Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

Recent posts

about

A New Blasphemy Law

Can someone tell me how Ireland plans to enforce this law without turning into a country like Saudi Arabia? The weird thing is that the law was passed last month and not in the past century.

When a modern Western country whose economy is based on science and technology adopts an absurdly medieval law, one would think that this would be a news story of at least moderate size.

Oddly though, almost no attention has been paid in the United Stares to the passing last month of a bill establishing a crime of blasphemy in Ireland.

Approved by the Irish parliament, it states: "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 25,000 euro."

Furthermore, "a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters 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 (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage."

Posted in ,

7 responses to “A New Blasphemy Law”

  1. Joe

    Not that I necessarily like this law, but I’m not convinced the new law is such a huge problem as that article makes it out to be. Western Europe has never had as expansive a conception of free speech rights as we have here in the U.S. under the first amendment.
    This law looks like it’s pretty clearly intended intentionally abusive speech about people’s faith (and then only “grossly” abusive or insulting — this is a pretty high bar). For instance, the author of the article has to be wrong that Jews can be prosecuted for denying the divinity of Jesus — “any religion” is plainly a recognition of pluralism. The exemption for works with literary, scientific, or other value looks a lot like the distinctions SCOTUS has drawn at obscenity, which is not protected speech. Being an atheist, or espousing atheist beliefs, shouldn’t be enough for liability. Maybe this is aimed at things like that Danish Muhammad cartoon. Or something like the religious analogue to the KKK, which many people consider to be beyond the pale, although here it still gets first amendment protection.
    I don’t buy into slippery slope arguments normally, and I think that’s what you need to get to an “Ireland = Saudia Arabia” position.
    I’m curious to hear what other people think.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Dean C. Rowan

    Joe’s is a sensible take. Reading Ruchira’s excerpt, I thought of what’s-his-name, the guy who wrote The Satanic Versus, which would have survived the two-prong test, inasmuch as he likely didn’t intend to cause outrage.
    Plus they don’t have euros in Saudia Arabia.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Dean C. Rowan

    With academic publishers like this, who needs a First Amendment?
    Great Freudian slip in my previous comment, “versus” for “verses.”

    Like

    Reply
  4. D

    “inasmuch as he likely didn’t intend to cause outrage.”
    So, if Rushdie had intended to cause outrage, that’d have caused his book to be banned under this law? Then PZ Myers’s feisty blog would clearly be banned, because that man obviously intends to cause outrage every now and then.
    Aargh. I often want to just call respect for free speech a religious value for me, and be done with it. It’s far from being the best defense of that virtue, but if we’re really to fear causing “offense” to the religious so much, fine, I have sacred values too. Who blasphemes the Glorious, Venerable names of Mill and Milton and Justice Brandeis causes me Grave Outrage as well, and keeps me from practicing my Faith. He too shall pay these same fines.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Joe

    D: no. I haven’t read the full statute, but the article references a separate exemption for works with artistic/literary/scientific/other value. This means Rushdie is fine (I’d also note that, at least from what I’ve seen, the only prescribed punishment is a fine — no jail, no book-banning). PZ Myers, I would think, also meets this exception. Further, even his feistiest (most antagonistic) posts are probably non-blasphemous — I’m not sure whether his blog could reach, and cause outrage among, a “substantial number” of religious adherents, and admittedly I only sometimes read his blog, but I find it hard to imagine that any of his posts rise to the level of “grossly abusive.”

    Like

    Reply
  6. Joe

    http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/04/free_speech_in_.html
    http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/04/on_libertarians.html
    Not directly on point, but I haven’t noticed anyone discussing the Irish law. Brian’s posts on Canadian prohibition of hate speech are interesting and still seem applicable here. I might be wrong — this might not be a version of a hate speech law — but it’s at least plausible, and if that’s the case, not particularly troubling (to me; it might remain troubling to D, for whom free speech has been called a religious value).

    Like

    Reply
  7. D

    Joe,
    Prof. Myers gained some considerable notoriety last year for crucifying a communion wafer, along with a page of the Quran. It may be, as you suggest, that even this sort of icky stunt fails to be blasphemous per Irish law. Wonderful! On this reading of the law, Rushdie isn’t blasphemous, nor is Myers, nor the director of Fitna nor the Danish cartoon people. Is the law actually meant then for any purpose other than vote-bank politics of a particularly contemptible sort?
    Yeah, I do find the concept of hate speech law problematic, and consider this extension in Ireland to expressions of contempt for religion a rather unfortunate new Irish Evil

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Dean C. Rowan Cancel reply