Posted by fústar in 
So it's another of those boring old Wednesdays. You yawn your way apathetically through the morning. 11 o'clock arrives on time – Hoorah! Out you pop for a restorative coffee and a squint at the papers. Your eyes alight on the following words.
A NEW crime of blasphemous libel is to be proposed by the Minister for Justice in an amendment to the Defamation Bill.
After heaving your jaw off the floor, restoring your popped-out eyes to their parent sockets, and unscrambling your brain matrix, you proceed (with growing horror and dread) to read more.
Sound familiar? I hope so. "Picturegate" now appears to have been merely a censorious aperitif for the four-course, slap up meal of governmental cuntitude to come. The throbbing in my temples either indicates the early stages of swine flu, or I'm choking on my own rage. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Here's more:
Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern proposes to insert a new section into the Defamation Bill, stating: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000."
“Blasphemous matter" is defined as matter “that 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 he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage."
So many questions.
a) What's the difference (legally speaking) between regular (common or garden) abuse and gross abuse? Does the latter involve mickies? Or poo?
b) Aren't the people most likely to be outraged by such "matter" of a type that wander about in an almost perpetual state of outrage anyway? In other words, is a small bit more outrage likely to make any appreciable difference in their lives? And, doesn't semi-permanent outrage actually shore up their sense of self-righteousness (in the face of a world of godless scum)? Blasphemy might actually be doing them good.
c) Isn't one of the (important & legitimate) functions of art & satire to poke "matters held sacred" with a barbed stick? Precisely because such matters are sacred?
d) Isn't it a typically Irish "out" that you're invited to try and duck the charge by saying any offence caused was unintentional? "Eh…sorry 'bout that lads. I didn't mean to upset anyone with my Blu-Tak sculpture of the Virgin Mary puking into a urinal. I'd meant to depict her saving some lovely babies from a fire. I'd drink on me when I made it and…eh…it went a bit wrong".
In the UK you can (as far as I know) argue that yes, the offence caused was intentional, but that the existence/creation of the "matter" constitutes a "public good" (it serves some interest of science, art, learning etc). No such option here – where many of our influential dullards can't even begin to imagine what possible benefit "aberrant", subversive, fringe, obscene, or absurd thoughts could have for a society where a middle-of-the-road (“Ah now!") consensus on almost everything is assumed (or yearned for).
The rage (or swine flu) is growing stronger by the minute, but so is my tiredness (I wrote this “last night" if you see what I mean). Off to bed with me. Send Suzy some of your most blasphemous, durtiest poems (the secret ones you hide in that box under the bed). I smell another postcard project in all this.
Related Post: Pissing on Bishops: 21st Century Obscenity & the State of the Nation.
What gets to me is what constitutes blasphemy. I mean, the good, moral, upright Catholic leaders of our state would not claim to believe in the one true godship of Allah and all the tenets of Islam, and surely by Muslim standards that would count as blasphemy?
So really, how does blasphemy exist? And how soon til our thoughts are being policed?
And why bring in legislation that is going to push people into adolescent, church insulting behaviour when really, everyone was just getting on with it, and there might even have been some hope of moving to a new level of understanding and maturity(except, probably not really yet really, but surely that’s the direction we should be moving to, beyond religion to a far more spiritual understanding of the divine?).
Alas.
I was talking about just that with Simon McGarr yesterday. Can inter-religious blasphemy be prosecuted? Given the righteous, exclusive claims of many religions surely the religious are the most likely (and prolific) blasphemers of all. This whole thing is hoping to nail down a term whose meaning is hopelessly elusive and subjective.
And, as you say, this is something that doesn’t need to be policed in this fashion. But that’s what happens when you have total disdain for people’s mature ability to (morally/ethically) choose and self-regulate.
The “adolescent church insulting” I can live with! I’d be more afraid of genuine bigots using this opportunity to take potshots at minority religions under the guise of “PC gone mad”/”Protect Free Speech” righteousness.
This is very disturbing indeed. The sheer vagueness of the concept of blasphemy (and the hugeness of the penalties involved) is definitely designed to clamp down on free speech. Just a question, though: if the Pope is God’s representative on Earth, will any criticism of his actions qualify as “blasphemy”? Or could a hardcore Protestant (of the likes of Ian Paisley) argue that the Pope calling himself “God’s representative on Earth” is “blasphemy” in itself, and use the courts to ban his pronouncements from being aired? Would possession of that episode of The Simpsons where they do a parody of the Nativity be a criminal offense? And as many people have already pointed out, just think what the Scientologists could do with this law!
What I meant by the adolescent insulting though, is that society should have a period during which we break out of traditional dogma and the control of a rather limiting religious system, using brash overreactions, like rebellious teens. There is definitely a time for that, for all the satire etc.
But what I had hoped was that by now, the control of the church was broken enough that there was no real need to go spraypainting its doors anymore. That we’d moved beyond its confines and into a more advanced and autonomous version of spirituality.
My fear is that with this silly little dictate, it will pull us backwards. And its a sign that we’re not as far ahead as we might have hoped.
It’s a hilariously pathetic bit of legislation. As far as I know blasphemy is prohibited by Bunreacht na hEireann, but it’s toothless because the Supreme Court has ruled that “blasphemy” can’t be adequately defined. I don’t see how this would clear things up – like you said, the notion of inter-religious blasphemy torpedoes it from the off.
[...] the whole thing gives Fustar a [...]
John Waters, in today’s Times, kind of sticks up for humorous freedom of speech but the then slips back into his usual overwrought, high priest of anti-modernity guise by article’s end.
Basically he seems (though I had to read it a few times to be sure) to be saying that religion is the only rational response to man’s awareness of him/herself as a mortal organism “that did not make itself”. Fair enough. There’s a valid point to be made about the religious instinct being a fundamental (universal?) human impulse – but Waters (predictably) doesn’t stop there.
The only thing that motivates those who criticise/take the piss out of religion is, apparently, “fear in the face of the infinite Mystery” (capital letter in original text!).
Not only that, but these religion bashers are only prevented from admitting this fear by their own “deadly pride”. Case closed.
The attempts of fear-filled, deadly-pride-stuffed types to ridicule religion are (wait for it) merely “manifestations of idiocy, full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing”. Waters doing his usual good cop/mad cop routine within the space of a single piece there.
Now (though I’m firmly agnostic – leaning toward atheist) I’ve little time for the smug, narrow-minded, simplistic scepticism of Dawkins-ites – but JW is still missing a major point here. The majority of “matter” that satirises religion focuses less on man’s awe-struck reaction to being an organism doomed with awareness of mortality, and much more on the way religion operates as a conservative, controlling, coercive, censorious (etc) force interwoven into the fabrics of societies.
An obvious point one would have thought. There is, after all, a world of difference between the raw religious impulse and the operations/influence of formal institutionalised religion. One is a personal experience. The other is a social/political force.
The Waters thing was as windily written as one might have expected, but nonetheless expresses a reasonable position for a man of faith to take. It seems to me, not a man of faith, more understanding of the sheer WTF-ness of existence, and therefore more human, than anything a Dawkins or Hitchens might have to say. But yeah, lots of mental in there too. Still, if you can’t even get Waters on to your consorious bandwagon, it might be time to just give the whole thing up.
Fústar,
My blood also boileth…I find this whole matter ridiculous. As has been more than addressed already, there are many religious which may accuse each other of blasphemy just for proclaiming conflicting beliefs and faiths. Furthermore, I’d love to see what The First Satanic Church of Ireland has to say about this law…who is blaspheming against who? Jo said she hoped we’d moved on from this type of retrograde step but, if anything it looks like we’re more cyclical than progressive. Certainly so in the case of societies and, particularly, in the case of our society on the western seaboard of Europe.
As for poor John Waters, the notion that the motivation for ridiculing religion is “fear in the face of the infinite Mystery� and that “deadly pride� restrains them from admitting this fear is as risible as it is pathetic. But such an assertion should, in the end, rule out any legislation against blasphemy. The twisted logic goes something like this: this reaction in the face of “infinite Mystery� is just another manifestation (in a bafflingly god-affirming way) of the acknowledgement of the “Mystery� in the first place and therefore further proof of the existence of the “Mystery�?!?!? So why, if you are a believer, would you want to outlaw something that affirms your beliefs??
Anyway, I can’t believe, or maybe I can believe (that word again) that government money and time is being spent on an absurd piece of non-legislation that will not advance one whit the cause of anyone or anything. Dermot Ahern for the sack!
Jesus fucking christ, surely this infantile law is a non starter.
If not, children will begin hiring lawyers when they first hear that Santy doesn’t exist.
In order for a guilty verdict to be reached would the onus not fall upon the offended party to prove, without a reasonable doubt, that the god/alien etc in which they believe actually exists?
Hopefully in the future we’ll be able to sue someone for mocking any old fantasy we have, no matter how ridiculous?
“no, no, I think you’ll find that I am incredibly handsome and witty and if you continue to disagree and refuse to sleep with me on that basis then you’ll be hearing from my lawyer”
You may or may not know that I have a monthly prize draw. I enter my readers, followers, and local bloggers into the draw. Well this month you are the winner!
You win either a custom made t-shirt for you, or if they are not your style then you can pass on the freeby to your lovely lady, and I can make her a top. That or get a bunch of freebies from my shop-broach, pocket mirror, set of handmade cards etc. Anyhow just let me know what you would like.
Custom made t-shirt sounds absolutely delightful! Thanks, Ruth. The lovely lady has enough in her wardrobe.
How do I go about choosing?