'Of course,' you say, 'the government does that all the time.'
True, but in this case whilst the government are discussing newly proposed 'blasphemous libel' laws, they are not the ones setting the boundaries–the religious are. They will define what offends them.
Ten years ago the supreme court found they were unable decide exactly what blasphemy is, and left it at that. But now(†) the Minister for Justice thinks he knows all about it.
And it amounts to biased censorship.
Did the ridiculous charade which was the political enforcement Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act do us any good whatsoever? Trained actors playing Gerry Adams for fear that his musky charisma and siren song might somehow bewitch the Plain People of Ireland?
How could banning blasphemy possibly be good for the country? Do we have an epidemic of God-hating on our hands?
This is the proposed definition:
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
To supply extra self-righteousness, notice that the more correct term 'offence' has been substituted by 'outrage.' I mean who could argue in favour of something that is outrageous? It's exactly the kind of weasel word used by rags like The Sun and The Daily Mail to denote some sort of affront against their agreed common decency.
This reminds me of the references to blasphemy in countries such as Pakistan, where Sharia Law prevails.
Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging [my emphasis] the religious feelings of any class of the citizens of Pakistan [...] shall be punished with imprisonment [...] or with fine, or with both.
Is it any wonder that further into their legislation we find:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Death and a fine? That's a how-de-do. Back here in Ireland, in addition to prosecution and fines:
the court may issue a warrant authorising the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary using reasonable force, a premises where the member of the force has reasonable grounds for believing there are copies of the blasphemous statements in order to seize them
This is genuinely outrageous. At a time when Garda resources are strapped, when drugs and gangs dominate the news (however sensationalist), does the minister really think we should divert officers into citizens' living rooms on suspicion of their possessing a Cradle of Filth t-shirt?
I should have the right to suggest that Jesus was (for example) a Nazi/paedophile/furry, and in turn you have the right to 'be offended' and then argue the merits of the case. It's simply the marketplace of ideas.
For example, it offends me that when reports surfaced last week suggesting that Palestinian water supplies are only a quarter of those supplied to Israelis, the Israeli government's Deputy Health Minister Yakov Litzman decided that he has nothing better in the world to do than release a statement condemning the naming of swine flu.
Why?
Because Jews don't eat pork. And according to this paragon of logical thinking
…we should call this Mexican flu and not swine flu
I think that might offend the Mexicans even more. Not to mention people whose religion forbids the eating of Mexicans.
Please join me in fighting any laws which threaten our freedom of expression, merely to placate errant fools like Litzman. Especially those laws which seek to protect invisible magic beings.
Blasphemy is and has always been a victimless crime.
::
Endnotes:- † Maybe we should just use the old blasphemous libel laws from the U.K. of 1553? Seeing as they only just got around to abolishing them last year. [back ↩]
3 Comments
Shouldn't the government be more concerned with fixing the economy or the health system before tackling trivial shit like this?
Surely those with religious beliefs are "above" any kind of insult anyway, since they believe that these "blasphemers" will be smithed by their god in his own particular cruel way.
By all means, invoke laws that protect the individual from personal attack. No one should feel bullied in this world. If Johnny gets chased down the street by a bunch of screaming skinheads simply because he was wearing a pink shirt, we don't make a law criminalising someone who says bad things about pink shirts… we make a law saying that people shouldn't be harassed full stop! No matter what the fuck they're wearing, sexual inclination, religion, creed, sex….
With all the shit thats happened with banks recently, its a pity the state werent so interested in that other religious sin, usury!
Fucking muppets, the lot of them. Do you know, that half the reason I watch Dail proceedings is in the hope to see some mad mother fucker running in with a bomb strapped to his balls and blowing up the whole lot of those fucking dirty TD's. Of course, with the laziness of Irish politicians he'd probably only kill about 5 or 6 as the rest of them would be nowhere near the vicinity.
You sound like you've been over at Bock's! I knew he'd link it to the economy somehow.
I agree with all you say. Look at how Jesus dealt with his criticism, scorn, torture etc. Turn the other cheek, right? And that was Jesus himself!
Why does Biddy altar-cleaner think she's better than Jesus?
Besides, Jesus himself nearly bought it early on due to blasphemy laws.
From MATTHEW 26 :-
64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.
66 What do you think?"
"He is worthy of death," they answered.
67 Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists.
I didnt actually check out Bock's post before posting but I think the timing of this is universally seen as ridiculous.
As you pointed out, Jesus himself was a highly blasphemous character within religious circles of the time. How will this law deal with inter-religious rivalry today (and yes, I use the term rivalry deliberately, to make it sound like a petty divison B 5-aside football match). It won't, nor will it ever be used to deal with anyone saying bad things about any religion. Seriously think about it: a law protecting Scientologists!? Ha ha never! Wait, this is Ireland so… :-\
One Citation
[...] Natural Selections addthis_url = 'http%3A%2F%2Fbocktherobber.com%2F2009%2F04%2Fblasphemous-libel'; addthis_title = [...]
Post a Comment