Defamation Bill Amendment: "blasphemous libel" - Anonymous/$cientology example.

national | crime and justice | other press

Friday May 01, 2009 23:00

by Anonymous

"EVERY SATURDAY a group of young people, their faces hidden by masks or scarves, gathers outside the office of the Church of Scientology in Abbey Street in Dublin with leaflets and placards making serious allegations about the sect.

If the new law prohibiting publishing or uttering blasphemous matter becomes law, as proposed yesterday by Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern, they could face fines of up to €100,000 and have their homes raided by members of the Garda Síochána in order to seize the offending material."

An article published in the Irish Times about the Defamation Bill Amendment regarding "blasphemous libel" which I find quite interesting.
For the full article: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0430/1....html

ANALYSIS: The proposal to make blasphemous libel an offence would likely criminalise many writers and publishers, writes CAROL COULTER

EVERY SATURDAY a group of young people, their faces hidden by masks or scarves, gathers outside the office of the Church of Scientology in Abbey Street in Dublin with leaflets and placards making serious allegations about the sect.

If the new law prohibiting publishing or uttering blasphemous matter becomes law, as proposed yesterday by Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern, they could face fines of up to €100,000 and have their homes raided by members of the Garda Síochána in order to seize the offending material.

For that to happen, a court will have to be satisfied the matter published 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 that the outrage was intentional. These provisions came unannounced in a proposed amendment to the Defamation Bill, which was before the Oireachtas Committee on Justice yesterday (but was not discussed). The proposal from Ahern does not define “religion”, so there is no reason to imagine the Church of Scientology would not be protected by it from the publication of “abusive or insulting matter”.

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/15-media/irish-times-def...4710/

save preference

Comments (3 of 3)

perhaps this is his intention....

by CynicalPhuck

Sat May 02, 2009 10:07

I think it is an attempt to prevent attacks on the fianna fail religion and their holy mantras "greed is good" and "lets bail out developers and banks".
Anybody committing blasphemy towards their religion by suggesting alternatives like directly funding small business with state loans and letting the banks rot, or suggesting we nationalise our gas reserves and buy the banks out directly (if we must) at the cheap market value will be heavily fined and raided by gardai

Seriously though, this is yet another erosion of our civil liberties. We should be free to question religious tenets in the public domain. Many of them are patently absurd nonsense and cause no end of trouble. The vagueness of definitions makes for very dangerous and stifling legislation. (and anyway why is this such a priority at this difficult point in time?? they are obviously up to something here.)

Ahearn clearly does not value freedom of speech and expression or freedom of information for that matter (e.g.the evisceration of the FOI act by allowing large charges and exempting certain areas from requests, the attacks on CPI funding etc), People like him will lead us back into the dark ages. IMHO There should be no sacred cows in a modern and supposedly enlightened society.

Regarding the Cult of Scientology

by Bazooka Joe

Mon Jan 18, 2010 05:10

Defamation Act 2009

(4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—

(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or

(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—

(i) of its followers, or

(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

blasphemy and discussion

by Pewkneeler

Mon Jan 18, 2010 08:43

I agree with CP that "We should be free to question religious tenets in the public domain." Don't worry, CP. Questioning or supporting or explaining religious tenets is perfectly in accordance with the constitutional right to express opinions on religion, politics, the economy or the price of turnips. It ain't blasphemy to discuss something rationally and "subject to public order and morality". People can eff and blind among friends, but use verbal discretion in public arenas.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Lockdown Skeptics

Defamation Bill Amendment: "blasphemous libel" - Anonymous/$cientology example.

Comments (3 of 3)