No innocent conduct will be captured
Department of Strange Ideas.
[W]hile the Constitution requires an offence of blasphemy it also, like the position in many other countries, expressly protects freedom of expression. …No innocent conduct will be captured. The revised provision in regard to blasphemy requires at least three elements to be present: that the material be grossly abusive or insulting in matters held sacred by a religion; that it must actually cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion; and, crucially, that there be an intent to cause such outrage.
Okay, that does clear things up: it will be a crime to produce ‘material’ that is grossly abusive or insulting in matters held sacred by a religion, if it causes outrage among more than a few adherents of that religion and the outrage is intentional – all this in spite (not to say in defiance) of the fact that the Constitution ‘expressly protects freedom of expression.’ But Dermot Ahern assures us that no innocent conduct will be captured, presumably because of that crucial third stipulation that there must be an intent to cause such outrage. How Irish courts may decide to identify intent, of course, is a difficult question, so the best idea is probably just to…produce no material at all. Better be safe than sorry.
What about matters held sacred not by a religion but by something else? Some members of the British Conservative Party appear to hold the memory of Margaret Thatcher sacred. Others revere the memory of Lenin or Trotsky or Che. If we are going to protect people’s feelings, these people too should be protected. Either we protect everyone’s feelings or we protect no one’s. The latter would seem to be the more sensible option.
Bob B – It’s always struck me as one of the problems of anti-blasphemy or anti-criticism of religion laws (not the only one but perhaps the biggest one). If you have an idea, an icon, a political belief or whatever that you want to put beyond criticism, call it a religion.
Our Thatcher, who art not in heaven yet… etc
What is wrong with intent to cause outrage?
Intent to cause mere outrage, offending for the sake of it, is juvenile IMO, but scarcely criminal. Intent to cause outrage for a purpose is legitimate expression.
The Abrahamic god is so powerful that he made the earth in 6 days and can destroy it in a twinkle if he gets in a bad mood. Why does he have to be so fiercely protected?
Telling a Muslim that Mohammed was a false prophet would surely be read as intending to cause offence. Blasphemy laws can only function in a theocracy, or a country with a singular interpretation of one true faith.
Neither of those descriptions would fit Ireland.