

Why not c) continue to ignore it?

As far as I know there had been a case brought to the High Court on the issue, which meant they were legally required to take action. The Irish government has turned procrastination into an art form; trust me, if there'd been a way to ignore it, they would have.

Those other laws are remnants from backwards times that were never properly eradicated, while Ireland is just now, actively, in modern times, making such a backwards law.

I know, back in those crazy, Medieval days of November 2009, which is the last time the blasphemy law in Northern Ireland was examined and retained. Or 2008 in Denmark, or 2004 in Germany (the last time someone was successfully prosecuted under the blasphemy laws). I'm not saying that it's right just because many countries have similar laws, but I think the point that it's quite common for such a law to exist is worth making. In many cases if someone wants redress on being insulted on religious grounds, they do so under the auspices of hate-speech legislation, and I think that if anyone is to take action because of religious insult in Ireland, I'm quite sure that they would do so based on the existing hate-speech legislation because, frankly, it might be an easier case to win.

So it's a moral majority thing?

Sorry, I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you say "a moral majority thing", but the point I was trying to make is that the vast majority of blasphemous criticism wouldn't actually be breaking the law. Richard Dawkins would never be prosecuted. The Life of Brian isn't about to be banned. You can still say "I think Islam a bullshit religion which trains people how to be suicide bombers". The Danish cartoons of Mohammad can still be published. When you get down to how far you'd have to go to break the law, you would probably be dancing on the borders of hate speech, which I don't think realistically qualifies as a restriction of free speech.

I'll sponsor you to do it.

What's your favourite charity?

Lol, I was tempted to tactfully ignore that one, but I'm afraid I couldn't bring myself to break out the jockstrap for anything less than a few hundred euro, so it'd probably take more than just you sponsoring me

PS. A promise of help from Simon Singh if I actually do end up in court would be swell too

Hmm, that may just be the longest forum post I've ever written... Hurrah! I shall have a cookie to celebrate.

 

[obsidianavenger]

Then of course as Aught3 brought up such laws open the door for the introduction of similar laws that do have bite to them. People, organisations and even religions, to an extent, should be granted protection from out and out hate speech. Ideas on the other hand? Well I think that if an idea is shown to be wrong and even potentially dangerous then it should be critisized at every oportunity. Blasphemy laws protect ideas, not the people that hold them, from attack.
.

bad ideas should be criticized; people need to be educated about how and why they are bad. and my point wasn't about further laws, but just the fact of having such laws on the books means that even if people don't care to enforce them now, they could well do so in the future depending on their ideology. ideas don't need protection... if they are good ideas they can withstand attack; if they are not they should be dissected and dismissed using objective and rational methods.

 

[Japeo]

Made a video of the quotes (though WMG wouldn't let me use a 2 minute audio clip of George Carlin - bastards!)