Justice Minister to Amend New Blasphemy Law

MichaelNugent · **Posted:** Tue May 19, 2009 4:29 am

The Minister for Justice is proposing to amend his new blasphemy law by providing, as a defence, that a person accused of blasphemy can “prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value” in the blasphemous matter.

He is not proposing to reduce the fine of €100,000, the onus of proof is on the defendant to prove this new line of defence, and the police may still seize and destroy blasphemous statements. The Minister’s proposed blasphemy law now reads like this:

Quote:

1. 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 €100,000.
2. For the purposes of this section, 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.
3. 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.

The revised amendment has been published on the Oireachtas website. The All-Party Committee on Justice will discuss it tomorrow, Wednesday May 20. Any opinions on how we should respond to this development?

ctr · **Joined:** Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:23 am **Posts:** 929

As the Minister seems to wish to continue to legislate to give effect to this provision in the Constitution, a provision that up to now was defunct, we should reject this proposal IMHO.

Why make people defend themselves from the irrational "Outrage" of some other people.

We should ask the minister to legislate for the referendum that will remove this provision from the Constitution...The people will do the rest!

nozzferrahhtoo · **Joined:** Thu May 29, 2008 8:17 am **Posts:** 1140

Hate to phrase my response to this as a cliche, but it gives me no choice.

Essentially what the amendmant says is that a person is guilty if accused and then has to prove their innocence. This is the polar opposite of "innocent until proven guilty" that our society and all our other laws are based on.

How can ALL our laws be "innocent until proven guilty" except one which is "Guilty until proven innocent"???

nozzferrahhtoo · **Joined:** Thu May 29, 2008 8:17 am **Posts:** 1140

Dear Gavin,

Thank you for your communication concerning the government decision to include a section on blasphemous libel in the Defamation Bill. The Bill is at Committee stage and the proposed new section has not yet been reached.

The Labour Party is opposed to the inclusion of such a section. We support the proposal from the Constitutional Review Group to remove the reference in the constitution by way of referendum.

Tactically we have taken a "belt and braces" approach i.e. if the Minister refuses to excise the reference in the Bill our amendment will seek to constrain the government's proposal.

Best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Brendan Howlin,T.D.
Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Ygern · **Posted:** Tue May 19, 2009 10:30 am

While I appreciate what the Minister for Justice is trying to do here (i.e. claw back a measure of freedom of speech) the law as it stands is still absurd. It is not even trying to be an Anti Hate Speech law, it is merely an anti-offensiveness law.
Anyone who feels offended can utilise to harass and intimidate a person or group who criticises religion. They may not succeed, but they can certainly be great time and money wasters.

The proposed defence clause only serves to highlight that the law is pointless and serves no purpose.

Nozz is right when he points out that presuming guilt is not a commendable default position for any law.

bockedy · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:18 pm **Posts:** 98

Ygern wrote:

Nozz is right when he points out that presuming guilt is not a commendable default position for any law.

Agreed, but for libel, one of the defences is if what you actually said is true. The burden of proof falls to the defence in that case as a practical matter (the prosecution are hardly going to help). So there's another situation where in effect you're "guilty until proven innocent".

It does sound like a fairly considerable watering down, but I'd still reject the amendment as it doesn't go far enough for the reasons already made by the previous posters. If it gets passed the heat is off a constitutional change.

Ygern · **Posted:** Tue May 19, 2009 12:17 pm

Yes, that's true - but libel cases are private law i.e. individuals suing each other for damages, whereas this is criminal law, where if you are found guilty you have a criminal record. In other words, it is potentially far more damaging to a person's reputation and status in society, as many things (certain jobs, getting credit for a loan) exclude those with prior convictions.

ronaldlupe · **Joined:** Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:48 am **Posts:** 1

maybe the Minister for Justice just doing his new job..

_________________
Orange County's best criminal attorneys

anadub25 · **Posted:** Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:56 pm

^
Em..you're being sarcastic i hope?

Atheist Ireland Forum

Justice Minister to Amend New Blasphemy Law

Who is online