Just say ­nothing in case you blaspheme

Ould talk, gossip, scandal, whatever you call it, freedom of speech is a fundamental right of every person in Ireland and is enshrined in our Constitution at Article 40.

It might interest you to know, however, that this right is not without its limits. We cannot simply say anything we believe without fear of consequences. Ireland’s new laws on blasphemy, which were introduced recently in the Defamation Act 2009, highlight the importance of thinking before we speak in today’s Irish society.
Article 40 of the Irish Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech though a careful reading of this article reveals that this right is limited so that public order, morality or the authority of the State is not undermined.
The word blasphemy tends to conjure up images of medieval clerics dressed in black, clutching crucifixes and shouting for the banishment, imprisonment or even the deaths of those who dare speak against them. The term still exists in today’s Irish legal system and with the introduction of new legislation we could begin to see people being convicted for the crime.
In the eyes of the law, blasphemy can be defined as a matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion [and] intended to cause outrage.
A person found to have published or uttered blasphemous material will be guilty of an offence under this new legislation and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000.
When a person is convicted, the court may issue a warrant authorising a member of the Garda Siochána to enter, with the use of reasonable force if necessary, any dwelling or premises where copies of the statement to which the offence relates may be found.
In practical terms, a person could then be convicted on indictment and fined up to €25,000 for saying or publishing a statement which enrages those of a religious group. A world-famous example of what could be said to be blasphemy occurred in 1992 when Sinead O’Connor tore up a picture of the pope while performing on the US hit show Saturday Night Live. While tearing the picture of John Paul II, Sinead sung the word ‘evil’ to the camera. Sinead enraged Roman Catholics and clearly had the intention of doing so. Had she done this in Ireland, with today’s new law, Sinead O’Connor could have been convicted of blasphemy.
The Constitution itself states that the publication or utterance of blasphemous material shall be punishable in accordance with the law; it does not, however, define what constitutes blasphemous material.
In the 1999 case of Corway V Independent Newspapers, the Supreme Court held that it was impossible to say what the offence of blasphemy consisted of and thus the court was unable to rule whether or not a cartoon depicting Government members turning their backs on a priest, was blasphemous. This new legislation defines the term blasphemy and fills this void in Irish law.
It has been argued by some that this law unfairly protects those with religious beliefs while those with similarly strong scientific or secular beliefs do not enjoy such protection. If a religious man is protected from those ridiculing his beliefs, why then does a man who believes in science, rather then a god, not have the same protection against those who would ridicule him?
While the UK abolished their laws on blasphemy quite recently, many international observers feel that Ireland has taken a step back into medieval times.
This new law has raised the eyebrows of Swedish MP Karl Sigfrid and he voiced his concern that Swedish travellers “could be punished for merely expressing a view on a religion or religious symbol”. It is yet to be seen how strictly this new legislation will be enforced, so this may an exaggeration. Only time will tell.
Though this new law on blasphemy fills a void in the Irish legal system, in today’s multi-religious Ireland, is protecting every religion from insult not impossible? Are we legislating for contemporary Ireland or are we beginning to sound like the well-known Craggy Island clerics reacting to the screening of the adult-themed film, The Passion of St Tibulus? Perhaps Fr Ted Crilly and Fr Dougal Maguire showed us the reality of the situation; that strong reactions to blasphemy only lead to notoriety of the blasphemy.
Monty Python’s The Life of Brian was released in 1979 and many religious groups held it to be blasphemous for how it portrayed certain organised religions. The religious satire was even banned in certain countries for a time. Despite outrage from certain religious groups and perhaps, in part, because of this outrage, this film is still immensely popular today, some in the media even claiming it to be the ‘greatest British comedy film of all time’.
With roughly 19 major world religions, subdivided into countless different religious groups, surely every day we utter something that a man of another religion could find blasphemous?