Ireland, oh Ireland

[BroomJockey]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7171/

Wtf.

Aside from a €25,000 fine (reduced from the €100,000 originally sought by the government), the new Defamation Act gives the authorities the power to stage raids on publishers: the courts may now issue a warrant authorising the police to enter, using ‘reasonable force’, premises where they have grounds for believing there are copies of ‘blasphemous statements’.

That's right, Ireland has made it illegal to blaspheme and offend religious persons. Turns out this is way back in the original constitution of Ireland.

[Flyndaran]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7171/

Wtf.



That's right, Ireland has made it illegal to blaspheme and offend religious persons. Turns out this is way back in the original constitution of Ireland.

I believe that that is an incorrect interpretation of the law. I'll post a direct quote from an irish person's response from another forum.

Hi all, Irish myself so would like to share my reaction.

Yes it's true that the new defamation bill has retained on statute the offence of blasphemous libel. It existed as an offence prior to this but was not used. I don't expect it will be now either. The reason it was included is because it is explicitly part of the constitution that, among other things, blasphemy is considered a crime. Although it should be noted that the proposed penalty does not include imprisonment, and the fine has been reduced from €100,000 to €25,000. It's ridiculous that it's there at all but there you go...

You have to understand that when the constitution was drawn up Ireland basically was a Roman Catholic state in all but name. The Church wielded enormous influence and ran most of the schools, charities and of course was a focal point for social organisation as most households at that time went to Mass and set great stock in what the Church's leaders in Ireland (or even their local curates) had to say on matters of faith. Even if these were in relation to governance.

Happily this is no longer the case and Ireland is a secular country, and well on the way to cleaning up these anachronisms in our laws, despite the slowness of our politicians in embracing this. The retention of this offence is, frankly, embarrassing and has caused great annoyance to Irish people everywhere. We don't support it but then the incumbent government is a lame duck administration and knows it most likely won't be reelected, so they tend not to care what we think.

The problem here is that the offence has to exist until it is taken out of the constitition by popular referendum. As there will be a vote on the Lisbon Treaty to amend the rules of the EU on Oct 2 and incorporate the treaty into the Irish Constitution, I fully expect there to be a second vote to amend the constitution to remove blasphemy as an offence, probably to be replaced by 'protection against incitement to hatred on religious grounds'.

In any case, if the Irish Supreme Court doesn't deem it unconstitutional, the European Court of Justice will and it will have to be gotten rid of then.

[BroomJockey]

And where's my incorrect interpretation? I said it's in the constitution, and it's illegal. That's what he said.

[Flyndaran]

And where's my incorrect interpretation? I said it's in the constitution, and it's illegal. That's what he said.

The point that it's somehow going to be more prosecuted now. It's not. They just tried to stop gap the issue with a more proper definition and lessening of punishment.

They can't do anything more without a hard to enact constitution change. If it's anything like amending the american constitution, then it's almost impossible to do without a near overwhelming majority and nothing more important going on.

I believe that blashphemy has never actually been prosecuted, so it's mostly a non-issue no matter how it looks to other nations.

Addendum:
Think of it as a silly law like how donkeys can't sleep in New York bathtubs.

[BroomJockey]

The point that it's somehow going to be more prosecuted now. It's not.

Actually, it has been prosecuted in the past, just not very often. There was at least one major case.

As for being more prosecuted now, it might very well be, simply because they've drawn attention to the law. You might now get extremists forcing the police's hand by levelling complaints, and under this law, they'd be compelled to act.

[Flyndaran]

Actually, it has been prosecuted in the past, just not very often. There was at least one major case.

As for being more prosecuted now, it might very well be, simply because they've drawn attention to the law. You might now get extremists forcing the police's hand by levelling complaints, and under this law, they'd be compelled to act.

Eh, when dealing with fiddly culture based laws, I tend to take the word of a local over what may seem like the obvious repurcussions.

[BroomJockey]

I tend to take the word of a local over what may seem like the obvious repurcussions.

They have people dedicated to blowing up the opposing religion. Handing them a newly polished weapon is never a great idea, and locals are Never the Best Source, after all, how many Americans thought stuff like the Patriot Act was a good idea?

[Flyndaran]

They have people dedicated to blowing up the opposing religion. Handing them a newly polished weapon is never a great idea, and locals are Never the Best Source, after all, how many Americans thought stuff like the Patriot Act was a good idea?

But it's reducing a previously almost never used law. It can't be worse than leaving it the same.

[lordlundar]

I believe that blashphemy has never actually been prosecuted, so it's mostly a non-issue no matter how it looks to other nations.

Wouldn't count on it being a non-issue. The IRA's basis of their terrorist attacks were a case of protestants vs catholics. Even if the law is never used, there's some pretty big fuel to relight a fire that's still not completely put out.

[Flyndaran]

Wouldn't count on it being a non-issue. The IRA's basis of their terrorist attacks were a case of protestants vs catholics. Even if the law is never used, there's some pretty big fuel to relight a fire that's still not completely put out.

The IRA was a group of organizations. The original renounced violence in 69'.
I'm having trouble finding anything about them more recent than a decade ago.

[Pedersen]

I believe that blashphemy has never actually been prosecuted, so it's mostly a non-issue no matter how it looks to other nations.

One thing that I find interesting to do is to pay attention a little bit to outrageous laws and the arguments for/against them.

Time and time again the same pattern is followed: Outrageous law gets proposed. People speak up and say "Wait, you could use this law in this really outrageous way!" Others speak up and say "No way. The law will never be used in that fashion. You have nothing to worry about." Finally, over the objections of the first group, the law gets passed as worded.

Within only a few months (at most) of the law taking effect, it is used in exactly the fashion that the first group warned of, and the second group ignored.

I have yet to see a single time that this pattern did not hold.

So, go ahead and believe that it won't happen. I'll wait for the news story to break about how it did.

[Flyndaran]

Have you not been reading what I actually wrote?
It isn't a new law. It's clarifying and reducing the effects of an already existing law. It's the first step in the long process of amending their constitution to remove blasphemy altogether.

[BroomJockey]

Have you not been reading what I actually wrote?
It isn't a new law.

Actually, it is. They scrapped the old one, then replaced it with this. They didn't modify the old one.

[Flyndaran]

Actually, it is. They scrapped the old one, then replaced it with this. They didn't modify the old one.

I could have sworn that it was a modification of something unremovable from their constitution.

[Pedersen]

Have you not been reading what I actually wrote?
It isn't a new law. It's clarifying and reducing the effects of an already existing law. It's the first step in the long process of amending their constitution to remove blasphemy altogether.

Oh, I've read what you wrote. Too bad you didn't actually read past the first paragraph of the article, since it would reinforce what I said. Here, allow me to quote the second paragraph for your benefit:

Aside from a €25,000 fine (reduced from the €100,000 originally sought by the government), the new Defamation Act gives the authorities the power to stage raids on publishers: the courts may now issue a warrant authorising the police to enter, using ‘reasonable force’, premises where they have grounds for believing there are copies of ‘blasphemous statements’.

Now, that's a lot to read, so let me point out the part that shows that the government has every intention of using this law in exactly the manner allowed:

Aside from a €25,000 fine (reduced from the €100,000 originally sought by the government)

That's right, the government wanted the fine to be four times higher than what it got set to be. If they wanted the law gone, if they didn't intend to enforce it, then they wouldn't want the fine so high. They'd try to lowball it, to give it the significance they feel it truly deserves.

No, Flyn, they did not do it just because they are required to by their constitution. They did it because they want to use the law on someone (or some group).

As I said, I'll be waiting for the stories to break into the media. I have no doubt whatsoever that they will.

[BroomJockey]

I could have sworn that it was a modification of something unremovable from their constitution.

The fact that it's illegal, yes, but not the powers and punishments. Those are enshrined in a separate piece of legislation.

[Flyndaran]

...

No, Flyn, they did not do it just because they are required to by their constitution. They did it because they want to use the law on someone (or some group).

As I said, I'll be waiting for the stories to break into the media. I have no doubt whatsoever that they will.

Chill. No need to be rude or condescending about what you, and apparently now I, believe to be a misreading on my part.
I gave too much credence to what a local said about it than I should have.

[Slytovhand]

Addendum:
Think of it as a silly law like how donkeys can't sleep in New York bathtubs.

I have yet to see a single time that this pattern did not hold.

So... someone's been charged and convicted of having a donkey sleep in a NY bathtub...????

Or other wonderful things...(apparently, so I've heard, it's illegal to allow an elephant to plow a field in Nth Carolina...)

[Pedersen]

So... someone's been charged and convicted of having a donkey sleep in a NY bathtub...????

Slyt, I'm actually disappointed. A law that makes it illegal for someone to let a donkey sleep in a NY bathtub is quite clearly aimed at making it illegal to allow a donkey to sleep in a NY bathtub. That's hardly the makings of the pattern I described, which I'll quote here:

Time and time again the same pattern is followed: Outrageous law gets proposed. People speak up and say "Wait, you could use this law in this really outrageous way!" Others speak up and say "No way. The law will never be used in that fashion. You have nothing to worry about." Finally, over the objections of the first group, the law gets passed as worded.

Within only a few months (at most) of the law taking effect, it is used in exactly the fashion that the first group warned of, and the second group ignored.

As an example, here in the USA, we have a pair of laws that I truly despise: The DMCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act) and the PATRIOT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) act.

The DMCA has several provisions in it that are there to protect researchers and programmers who are working on interoperability. For instance, the PDF format (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format) has several possible flags in it to allow PDF producers to turn off certain features (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format#Security_and_signatures), such as the ability to be read aloud by software, or the ability to copy/paste from the PDF. Removing those restrictions is required for some people to be able to get the benefit of the the PDF in question. For instance, an unassisted blind person will be unable to read the PDF without a screen reader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_reader). If the PDF in question has this feature disabled, then the blind person is screwed. Programs (http://www.elcomsoft.com/) have been written for the express purpose of removing these restrictions from PDFs, allowing the user to gain full benefit of the PDF.

In theory, since the authors of those programs were producing them for purposes of interoperability, they should be shielded from any legal actions. Indeed, even though I cannot find such posts right now, I remember reading many posts on forums like Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/) where people defended the DMCA stating that it would never be used against people acting legally.

The reality is far from that ideal, though. Some unintended consequences (http://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-seven-years-under-dmca) have occurred. And one Russian developer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov) actually found himself improperly detained here in the USA due to this law. That unintended consequences link has many more examples to peruse of just how people swore the law would not be misused, only to be proven extremely wrong.

The PATRIOT act has similar stories. Rather than typing up a long diatribe on it (as I already did on the DMCA), I'll simply link to one story about one provision of the act: national security letters (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html). These have been heavily abused, and finding information about the how is fairly easy, thanks to Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=patriot+act+national+security+letters).

Again, an act which we were promised would never be used to do wrong is shown to be used to do exactly what we were promised it would not do.

A bad law is a bad law, regardless of what it does. I find myself even more outraged, though, when we are told straight up lies about how the law will be used, by the people who know they will use it exactly as they are promising they will not.

Which is exactly the case in Ireland.

[Slytovhand]

Slyt, I'm actually disappointed. A law that makes it illegal for someone to let a donkey sleep in a NY bathtub is quite clearly aimed at making it illegal to allow a donkey to sleep in a NY bathtub. That's hardly the makings of the pattern I described, which I'll quote here:


Oh, come on Ped... first it'll be donkeys, then they'll lead up to mules, and soon enough, you won't be allowed to let your ass go to sleep while you're taking a bath!!! :D :D :D

But I do completely agree with what you are saying! Never take anything at face value, and never never never believe that the government has your best interests in mind - when they say they do.

[Boozy]

It's really not a good idea to let your ass go to sleep when you're in the tub, Slyt. You could drown. Get your ass into bed first.

:D

[lordlundar]

As an example, here in the USA, we have a pair of laws that I truly despise: The DMCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act)

Heck, a perfect example of it? look at any PC game last year. Almost all of them (with the exception of Stardock) implemented some sort of draconic Digital Rights Management (DRM) software, with effects ranging from limiting the number of reinstalls to inadvertently crashing a computer it's on. Brag about circumventing it, expect a notice from the Electronic Software Association (ESA) citing the DMCA in a lawsuit.

The DMCA was intended to protect publishers, but all it has been is a means for publishers to dictate how the public can use the media they purchased.