Madam, – With reference to Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern’s comment that a referendum on the issue of blasphemy would be “costly” (Opinion, May 1st), are we as a nation prepared to maintain absurd and outdated aspects of a problematic Constitution simply because it might be too expensive and too much hassle to bother with reform? The terrible economy is no excuse for outdated, draconian laws. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Brian Nisbet (April 30th) shouldn’t worry that our Government is legislating for the offence of blasphemous libel. Instead he should worry about the soft totalitarianism being proposed by the liberal secularist brigade. If they have their way it may soon be difficult to express any views contrary to theirs.
For example, to support traditional marriage these days you run the risk of being labelled either homophobic or a religious bigot or worse.
Restricting a person’s right to express his or her religious views is quickly becoming the norm. We mustn’t be allowed to offend or impose our views on those of different religious faiths or none, must we? Ironically in Nisbet’s “enlightened society” he seems to see no problem with offending someone’s religious faith for the sake of light comic relief. What kind of an enlightened society is Nisbet living in? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – With regard to the Minister for Justice’s proposal to legislate for the offence of blasphemy (April 29th), it is curious that the Minister for Justice of a democratic European state should find itself at odds with international standards.
The four special rapporteurs of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the UN, the Organisation of American States and the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights issued a joint statement in December, 2008. They make the point that: “The concept of ‘defamations of religions’ does not accord with international standards regarding defamation, which refer to the protection of reputation of individuals, while religions, like all beliefs, cannot be said to have a reputation of their own.” They also make the point that restrictions on freedom of expression should be limited and “should never be used to protect particular institutions, or abstract notions, concepts of beliefs, including religious ones”. We seem to be heading in the wrong direction. Again. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Many commentators on the Letters page have suggested that the Government’s economic management is hurling us back towards the Ireland of the 1980s, 1970s, or even beyond.
Might I suggest that with the proposed “blasphemous libel”amendment that the Dáil is now sealing the deal, hurling us back to the heyday of the Censorship of Publications Board whereby books by John Steinbeck, Graham Greene, F Scott Fitzgerald, Seán O’Faolain, Austin Clarke etc were routinely banned in the interests of safeguarding the public? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I am always fascinated when those who believe in an all-powerful god feel the need to defend such a being.
Is not the lack of faith in such a deity’s ability to stand up for itself, well, blasphemy? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – In regard to his proposed legislation, Dermot Ahern writes that “the only credible alternative . . . is a blasphemy referendum which I consider, in the current circumstances, a costly and unwarranted diversion”.We must be a very poor country indeed if we cannot afford freedom of speech. – Yours, etc,