Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy laws

[3113]

Obviously, when it comes to speech, what we're dealing with is very slippery and always changing shape. The "N" word can be used freely between African-Americans, but becomes a deadly insult if a white person uses it. So, technically, there should be no laws on speech because it's very hard to pin down when someone is doing "wrong" with it. Is that "N" word an insult or not?

But having no laws about speech at all leads to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" situation, and makes it possible for people to slander others (spread lies and falsehoods about them) with no repercussions. I think the aim of most Hate Speech Laws (and I'm not saying that they succeed at this), is that "crowded theater" cum "slander" element.

If I say, "All Catholics are pedophiles! Death to pedophiles!" and get a group together chanting this and marching on a Church to put a stop to these evil Catholics, I'd say that was hate speech and it seems to be aiming to make people act--meaning put Catholics to death. If, on the other hand, I say, "Jesus never existed!" then I might offend a lot of Catholics and other believers in Jesus, but I'm not creating any situation where believers in Jesus have to fear for their lives and safety. In *theory* if not in practice, the job of laws against hate speech are to keep people from that crowded theater reaction--the reaction being a mob doing harm to a particular group thanks to slander, rather than stampeding thanks to a false alarm.

A blaspheme law, on the other hand wants to protect damage being done to a person's idea rather than trying to protect them from potential physical harm. Once again, this isn't to say that Hate Speech laws are well written, achieve their aim, or can't be ridiculous and abused--or that I would agree with all of them or any of them being on the books as written--only that the focus or goal of Hate Speech laws, on the surface at least, seem to be more viable than the aims of blaspheme laws.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Pure, I was raised in the States, but originate and currently reside in Canada. I'm surprised my posting echoes the US right wing, my traditional opponents, except in so far as they claim to support fundamental rights while denying them. Their view has always been that the majority rules for all, and have no understanding, in that sense, of what is to me the essence of American Democracy - the acceptance and preservation of diversity.
The Democrats once supported those values, but for some unknown reason ceded the field of values to the Republicans, preferring to appear to have no values, lest they offend someone. At their 2004 Convention, Al Sharpton gave a speech calling on the Dems to remember their history and the struggle for their values - protecting workers and poor families from exploitation, civil rights, and human rights. At the conclusion, delegates stood and applauded, many with tears in their eyes. The pundits' commentary afterwards focused on two questions - why was he blathering about the past and why did he talk for twenty minutes longer than scheduled. The Democratic leadership apparently had the same perspective and managed to ignore everything he said, everything that had moved the hearts of the delegates. There's a lot I can disagree on with Sharpton, but not what he had to say at the Convention.
As for our Canadian Charter of Rights...much seems individual, but, given the notwithstanding clause, they are subject to the will of the collectivity, and far from inalienable, as we Anglos in Quebec can attest. If you look at the realm of education, in particular, you may note that it was sectarian in our original constitution - Catholic and Protestant - but is now linguistic. One's rights in education are not individual, but based on language and origin.

 

[JackLuis]

Lamn Dearg Eirin! and let the Church peddle their myths somewhere down the road.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Lamn Dearg Eirin! and let the Church peddle their myths somewhere down the road.

...
'Tis Irish brains that save from doom
The leaky barge of the Bishop of Rome
For everyone knows the Pope can't belch
Without the consent of Billy Walsh.
O Ireland my first and only love
Where Christ and Caesar are hand and glove!
O lovely land where the shamrock grows
(Allow me, ladies, to blow my nose).'
...
(from James Joyce, Gas from a Burner)

Agus fagamid suid mar ata se, JackLuis

 

[CharleyH]

Excepting Ogg, i see no effort to ascertain the presetn situation, which is that blasphemy laws exist in many countries, including states of the US.

Since they usually show bias in favor of one religion, these laws are NOT generally enforced, though they're on the books in Mass; or they have been repealed

They are being replaced, in some instances, with laws against 'hate speech' [existing in Germany, Holland, discussed for US] , or against 'insult to religion.' Since some posters favor such laws--as i do in a limited way-- perhaps they would explain the apparently inconsistency

Ogg gave a great post... thank you for yours, as well, Pure (good to see you btw and hope you had a grand holiday). I agree with you, in that I blasphemy laws are skewed toward one religion and agree with the limitation you point out, but, now for my opinion (lol - good or not).

From the title of this thread (and no subsequent article) I looked up articles for Irish Athiests Challenge New Blasphemy Laws. It's my understanding that under this law, passed in the summer, blasphemy is defined as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted".

I'm not sure how the Irish define 'matters sacred to any religion' or even how they define 'religion' or 'some defences' but the issue does not seem unlike the greater issue we discuss on Literotica constantly ... that of porn. Like porn, defining religion can have many grey areas. I've nothing against porn (obviously), or any religion, but I do, in this instance laud the atheists for challenging such a ludicrous and absolutely prejudiced law. It is skewed, to me, because it is prejudiced to any atheist, or Pagan, it may be even prejudiced to Scientologists or the Moonies or to science for that matter. It is biased toward Christianity.

I watched a fascinating doco a while ago (if you get the chance, I recommend The Bibles Buried Secrets ).

I am not prejudiced against religious peoples. I accept that people need to believe in 'something', but man, I find they are prejudiced against me.

Lauren just asked me, regarding this thread, if anyone posted about the laws passed at roughly the same time in Switzerland (banning muslin minarets) and in Belgium (so secular as to potentially ban crosses from cemeteries). May be worth looking into as well, for the stark contrast of approaches.

 

[3113]

Just to add, by the way:

Hate Speech usually focuses on someone who does exist and can say that they were injured by the speech. If someone says hateful things about Catholics, we can agree that Catholics exist, and they can step into court and say, "This person said these things about us that aren't true and show hatred for us."

But Blaspheme is second-hand and about something that might not exist. If you say something hateful about Leprechauns, I'd have a hard time bringing you into court on Hate Speech. First, I'd have to prove the Leprechauns exist, then I'd have to explain why they're not in court as the accuser and arguing that what the accused said can be considered hate speech against them. Is what the person said about Leprechauns untrue and hateful?

Blaspheme laws, however, say is that someone can be "offended" by speech against something that might not exist (of it they did exist are now "dead" or at least no longer walking among the living), and punish someone on behalf of that something. All they have to prove is that they were offended by it--not that the thing blasphemed against was offended or that what the person said about the thing was untrue. So I say, "Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene--" and someone takes offense to that, they can punish me without having to bring Jesus in to say he was offended, or even prove that I'm lying. All they have to prove is that they don't believe this and that my saying it's true offends them.

Which, Pure, I think puts a dent in your comparison of the two. Blaspheme laws essentially say that people can get outraged on "god's" behalf regarding certain things said about him or his laws and values. If Hate Speech and Blaspheme are one-in-the-same, shouldn't god be required to come forward and say, "These people are saying false and hateful things about me....?" Or shouldn't. at the very least, the person offended be able to show how god has been damaged by this speech? (Can something all powerful be hurt by anything?)

I don't think they're as similar as you think.

 

[CharleyH]

Just to add, by the way:

Hate Speech usually focuses on someone who does exist and can say that they were injured by the speech. If someone says hateful things about Catholics, we can agree that Catholics exist, and they can step into court and say, "This person said these things about us that aren't true and show hatred for us."

But Blaspheme is second-hand and about something that might not exist. If you say something hateful about Leprechauns, I'd have a hard time bringing you into court on Hate Speech. First, I'd have to prove the Leprechauns exist, then I'd have to explain why they're not in court as the accuser and arguing that what the accused said can be considered hate speech against them. Is what the person said about Leprechauns untrue and hateful?

Blaspheme laws, however, say is that someone can be "offended" by speech against something that might not exist (of it they did exist are now "dead" or at least no longer walking among the living), and punish someone on behalf of that something. All they have to prove is that they were offended by it--not that the thing blasphemed against was offended or that what the person said about the thing was untrue. So I say, "Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene--" and someone takes offense to that, they can punish me without having to bring Jesus in to say he was offended, or even prove that I'm lying. All they have to prove is that they don't believe this and that my saying it's true offends them.

Which, Pure, I think puts a dent in your comparison of the two. Blaspheme laws essentially say that people can get outraged on "god's" behalf regarding certain things said about him or his laws and values. If Hate Speech and Blaspheme are one-in-the-same, shouldn't god be required to come forward and say, "These people are saying false and hateful things about me....?" Or shouldn't. at the very least, the person offended be able to show how god has been damaged by this speech? (Can something all powerful be hurt by anything?)

I don't think they're as similar as you think.

Interesting post.

 

[al_Ussa]

The Irish have atheists now? As if things weren't already complicated enough, between the Catholics and Protestants, I would have figured they'd have gotten killed off ages ago...

Or moved to America.



For the record, those 'blasphemy' laws pretty much all go back to the time when every European country was officially Catholic (or Orthodox in the east). Most European countries still have 'em :-/

 

[oggbashan]

The now cancelled blasphemy law in the UK was an interesting survival.

To be convicted of blasphemy one didn't have to have any intent to blaspheme. If someone else thought you had - you were guilty!

Some of the proposed laws about illegal downloading from the internet were similar. The intention wasn't a relevant fact. If you had downloaded, you were guilty even if you thought what you were doing was legal or fair use.

Og

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I'm actually offended by the title of this thread. Who said they are athiests? Why is it alright for Catholic priests to be involved in political movements (ie 1960 anti war movement) or other national controversies. But it's the ATHIESTS to protest a rank stupid, unjust and unenforcable law?

 

[JackLuis]

I'm actually offended by the title of this thread. Who said they are athiests? Why is it alright for Catholic priests to be involved in political movements (ie 1960 anti war movement) or other national controversies. But it's the ATHIESTS to protest a rank stupid, unjust and unenforcable law?

Uh, they did.

The Church is all about free speech, as long as it's Pope Approved.

 

[Pure]

note to 3113,

i'm going to leave aside the complex topic of 'hate speech' laws.

i want to agree with your general point that "offense" (or "insult") to someone, should not enable them to lay charges against me (the speaker); this improperly limits my freedom of speech. that it's a person's religion (behind their being offeded) makes no difference.

the irish law's application to non xian faiths does not redeem it from the above criticism.

 

[al_Ussa]

Uh, they did.

The Church is all about free speech, as long as it's Pope Approved.

And if not, there's always the Spanish Inqusition.

Mind you, in this country its mostly Protestant fringe groups that cause the problems