Who asked for Ireland's blasphemy law?

Great opinion piece on the new not-so-great blasphemy provisions in Ireland's new Defamation Act in the Guardian today, by Index on Censorship's Padraig Reidy:

"I'm not sure which piece of unpopular Irish news is being buried by which: the announcement of a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty, or the shuffling through of a law creating penalties for blasphemy, an offence that has never properly existed in the Irish state.

While there is certainly a store of resentment in the population at being asked to vote again (that is: vote properly, you morons, as the government is barely holding back from saying) on the Lisbon treaty, there is a certain sense of bafflement at the new blasphemy legislation, smuggled in under the guise of defamation law reform. Nobody wanted this law: no one can think of a single thundering priest, austere vicar, irate rabbi or miffed mullah ever calling for tougher penalties for blasphemy. Certainly there were the frequent, and frequently ignored missives from Armagh, warning the Irish not to abandon God for 4x4s and Nintendo Wiis. And there was widespread dismay when popular comic Tommy Tiernan pushed the Bible-baiting a bit too far on the Late Late Show. But never did anyone suggest we needed tough blasphemy laws. Until the justice minister, Dermot Ahern, decided we needed to fill the "void" left by our lack of one.

Technically, Ahern is correct that Bunreacht na hÉireann requires that blasphemy be a criminal offence. However, no one ever bothered to formulate what the exact offence might be, and we muddled on for quite a long time without anyone worrying about this (perhaps, as a friend pointed out to me, because all blasphemous material was grabbed by the all-powerful censors long before it could ever get to court). In 1999, there was an attempt to prosecute a newspaper for a cartoon mocking the church, but the judge in that case noted that he could not prosecute, because there was no definition of what legally constituted blasphemy. Well now there is. And it concerns itself with what might or might not cause "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion" (note, not just Christianity, as was the case with English blasphemy law: this is, at least, equal opportunities idiocy).

As Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland has pointed out:

The proposed law does not protect religious belief; it incentivises outrage and it criminalises free speech. Under this proposed law, if a person expresses one belief about gods, and other people think that this insults a different belief about gods, then these people can become outraged, and this outrage can make it illegal for the first person to express his or her beliefs.

So Irish law has now enshrined the notion that the taking of offence is more important than free expression. If something might cause a motivated group to be "outraged", rather than, say, cause them to live in fear, then it is illegal, with a fine of up to €25,000 payable.

Note the ease with which a prosecution could be brought, and the punitive nature of the fine: this is not legislation that simply serves to tie up a few loose ends.

The minister claimed that his only alternative to this legislation was to have a referendum. This again, is technically true: any constitutional changes in Ireland require this. But the minister dismissed the notion of organising a referendum as being too costly in these straitened times.

Yet today, we are told there is to be another Lisbon referendum in October. Wouldn't it have been sensible to hold both the Lisbon referendum and a referendum on the abolition of the concept of blasphemy from the constitution on the same day, cutting down on costs? Wouldn't it, minister?

* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009"

Why blasphemy laws are unnecessary

During debates in the UK House of Lords, the magnificently-named Ear of Onslow had the ultimate answer to those who wish to (re)introduce/retain (as the case may be) blasphemy laws:

“[I]t has always struck me that if Jesus Christ exists, and if Jesus Christ in his Godlike form was capable of creating the universe, then he could quite easily hack the bit of left-wing obscurantism and b-mindedness that writes things such as “Jerry Springer: The Opera”. If he does not exist, nothing will happen; if he does exist, it is up to him to get hold of the chap who wrote it and make sure that he does time in the diabolical house of correction. The offence is unnecessary.”

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80305-0006.htm, column 1123

Pakistan may abolish blasphemy laws?

This could be of considerable interest if it goes through - might it knock the use of these laws in Afghanistan, for example, on the head?

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/11598236/

Pakistan to Abolish Blasphemy Laws

Dan Wooding and Sheraz Khurram Khan

ASSIST News Service

January 19, 2009

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN (ANS) -- The Federal Minister for Minorities, Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti, has said that Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws 'will be abolished.'

Talking to ANS by phone the minister said he was struggling to ensure religious freedom, human dignity and social justice in Pakistani society.

“Religious minorities have been neglected, victimized and oppressed in Pakistan,” he said. “They have faced constitutional and institutionalized discrimination and inequality but our government is committed to address the long-standing issues of minorities. We are making all-out efforts to uplift and empower minorities.

Shahbaz Bhatti maintained that minorities have played a crucial role in Pakistan’s growth and nation building.

“Pakistan would not have risen on the map of the world without the crucial contribution of minorities,” he stated.

He recalled that minorities had cast their decisive vote in partition of the province of Punjab.

The Minister said he had come to parliament to advocate the case of the oppressed and the down-trodden people. He said he would never hesitate from giving any sacrifice for his people.

On Wednesday, January 14, a group of Christian lawyers from different parts of Pakistan held a meeting in Islamabad to discuss the issues being faced by religious minorities of Pakistan. The lawyers discussed minorities-related problems at length. The meeting also discussed steps taken by the Pakistan Peoples Party government for the betterment of religious minorities of Pakistan. After the meeting, they then visited the Federal Minister for Minorities, Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti, at his office.

“We, Christian lawyers, appreciate President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani for taking concrete steps such as the allocation of a five percent job quota for minorities, the declaration of August 11 as Minority Day, minorities representation in Senate, increase in minorities reserved seats in provincial and national assemblies, declaration of official celebration of religious festivals of minorities and review of all discriminatory laws facing minorities,” said a resolution which was passed unanimously by the lawyers.

The lawyers said they appreciated induction of Mr. Bhatti as Federal Minister for Minorities’ Affairs and put their full confidence in his leadership.

“We appreciate his long struggle to uplift and empower religious minorities. We also assure the present government that we will remain with the government through thick and thin under the leadership of Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti for the equal rights of religious minorities of Pakistan,” the resolution added.

It also said, “We extend our full support to the present democratic government which is committed to fulfill the vision of founding father Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. We pledge to continue our efforts for supremacy of constitution, sovereignty of parliament and establishment of enlightened and moderate society which is free from every type of discrimination and inequality.”

Those who attended the meeting included Advocate Azra Shujaat, Jamshaid Rehmatullah, Aamir Jacob Randhawa, Eric Alam Sandhu, Sadqain Gardner, Rai Zafar Naveed Bhatti, Sohail Shahzad Advocate, Javed Masih, Qaisar Haroon Gill advocate, Ruth Bashir Advocate, Shazia Gulzar Advocate and Haroon Suleman Khokhar.

Copyright 2009 ASSIST News Service

Dutch abolish crime of blasphemy

The Dutch cabinet has reportedly voted to abolish the crime of blasphemy. It is a bit of a double-edged sword, however, as in its place it proposes to introduce new criminal restrictions on insulting people for their religious convictions. This 'cure' may be worse than the malady; given the number of thin-skinned religionists in the Netherlands (as elsewhere) today, it's a sure bet that there will be more than a few requests for prosecution...

Despite repeal of blasphemy laws, woman attempts prosecution of blasphemous art

While the UK formally abolished its blasphemy laws earlier this year, someone in north London is attempting a private prosecution of art she finds offensive under public order laws. The case is supported by the Christian Legal Centre, who are supporting the private prosecution despite Nortumbria Police having investigated the issue and concluded there is no case to be brought. It will be interesting to see how this develops; hopefully, the case will be dismissed and with any luck affirmed by the Court of Appeal, which will knock silly prosecutions like this on the head once and for all. If you don't like the statue, north London lady, look away - no-one is forcing you to look!

In the interests of free speech, this is what the fuss is all about:

 

Irish Constitution Committee recommends removal of blasphemy and sedition references in constitution

As reported in the Irish Times, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitution has published a report on freedom of expression in which it recommends that constitutional references to blasphemy and sedition as a restriction on free speech should be removed. Good stuff. Unfortunately, the chair of the Committee said, "given the development in case law and the jurisprudence which has emerged on freedom of expression since 1996, the Committee is of the view that amendment is not immediately necessary but recommends that change be made when an appropriate opportunity presents." So that will probably take a while.

Death sentence for blasphemy

Expressindia.com reports:

"A Pakistani court handed down the death sentence to a man convicted of blasphemy on Wednesday, court officials said.

Shafeeq Lateef was charged with passing derogatory remarks against Prophet Mohammed and desecrating pages of the Quran near the city of Sialkot in Punjab province on March 17, 2006.

District and Sessions Judge Suhaib Ahmed Roomi of Sialkot awarded the death sentence to Lateef following his conviction for blasphemy. The judge gave him a separate life sentence for desecrating the Quran. The court also directed Lateef to pay a fine of Rs five lakh.

Lateef was produced in the court amidst tight security. A conviction for blasphemy in Pakistan carries the death penalty. Lateef has the right to appeal in higher courts.

The prosecution said Lateef had thrown pages of the Quran in a dirty place and passed derogatory remarks against the Prophet. Some persons caught Lateef and handed him over to police, following which he was charged under blasphemy laws."

This is truly awful and contrasts sharply with statements by the Pakistani Information Minister about how the new government values freedom of expression. I do hope something is done about this.

Danish cartoons complaint inadmissible

The United Nations Human Rights Committee declared inadmissible a complaint from two Danish nationals who alleged that the cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten (you know, the Danish cartoons - these) had resulted in discrimination and attacks on their reputation, and that they had been denied an effective domestic remedy for incitement of hatred against them. The admissibility decision does not go into the merits of the complaint but finds that domestic remedies have not been exhausted.

Ahmad and Abdol-Hamid v. Denmark, Communication no. 1487/2006, 18 April 2008.

UK formally abolishes common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel

Following lengthy debates in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were formally abolished yesterday. Their abolition was long overdue and hopefully will set some kind of example to other countries were these laws are still abused.

This does not create a free-for-all to whip up hatred against religion: as of last year, this is illegal - under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006). But it does mean that open "discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system" is no longer formally prohibited. Which is a good thing.