The Irish are looking for ideas and assistance in stopping the imposition of blasphemy laws. Got something to say, or want to volunteer? Leave them a comment.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Four years and four months ago, almost to the day, I started a humble little blog way over in a tiny corner of the blogosphere. Back in the day, there were few voices of women scientists in the blogosphere, and even fewer of women computer scientists. I had never had much luck keeping any…
I've had my say, so I am trying to encourage you to comment, so this thread is dedicated to you, my readers, and to giving you the opportunity to tell us about something that concerns you. Is there something in the news that has been bothering you? Has something happened recently that is still…
While I am on vacation, I'm reprinting a number of "Classic Insolence" posts to keep the blog active while I'm gone. (It also has the salutory effect of allowing me to move some of my favorite posts from the old blog over to the new blog, and I'm guessing that quite a few of my readers have…
The infamous anti-gay legislator from Oklahoma, Sally Kern, was interviewed by the Oklahoma Daily. The story has some fine bon mots, like her definition of evolution:
Kern defined evolution to me as "the process of wanting to create something or have something be perfect. Get rid of that which is…
More Irish teapots and less crackpots.
How about: " Are you guys f***ing insane to even be thinking of reviving this medieval BS?
Or maybe:"Are you absolutely sure you want to be the laughing stock of the secular world?"
*shakes head*
Thousands of people showing up in front of the courts, shouting, "Fuck the Pope, Jesus, Mohammad, Moses, Buddha, et. al. in their collective arses!" ??
Or vote these stupid people out of office? What's next? Thought crimes?
Don't they have a first amendment? Maybe they should start there.
The entire concept of blasphemy laws is archaic to begin with. Even if some people are taking their opinions on others a little too far, there is a word called "slander" that fits the bill much better. If someone is spreading lies about you, regardless of what aspect of your life they target with these lies, they are engaging in slander. End of story. To seek special protection on the basis of personal belief is to insinuate that you and your group are somehow more important than and superior to everyone else and their beliefs, which is reprehensible in a civilized society.
One should be emphasizing the values of education and social reform, not specialized treatment of a particularly sensitive and thin-skinned collective. Remember Galileo. Heresy is really nothing more than a secondary and fancier word for blasphemy, and nearly the whole of the scientific community would be found guilty of it and forced into silence. Allow blasphemy to become a crime, and watch society collapse upon itself. Surely we cannot allow such a thing to happen in this day and age?
(yes, I'm going to post this on their site as well)
"The Constitution (Bunreacht na hÉireann) guarantees your right in Ireland to freely express your convictions and opinions. However, it also asserts that the state should try to make sure that the radio, the press and the cinema are not used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the state." (citizeninformation.ie)
The problem is that we already have a law against blasphemy in the constitution so to remove it would require a referendum which the government views as too costly. Apparently Ireland can only afford a democracy some of the time.
But truth is an absolute defense against slander. Not against blasphemy, though. That's all about people getting their widdle feewings hurt.
@rickflick #4
The absence of freedom of speech is what enables places like the UK to ban people like the Westboro Baptist Church from opening their mouths there. It can create other, more serious issues to arise, but if exercised correctly the absence of guaranteed free speech can actually be a boon for the rational community. The same goes for an absence of guaranteed freedom of religion.
Now, I'm not saying we should go around demanding people only say certain things, but free speech isn't always a good thing. Think of what this place would be like if the internet had to guarantee free speech and a lack of censorship. PZ would be unable to stop spammers. The contemptible idiot who spammed and trolled the FSTDT.com forums with mutilated kitten pictures and personal threats a while ago would have been able to do so without reproach. Moderators and site owners everywhere would find their hands tied and unable to exercise any amount of real authority over their domain. It would be chaos. The internet works (when it works) because there is no 'first amendment of the internet'. The same can likely be said about the UK, though I will not profess to be an expert on the subject.
The opinions I share are mine, and nothing more than opinions. I will, however, share them.
According to the beliefs of vegetarians, it is blasphemy to eat meat.
It would only take the first trial to have this called the bullshit that it is. Ok, I blasphemed, against whom? Prove the existence of the offended party beyond a reasonable doubt, and then have the party show up and state that they were offended.
How about a law against the senseless slaughter of potatoes on the Emerald Isle? They actually exist and live.
Wow I just read what I typed and regretted it. It's a shame I can't just delete that...
I maintain my position on this: I do not object to a a blasphemy law in itself, but would call for it to be amended to rule out third party filings. Any deity who thinks He/She/It/They have been blasphemed can show up in person to file and press charges.
Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
If we didn't have this new sissy president, we could occupy Ireland and liberate them from tyranny. They hate us for our freedom. Let Dick Cheney waterboard a few of those bandy-legged drunks and we'll see some real improvement.
Lady Renae @ 11
I'm glad you retracted, because I had no idea where to start on that.
Have a "church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" officially created in Ireland. Picketers can stand outside the first meeting with insults to His Noodly Appendage, and "parishioners" can call the police. If the police get angry and confused, ask the police: do you respect the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Yes makes them a laughingstock, no makes them a blasphemer.
Ask reporters the same question. Ask politicians the same question. Ask Catholic bishops the same question.
Reginald Selkirk #12
What he said.
I think what I suggested before sounds like a good idea. Think up a religion and keep on adding blasphemous words to it.
Get right out there and promote it, a new religion with a real new age thinking on blasphemy, that'll roll right along with it's plans to make good on it's promise to push for outlawing such words in print and other media.
Words like "hello" or "sausage" or "potato"...
maybe they'll get the idea when you call it the writings of "saint poe" or some such blathering nonsense.
At first they'll get angry, they'll visit the web address or what have you, and then they'll get wise.
I was just about to say that the Church of the FSM seems a great first response, if such laws are passed.
It seems childish, but it works.
Easy. Just start googling the most prominent Catholic clerics for obnoxious things they have said about Protestants, Muslims and Jews and insist that they be the first ones prosecuted under the new law.
Don't blame the Irish folk too much - this seems to be have only one man in favor of it - the Minister of Justice, Dermot Ahern. And he doesn't have many friends in the parliament.
The Constitution of Ireland shows the time it was written in, when Ireland was a strongly observant Catholic country, shaking off the British Protestant yoke; its preamble starts:
and it does in fact both state that blasphemy is an offence punishable in accordance with law (except that they have never had such a blasphemy law) but also guarantees freedom of religion. And freedom of non-defamatory, non-seditious, non-blasphemous speech.
Since the paedophile priests affairs a decade or more ago, Ireland has shaken off its automatic respect for the Catholic church (before then, the pervasiveness of the church was creepy) and perhaps this is a rearguard action from some observant folk who want to turn the clock back? They didn't need (if that's the right word) a blasphemy law before because social pressure was a sufficient deterrent.
The Irish Times has a leader railing against this nonsense:
So it's far from a done deal.
And some commentators in Ireland have pointed out that a blasphemy law is clearly not of much interest to Christians, but might well be exploited be muslims, a significant minority of whom are capable of getting extremely prehistoric when their nonsensical religious beliefs are criticised. Taliban anyone? Being in possession of divine truth can warp one's perspectives, I guess.
I guess it depends on the definition of blasphemy the Irish courts intend on using. I would think that every religion blasphemes every other religion simply because they ALL say that they are the one TRUE religion and have the one TRUE god, meaning that all other religions and gods are illegitimate. Why not choke the docket with frivolous blasphemy suits (as if they all aren't) until the courts can no longer function? I'm sure that there are many "religions" like The Church of the SubGenius or The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that can keep them busy for years.
@daveau #15
Yeah, I'm not sure where I would start with it either. Not sure where my brain was when I wrote that. I didn't even start drinking until AFTER I wrote it, so I don't even have that excuse.
Seriously, I apologize for anyone whose brain did triple-takes over that little piece of disaster.
Generally speaking on the topic, does anyone have information on whether this is a general blasphemy law or a specific blasphemy law? I've heard conflicting reports on the subject...
Maybe give the offender, Dermot Ahern dermot@dermotahern.ie some attention. Politely, but firmly tell him he's a fuckwit. Not in such words, but such in meaning.He is pictured with Ian Paisley, the Putrid Priest of Death on his web site, so he must be an asshole.
Looks like he fancies himself too: http://www.dermotahern.ie/index.php
Littlejohn said: "Let Dick Cheney waterboard a few of those bandy-legged drunks and we'll see some real improvement."
Hey, who are you calling bandy-legged?
I absolutely assure you that it SHALL NOT PASS.
Seriously, everyone here thinks it's just crazy. A bit of a laugh, really.
They could apologise for all the trouble, return the union and and be run by sensible Englishmen again.
Lady Renae: We all feel that way now and then about free speech, when it's particularly jarring or disgusting speech. You're a good enough person to realize what what you meant, but you now understand the temptation legislators have.
Now imagine that you firmly believed some god was on your side, as well...
Just some clarification of Lady Renae's rather, erm, interesting comment...
[blockquote]Now, I'm not saying we should go around demanding people only say certain things, but free speech isn't always a good thing. Think of what this place would be like if the internet had to guarantee free speech and a lack of censorship. PZ would be unable to stop spammers. The contemptible idiot who spammed and trolled the FSTDT.com forums with mutilated kitten pictures and personal threats a while ago would have been able to do so without reproach. Moderators and site owners everywhere would find their hands tied and unable to exercise any amount of real authority over their domain. It would be chaos. The internet works (when it works) because there is no 'first amendment of the internet'. The same can likely be said about the UK, though I will not profess to be an expert on the subject.[/blockquote]
I moderate at a very active gaming website, so I deal with people claiming that we violate their right to free speech when we moderate them for breaking the forum rules. I work with the concept that the website I moderate is private property, and the owners have the right to regulate or not regulate it as they wish. In the U.S., free speech laws apply only to public places and property.
I am curious about the U.K.'s comparable laws and how they are interpreted.
bleh, apologies for the tag fail.
tag text is correct, but enclose in angle brackets instead of square.
good as gold.
@AnneH #29
While I'm still piecing together why I said what I said the way that I said it (and no I will not diagram that sentence), I do know I wrote bits of that particular piece from the perspective of a mod sick of people making exactly the argument of which you spoke. Until the past couple of weeks, we mods of the new FSTDT forums have been fighting against a wave of "o noez teh free speech iz tak ovar by FASHISTEZ!" if you'll pardon the lolcat.
So yes, Marc Mielke @#28, I understand the temptation. I've had it a few times myself in a bit of a lighter strength.
How about reminding them that most of their daughters are named for pagan goddesses:
Medb (or Maebh?)[Mave]; Brigit/Brigid (She was a goddess before she was a saint); Etain [Ay-Dean?]; etc.
I doubt the law will fly anyway.
I wish America had blasphemy laws, then of course liberals would all be in prison by now. That's a great idea.
On the issue:
Why don't you people let Ireland alone? They are a soverign nation that has it's own laws and own people and own way of doing things. We have no power of influence there. If we do, then we should not since we are not ctozens and do not live there.
It's the same thing as activist liberal elitist left wing extremist judges citing European laws as a basis for making judgements here in America. That should be illegal and should be treated as treason. Judges are supposed to judge according to AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! Not European law. Idiots!
Ireland has the right to do whatever they want whether we like it or not. I don;t like China's forced abortion laws, but we have no jurisdiction there either. Get over it you stupid liberal nuts and let other countries have their own sovereignty and let us have ours!
I wish America had blasphemy laws, then of course liberals would all be in prison by now. That's a great idea.
then who would you blaspheme against?
oh, wait, you can construct infinite strawmen to rail against, I forgot.
They are a soverign[sic] nation that has it's own laws and own people and own way of doing things.
I'm sure the IRA made quite similar arguments.
As I see it, the problem with this is that, although we (the natives) know that it's a crock of irrelevant bullshit that won't make a tither of difference to anyone even if it does pass, the rest of the world don't necessarily (or even often) understand that; instead, they see the former “Celtic Tiger” and supposed “Silicon Valley of Europe” not only in the midst of an economic catastrophe, but apparently sliding into the 16th century in terms of social progress and civil liberties. What about FDI? Would you rather invest in Ireland or Yemen? Not a whole shitload of difference with this kind of nonsense being proposed. This is horribly, horribly damaging, and it is far too easy to see it through the lens of the Irish relationship between the people and the law, rather than considering what the overseas perception might be. It's a total fucking disaster. What was that Ahern gobshite thinking? I'm not big enough to be habitually physically aggressive, but if I met that eejit tomorrow, it would take superhuman restraint on my part not to punch the fucking imbecile in the face until my phalanges and metacarpals were pure mush.
Interestingly, Dermot Ahearn's website has no mention of a proposed blasphemy law.
Why don't you people let Ireland alone?
Because I'm in Ireland. This law wasn't in place when I came here, and I definitely wasn't expecting such when I came over here. Also, because I would be a very sad ape if one of the world's most beautiful countries became essentially a theocracy.
Begone, Troll! Cast ye far from our tubes!
Though, I gotta agree with Emmet. Most folks I've met wouldn't give half a shit.
BTW Emmet, you once said a friend of yours brought tea out of Ireland. Do you know if it's possible to get it through US customs? Because all else will be shite after Lyons and Barry's.
I know I mentioned this before, but the Kwok is strong in me today; at a recent q&a I asked Dylan Moran what he thought about this and to say he was contemptuous of the whole concept - and the likelihood that anyone would pay any attention to it - would be an understatement, even by his usual standards of scorn.
Oh, and I almost forgot:
It's the same thing as activist liberal elitist left wing extremist judges citing European laws as a basis for making judgements here in America. That should be illegal and should be treated as treason. Judges are supposed to judge according to AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! Not European law. Idiots!
Riiiiight. Except that US law is based on British common law.
I wonder if this person would have a problem with elitist doctors if he/she were to go in for a surgery?
I've done it myself a few times.
Yes, AFAIK, it doesn't contravene any regulations. I brought Barry's Tea through SFO, but I needn't have bothered — I was suprised to find both Lyon's and Barry's in Molly Stone's, albeit at a pretty hefty price. Trader Joe's Irish Breakfast Tea is surprisingly good — good enough that I won't bother bringing everyday tea with me (maybe a pound of Barry's Classic leaf for the odd pot of good tea) or having it shipped over (I've had a few “Red Cross parcels” of tea shipped over to Sweden) when I go stateside in July.
I quite agree. The whole idea of "right to freedom of speech", like the "right to freedom of conscience", "right to freedom of religion", and "right to bear arms", was a bad idea from the beginning. You should indeed make the United States of America more like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. They know what to do with blasphemers there!
It's also the same thing as Right Wing Extremists citing religious law as a basis for making judgments in America.
I'm glad that you confess that you are a criminal traitor.
See you in Hell!
Right Wing Extremist,
We are not leaving this alone because Ireland is not the only place outlawing blasphemy is being considered.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/12/antiblasphemy_antifree_speech…
The U.N. has passed a non-binding resolution outlawing blasphemy. I am guessing that Ireland might be a test case to establish precedent, to give some legitimacy to the blasphemy movement.
Again, like free speech laws, will the anti-blasphemy law be for public fora only, or will it affect the mostly private internet? Effectively regulating speech on the internet will be costly and difficult to enforce for the Irish government. Indeed, the cost and difficulty is a good argument against the law, as a waste of taxpayer dollars in a weak economy.
So, we start a religion where it is against our religion to not make fun of other religions, as our god commands us to mock others' gods and related beliefs.
How can they prove us wrong?
Thus spake Wowbagger, OM
And he's right. In Ireland, it's a fart in a hurricane.
The thing is that the relationship between the populace and the law differs from country to country. In some countries, the law leads public opinion, in others, public opinion leads the law, and in others the two are not so strongly coupled.
I object to this law on principle; I object to the God-ridden arseholery of Bunreacht na hÉireann (the Constitution) on principle; I am dismayed by the cowardice of Ahern and the pox-awful shower of wankers that constitute the government; but, at the same time, I don't think this proposed law will ever have slightest effect in practice. However, this is not solely a purely internal national matter: the problem for the Irish (including myself) is explaining to the “Rest of the World” — people whose cultural relationship between the populace and the law differs from ours — that some laws in Ireland are cosmetic and/or irrelevant when, to them, it looks like a step back into the medieval period. The fact that it's a joke to us is irrelevant because, sadly, the old marketing trope “when you're explaining, you're losing” has greater resonance than a detailed explanation of Irish socio-legal culture.
Although Emmet suggests that the law is just a joke, I do have my doubts. How many joke laws can you have before some magistrates start taking them seriously? Shouldn't people say "that's not funny enough to be a joke law, out it goes". Then again if such a law were to take effect Ireland would have to declare itself a prison island, so maybe it will just be one of those laws which are universally ignored.
I don't know what kind of rhetoric they are tossing about in Ireland, but it occurs to me that these are special rights they are trying to legislate - like how OUR religious nutbags say gay marriage is a special right. It is the protectionism of religion from criticism which NO other group enjoys. If their Democracy is like ours (dog help them) then playing the favoritism card might have some legs unless their courts are stacked with right wing butt plugs too.
For those of you interested in this story the blog entries from the site owner are at: blog.atheist.ie
There is also a discussion forum where this new Bill for Blashphemy, among other issues related to atheism in Ireland are discussed at: www.atheist.ie
We welcome all comments, pro- and anti- so drop in and sign on.
As an Irish exile I think I should point out the mistake a lot of people on this site are making about this point. The best comparison for Irish public's attitude to the free speech and blasphemy question is probably to the recent Miss California gay marriage remarks. In the case of both Miss California and Dermot Ahern they are stating things that are actually the beliefs of the majority of the populace. Yes of course blasphemy is a silly issue, a victimless crime that if applied properly would make anything and everything illegal as its bound to offend some religion. However most Irish people are probably in favour of Catholic church position on the blasphemy question (which is, in effect a hands off détente approach towards criticism of the other major religions). The major religions in Ireland will not expect any problems from this law yet would use it to stifle public anti-religious speech. It would also be of great benefit to minor religions with something to hide (did someone mention Xenu?).
Priorities may have changed in Ireland these days but not in the direction of liberty. The average Irish person these days would sell his or her granny to the slave trade if it helped maintain the real estate market value of their second house.
They're really really not. Have you seen the letter sections of any Irish paper for the last 2 weeks?
"They're really really not. Have you seen the letter sections of any Irish paper for the last 2 weeks?"
I'm sure we're both on the same side of this issue Marc but lets get things into perspective here. I'm pretty sure that the letters sections have come down on our side of the matter, but the question is where the population at large stand on this issue. If you're a regular of pharyngula you will remember lots of poll flooding that result in 90% of people coming down on the atheist side of particular questions. The same sort of thing is happening with the letter section. A small proportion of Irish people hate this legislation and are vocal about their dissension. The vast majority, however, probably couldn't care less and if pushed would probably just agree that you shouldn't be allowed to gratuitously insult particular religions.
I seriously doubt that this is an issue of much importance to most Irish people.
Its a bit like the creationism debate in the USA, the problem is not that the majority care one way or the other about evolution or creationism, its that the majority don't care about biology education at all.
On the other hand, in the Irish situation I really don't think there is any public call for this law, I don't know why Ahern is pushing it. It may be a personal thing with him.
If your religion requires the force of government, its message must not be very compelling.
--
www.chl-tx.com
Listen to what Franklin Rossevelt said: "look to Norway"
Ok, specifically, remind the nationalists that this law would also protect MUSLIMS (boo).That's what did it in Norway, the right-wing populist party flip-flopped on the issue when it discovered that it didn't just protect one of their core voting blocs but also their favourite out-group.
Listen to what Franklin Rossevelt said: "look to Norway"
Ok, specifically, remind the nationalists that this law would also protect MUSLIMS (boo).That's what did it in Norway, the right-wing populist party flip-flopped on the issue when it discovered that it didn't just protect one of their core voting blocs but also their favourite out-group.
Here's what I wrote (sorry if this is too long)
When the U.N. proposed it's global blasphemy law I had hoped that the Irish government would have decried it outright. I was mistaken. It has now taken it upon itself to drive our nation back into the thirties. Freedom of speech is one of the pillars of a modern and just secular society. It comes with it's limitations granted. Hate speech is prohibited and I do support that. But this bill were it brought into law would render religious ideas as free from criticism and more important than secular ones.
I'll give you an example. The vitamin pill entrepreneur and criminal Matthias Rath has gained notoriety by asserting that anti-retro virals were poisonous and that they were a western conspiracy to kill patients and make money for big pharma.
"AIDS is the opposite of anecdote. Twenty-five million people have died from it already, three million in the last year alone, and 500,000 of those deaths were children. In South Africa it kills 300,000 people every year: that’s eight hundred people every day, or one every two minutes. This one country has 6.3 million people who are HIV positive, including 30 per cent of all pregnant women. There are 1.2 million AIDS orphans under the age of seventeen. Most chillingly of all, this disaster has appeared suddenly, and while we were watching: in 1990, just 1 per cent of adults in South Africa were HIV positive. Ten years
later, the figure had risen to 25 per cent." - Ben Goldacre
This leads me to the pope. I wasn't a big fan of the pope, but after I heard of his recent mission to Africa I positively loath the man. The pope said the condition was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". If I was to assert that I think the man should be arrested I would be too, under this new law. (He also suggests that people in the country give up superstitious beliefs which leads me to suspect that he was mining for irony on his trip but that's another matter.)
Were this law to pass I would not be able to speak my mind in public for fear of being arrested and fined. I have talked to a good many people atheist and religious alike that oppose this law. Under this law even the most benign speech about human rights under Islam and sharia law would make me branded an Islamophobe and a racist. The more fundamentalist minds still would except under this law they would have the right to prosecute me. Sam Harris advocates a conversational intolerance where personal convictions are scaled against evidence, and where intellectual honesty is demanded equally in religious views and non-religious views. He also argues for the need to counter inhibitions that prevent the open critique of religious ideas, beliefs, and practices under the auspices of "tolerance." This is the my position.
I would not want to live in this country for much longer if this law were brought to pass. A country where the scientologists that have taken root here are absolved from criticism or a country where children of Jehova's Witnesses who are refused a blood transfusion by their parents are free from prosecution. What about a country where outrage is fostered and encouraged instead of healthy open debate? A country where creationism can worm its way into Irish classrooms and the minds of Irish children.
Lets not forget that religious people wont be absolved from this law either. Would not a muslim take offense at the christians assertion that the prophet muhammed is a false one? Or the jews at the christians assertion that they killed their lord? Or the Christians at the jews who think they have a special covenant with god? Or the jews at the muslims for proclaiming islam to be the final word of god?
"Pat Rabbitte is proposing an amendment to this section which would reduce the maximum fine to €1,000 and exclude from the definition of blasphemy any matter that had any literary, artistic, social or academic merit."
That sounds "reasonable". It would be more reasonable still if the whole thing was scraped all together.
Dale O'Flaherty
Irish atheist, humanist, lover of freedom and free speech
Here is a link to 100 ideas and arguments to stop the Irish blasphemy law from being passed, based on the many suggestions posted so far on blasphemy.ie.
The best of these ideas will form the basis of our campaign in the coming weeks. They are grouped into:
Campaign Slogans
Campaign Ideas
Political Lobbying
Religious Arguments
Social Arguments
Political Arguments
Legal Arguments
Matter that could be Illegal
Quotes about Blasphemy
Summary
Click here for the 100 ideas and arguments.
Please let us know what you think of them, and thanks again for your suggestions so far.
My idea for the Irish atheists would be not to be so silly, bless them.