OK, so this isn't really a newsflash anymore but it is still one of the more important issues raised in Irish society since the country entered recession. To those of you who missed it, earlier this year Justice Minister Dermot Ahern introduced an amendment to the 2006 Defamation Bill which created an offence of blasphemy, punishable by a fine of €100,000 (which was later reduced to €25000). Furthermore the law defines the criterion for having comitted such an offence as:
There's no denying the cultural history of Ireland which has led us to where we are now. 1940s Ireland was a place which most children and newcomers to Ireland would find intensely foreign and strange. The Catholic church ruled the country with an iron fist, well maybe just a wooden one. The rules of civilized society at the time determined everything from the social interactions of men and women and the direction of national policy to the eating habits of the Irish populace and the availability of information. It is here where the problem begins. As the British Prime Minister William Pitt stated in a speech of 1770:
That is exactly what happened in Ireland. The Catholic Church assumed a level of power and authority over the Irish people which was both unwarranted and in part unwelcome. I don't bear any ill sentiment towards anyone of faith, everyone should be free to do whatever they want. However, when it comes to regulating and legislating the rights of a nation it is the needs of the few which must outweigh the needs of the many. Although I am loath to use a Star Trek quote in this context, Gene Roddenberry who was a tremendous force for rational thinking said it best in the Next Generation episode "The Drumhead":
There's a reason for the statue of blind justice outside so many courthouses around the world. The law doesn't or at least shouldn't make any differentiation between people on any basis be it age, race, faith etc. No-one gets special preference and no-one gets adversely treated. These principles are so important to a civilised society in fact, that most countries choose to enshrine them in laws or in constitutions as in the first amendment to the US constitution or Article 40 of our own.
Thus the first problem with the blasphemy law, and probably the biggest flaw in its already weak construction is that it incentivises outrage. In the context of the previous paragraphs, I would suggest that protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals in society is one of the most important functions of legislation. However, this law is contrary to that principle. The blasphemy laws does not protect the rights of the religious. People are entitled to their religious ideas, no matter how crazy they may seem to other people. The "other people", however, are deserving of the right to disagree with these ideas and even mock or ridicule them. A difference of opinion is the most important factor in cultural development since it encourages debate, change and thus progress.
Some would argue that in our new era of terrorism and cultural conflict that laws such as this are needed to protect certain vulnerable groups against hate speech and hate crimes. This argument is deeply flawed though. Firstly, the text of the law makes no mention of hate speech or violence against any social group. Secondly it contradicts Dermot Ahern's argument that the reason for enacting the law was so as not to leave a hole in the legislation following the repeal of the previous blasphemy law. Finally, but perhaps most importantly is that hate crime or hate speech legislation is one of the greatest cons in recent history. Most crimes involving violence which are committed today are due in no small part to hate. If a man beats another man because that man is sleeping with his wife, then hate will play a role in that crime. The motivation for a crime should not affect its sentencing. Utimately, the hate crime concept does nothing more than support the idea that race or religion or gender or sexuality is some dividing line and that people should be split into groups or categories. As a rational society, we must not enact elastoplast laws like this which only serve to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.
Getting back on topic, however the other major problem with the current blasphemy law is the reversal of a trend over the last several decades toward a more rational, tolerant and secular society.
The road toward an enlightened and tolerant society has been a long and difficult one and it has taken nearly fifty years to chip away at the grip of catholicism on the minds of the Irish population but there have been several landmark achievements over the years which have served to highlight the progress made by Irish society as a result of the efforts of a dedicated minority. The following list of events is by no means exhaustive but some of the dates may be surprising in terms of how we view our modern society, it sure shocked the hell out of me.
Irish society has come so far and achieved so much in creating a tolerant multi-cultural society that the actions of one narrow-minded little civil servant should not be allowed to jeopardise our hard-earned progress. To this end, I encourage everyone out there to sign a petition to have this ridiculous law repealed at:
In addition anyone of a more curious or campaigning disposition can follow and support the campaign to repeal the law at:
Finally, as I usually do, I leave you all with a quote on the topic, which tonight comes from Colonel Robert Ingersoll, a veteran of the American Civil War and leader of the Freethought movement:
Uttering material 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 he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.There are several reasons for the hot-button nature of this issue and the strong response to the publication of the bill, mainly due to what is seen as the reversal of the progress towards a rational, secular society that has been achieved over the last half-century.
There's no denying the cultural history of Ireland which has led us to where we are now. 1940s Ireland was a place which most children and newcomers to Ireland would find intensely foreign and strange. The Catholic church ruled the country with an iron fist, well maybe just a wooden one. The rules of civilized society at the time determined everything from the social interactions of men and women and the direction of national policy to the eating habits of the Irish populace and the availability of information. It is here where the problem begins. As the British Prime Minister William Pitt stated in a speech of 1770:
Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it
That is exactly what happened in Ireland. The Catholic Church assumed a level of power and authority over the Irish people which was both unwarranted and in part unwelcome. I don't bear any ill sentiment towards anyone of faith, everyone should be free to do whatever they want. However, when it comes to regulating and legislating the rights of a nation it is the needs of the few which must outweigh the needs of the many. Although I am loath to use a Star Trek quote in this context, Gene Roddenberry who was a tremendous force for rational thinking said it best in the Next Generation episode "The Drumhead":
With the first link the chain is forged; the first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged by it.
There's a reason for the statue of blind justice outside so many courthouses around the world. The law doesn't or at least shouldn't make any differentiation between people on any basis be it age, race, faith etc. No-one gets special preference and no-one gets adversely treated. These principles are so important to a civilised society in fact, that most countries choose to enshrine them in laws or in constitutions as in the first amendment to the US constitution or Article 40 of our own.
Thus the first problem with the blasphemy law, and probably the biggest flaw in its already weak construction is that it incentivises outrage. In the context of the previous paragraphs, I would suggest that protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals in society is one of the most important functions of legislation. However, this law is contrary to that principle. The blasphemy laws does not protect the rights of the religious. People are entitled to their religious ideas, no matter how crazy they may seem to other people. The "other people", however, are deserving of the right to disagree with these ideas and even mock or ridicule them. A difference of opinion is the most important factor in cultural development since it encourages debate, change and thus progress.
Some would argue that in our new era of terrorism and cultural conflict that laws such as this are needed to protect certain vulnerable groups against hate speech and hate crimes. This argument is deeply flawed though. Firstly, the text of the law makes no mention of hate speech or violence against any social group. Secondly it contradicts Dermot Ahern's argument that the reason for enacting the law was so as not to leave a hole in the legislation following the repeal of the previous blasphemy law. Finally, but perhaps most importantly is that hate crime or hate speech legislation is one of the greatest cons in recent history. Most crimes involving violence which are committed today are due in no small part to hate. If a man beats another man because that man is sleeping with his wife, then hate will play a role in that crime. The motivation for a crime should not affect its sentencing. Utimately, the hate crime concept does nothing more than support the idea that race or religion or gender or sexuality is some dividing line and that people should be split into groups or categories. As a rational society, we must not enact elastoplast laws like this which only serve to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.
Getting back on topic, however the other major problem with the current blasphemy law is the reversal of a trend over the last several decades toward a more rational, tolerant and secular society.
The road toward an enlightened and tolerant society has been a long and difficult one and it has taken nearly fifty years to chip away at the grip of catholicism on the minds of the Irish population but there have been several landmark achievements over the years which have served to highlight the progress made by Irish society as a result of the efforts of a dedicated minority. The following list of events is by no means exhaustive but some of the dates may be surprising in terms of how we view our modern society, it sure shocked the hell out of me.
- 1972 - 5th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland removes the special position of the Catholic Church and the recognition of other named religious denominations
- 1988 - Norris vs. Ireland - The European Court of Human Rights rules that the laws in Ireland criminalising homosexuality contravenes the European Convention of Human Rights.
- 1992 - 13th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland guarantees the freedom to travel outside the state for the purposes of having an abortion
- 1992 - 14th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland removes the prohibition on the distribution of information relating to abortion
- 1993 - Homosexuality is decriminalised in Ireland
- 1995 - 15th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland provides for the dissolution of marriage under certain specified circumstances
- 1995 - Playboy Magazine, an icon of liberalism is legalised for sale in Ireland
- 2000 - Films including The Life of Brian, A Clockwork Orange and From Dusk Till Dawn have their censorship ban lifted.
- 2003 - The European Convention of Human Rights Act is passed by the Oireachtas incoporating the convention into Irish law.
- 2009 - On 24 June the Civil Partnership Bill is presented to Dail Eireann. If passed it will significantly update the rights of LGBT couples in Ireland
Irish society has come so far and achieved so much in creating a tolerant multi-cultural society that the actions of one narrow-minded little civil servant should not be allowed to jeopardise our hard-earned progress. To this end, I encourage everyone out there to sign a petition to have this ridiculous law repealed at:
In addition anyone of a more curious or campaigning disposition can follow and support the campaign to repeal the law at:
Finally, as I usually do, I leave you all with a quote on the topic, which tonight comes from Colonel Robert Ingersoll, a veteran of the American Civil War and leader of the Freethought movement:
"This crime of blasphemy was invented by priests for the purposes of defending doctrines which are not able to take care of themselves"
