Madam, – While not agreeing with the amendment to the Defamation Bill, proposed by Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern, I feel that the reaction to the Bill is a little over the top. While many fear that the Bill will affect freedom of speech, it must be noted that the Bill will be interpreted by the Irish judges on the basis of what consists of “outrage”, “substantial”, “grossly abusive or insulting” to matters concerned to cause such outrage.
As has been pointed out, these words are subjective – and the use of such undoubtedly strong language is in order to ensure the Bill will not be interpreted lightly. This will render the level of interpretation of any outrage extremely high, in order for any prosecution to be considered. The use of subjective language is not unusual in law. The UN Convention Against Torture considers torture to consist of “severe pain and suffering” and “prolonged mental harm” as an example.
Concerns regarding the size of the fine can be seen as proportional to the high threshold that will be used in interpreting the Bill in the courts – and is undoubtedly aimed at publications/media with wide circulation that could cause such a level of “outrage”. The Bill is not a return to mediaeval times, but an attempt to create a proportional respect for values that are held deeply by many in our increasingly multicultural society. Respect for different cultures and belief sets is as valuable as the freedom of expression – and the Bill hopefully will achieve a balance between the two that ensures a healthy respect for faith and diversity is maintained in our increasingly liberal society.
Liberal societies are based on liberty and autonomy of the individual, but in the context that each individual must live in a society of individuals. Where freedom of expression may be limited at the extremes, this may be necessary to protect the autonomy and liberty of those adhering to a faith that is intrinsic to the value of the individual, with all due respect to proportionality.
While the proposed use of force, where necessary, by gardaí, to attain such evidence of blasphemy on a high level, is worrying, it is no more so than the use of force authorised, and necessitated by the introduction of other legislation such as the Criminal Procedure Bill, which equally threatens the right to privacy. In these cases we rely on the separation of powers and a wise interpretation of proportionality by the courts.
Any fear of the Bill becoming a draconian instrument (a legitimate fear, as with other legislation) is an issue only if one does not have faith in the Irish courts and the establishment of case-law that will inevitably set the bar very high, such that only extreme cases of “blasphemy” that truly outrage will be considered. This will ensure that those examples of historical blasphemy cited in your editorial (May 4th) will not fall under such an interpretation. – Is mise,
Madam, – Tolerance is a virtue to be celebrated. It gives us liberty to enjoy life, love and laughter, not least in the sphere of religion. We are in danger of being stifled in the vice of any new blasphemy law, whilst compromising ourselves as a liberal democracy. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Following on from Fianna Fáil joining the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (ELDR), as of the April 16th, shouldn’t Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern be attempting to strengthen liberal values, such as freedom of speech, instead of restricting them by legislating for the offence of blasphemous libel (Page 1, April 29th)? Or is this merely a case of Fianna Fáil joining a group for reasons of convenience and paying lip-service to liberalism? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – As a committed Catholic, I would have anticipated being in favour of a blasphemy law in principle.
But in practice the current proposal would leave it open for any religion (or even cult) to nominate who their “God” is and silence their critics through the threat of litigation. Thus we could have an endless stream of affinity groups nominating individuals as God, such as Xenu the Galactic Warlord, the Dalai Lama, the Rev Sun Myung Moon . . ..
Many of these cults are well funded and ruthless in crushing opposition.
One group even has a policy of “fair game” which allows its members to use any means to destroy its opponents.
I cannot see the proposed blasphemous libel proposal as wise in these circumstances. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I am astonished, and not a little amused at the fuss, indeed hysteria, that has greeted Minister Dermot’s Ahern’s announcement that he is to reform the law on blasphemy. One would think from the media coverage and letters to The Irish Times that the Minister had announced that he was about to begin burning blasphemers on St Stephens’s Green, and that no alternative comedian, or opinion writer would be safe from his righteous wrath.
The current position is that under the 1961 Defamation Act a person can be both fined and imprisoned for a maximum of seven years for the crime of blasphemous libel. The Constitution specifically states that the publication of blasphemous matter “is an offence which should be punishable in accordance with law”. Indeed, the Law Reform Commission Report pointed out that “the abolition without replacement of the offence of blasphemy would be impossible under the existing Constitutional provision”.
If the Minister wished to get rid of the law in its entirety the only way he could do so is to amend the Constitution. At a time when global economy is facing the worst recession in 80 years, and the Irish nation is fighting for its economic survival, any politician who seriously suggested that we needed a constitutional referendum on the law of blasphemy would be greeted with incredulity by the electorate.
What the Minister, in fact, has done is create a situation where it is a racing certainty that no one will ever be charged with blasphemy and, if charged, would never be convicted of the offence. He has, in effect, neutered the law, without the need for a referendum, and without directly challenging the authority of the Constitution. His critics would do well to examine the facts, before leaping to conclusions or rushing to call for a referendum, which given the factious nature of the public’s mood they might well lose. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – People who commit the sin of blasphemy face a serious risk of spending eternity in the hellfires of damnation. Just in case this doesn’t put them off the Government proposes that they may now face the possibility of a fine as well. – Yours, etc,