I'm not sure which is worse, that a modern Western nation has a law against blasphemy, or that a external body like the EU could dictate to a sovereign state which laws it could have. As ridiculous as a blasphemy law is, it should be a decision made by the government and people of the country in question.

Did a bit more reading on this. The blasphemy law was part of the 1937 constitution that established the Republic from the Free State. Religion, especially Roman Catholicism had a far greater influence on the state than it does today.

Since it is part of the constitution, a national referendum would be required to remove the law. It was decided, rightly so, that it was not worth the time or expense involved to remove a law that was unlikely to be enforced.

But, since it is a law, once a complaint was filed, the Garda are legally obligated to investigate. An actual prosecution was described as highly unlikely.

Actually, the law being used in this instance was actually enacted in 2009. As part of the Defamation Act, the wording goes some thing along the lines of "any person found to have blasphemed shall be guilty of a crime". I have no idea what Fry is supposed to have said, and little care. He is irritating at best. That a nation on such a shaky financial footing as Ireland is, has the resources to investigate this nonsense is surprising.

The blasphemy clause had to be included in the 2009 law since the prohibition of blasphemy was included in the 1937 constitution. Again, the only was to get rid of it was by referendum. The language was watered down and expanded to cover all religions, the original solely covered Christianity.

I'm not sure any expense was really involved, when the press asks the Garda if a complaint was filed, they reply yes, and we're investigating. No one expects this to go any further.

If an old lady in Dublin, after her fourth sherry, calls the Garda to report Winston Churchill and Michael Collins are having a knock down, drag out in the middle of O'Connell Street, They are probably going to reply, yes we received that report and we are investigating.

Here in the land of the free, TV host Steven Colbert is facing obscenity and indecency charges after stating the only Donald Trumps mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's "fuck holster"


(this thread has gone so far off the rails!!)

So you're ok with a blasphemy law in a supposedly liberal democracy because "it probably won't get used"? What about the next government, or the one after that? If you're so sure, why did the legislature in Ireland feel the need to update the law at all, rather than just leave it in obscurity?

I am heavily involved in free speech campaigning on social networking sites, which means I have to support people that I would much rather suspend by their genitals. The idea of blasphemy laws is some thing I couldn't let pass without comment, or with such a flippant attitude toward. The law exists, so it could be used. To say it shouldn't be repealed because of cost is just fucking lazy! Ireland is perfectly capable of holding referendums, even if it does dismiss the result if it gets the wrong result!

"That a nation on such a shaky financial footing as Ireland is, has the resources to investigate this nonsense is surprising."

You're inconsistent, you say Ireland doesn't have the resources to investigate the claim, but you shrug off the cost of a nation wide referendum?

That's not inconsistency, that is prioritising. Still, wouldn't be the first person to shrug off a nation wide referendum in Ireland. If Ireland truly can't afford this one, they could include it in a general election. Or is there a suggestion that Ireland should suspend democracy altogether rather than rid itself of this law?

Bit of a leap, suggesting Ireland would suspend democracy rather than repeal an archaic, rarely used law, it may well be included in a referendum in the future or a general election, when actual issues that have an impact on people's lives are being decided.

Curious why your indignation is not directed at those parts of the UK with blasphemy laws still on the books? Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Apparently the 2009 update to the law was designed to make it almost impossible to prosecute cases of blasphemy:

".....The bill was mainly about slander, defamation, and court case awards.
I sat down with the Attorney General we went through the whole thing and at the very end of it, he said ‘By the way, you have to put in something about blasphemy’.
He was told that in the Constitution there’s a mandatory obligation to have a law on blasphemy.
“So he gave me a choice: either we hold a referendum to delete a law on blasphemy, or we renew the crime of blasphemy, and that’s the choice we took.”
He said that he couldn’t justify or recommend bringing a single referendum forward when the country was as cash-strapped as it was.
Ahern said that the definition of blasphemy, which was introduced in his amendment, was done in such a way that it would be difficult to enforce.

Dr Neville Cox [professor at Trinity College] subsequently said that the legislation ‘fulfilled the institutional obligation to have a crime of blasphemy’, but ‘skillfully rendered the law completely unenforceable’.

Ahern admitted that ‘to a certain extent’ it was constructed like that on purpose.
The Attorney General wouldn’t forgive me for saying it but, we put in so many hurdles in order to ground a prosecution that we believed we’d never see a prosecution."

Good stuff Grants. I'm sure at some point there will be arefererdum. Until then it's just not something that needs worried about.

That's an interesting way to do law and governence. Never the less, people may not understand how this particular law works, and having it written in to the constitution that there should be a law against blasphemy? That alone could effectively gag people. We are seeing more and more of this, institutionalised censorship of any thing that may offend some special snowflake or other. Universities seem to be the biggest culprits.

I guess back in the day when the Irish constitution was written, the Catholic Church had a big say in things.
I seen a report on the web today, saying the Irish police are not going to prosecute Fry, apparently partly due to a lack of outrage or interest by the public. Case closed it seems.

Prosecution is not the point, since it was always unlikely since Fry doesn't live in Ireland, and could probably happily avoid the place if needs be. A European arrest warrant is possible I suppose, but for this?

The point is that the law exists at all. I'll take on board Toms point that parts of the UK also have blasphemy laws, and raise the issue also that in our House of Lords are UNELECTED religious figures influencing the shape of our law making. Including controlling what people are allowed to say, or write.

I never claimed that the UK was some how better, or perfect, on this issue. What is surprising though is that people on a website like this could be so blasé, in fact completely fucking complacent about state censorship. Because make no mistake about it, a law against blasphemy is an attack on freedom of speech. If you are comfortable with that, with the concept that the Irish, or for that matter UK, government will get around to getting rid of it eventually, you are a fucking fool. You probably deserve to live in an Islamic State, or some thing similar. So long as that law is on the books, some government, somewhere down the line will use it against its citizens if it suits their purpose.

The point is it takes a referendum to make changes to their constitution. The clever way would be to add that as a second referendum issue to something more important, like the right to housing or to keep their water resources in public ownership and out of the hands of greedy multi-nationals.

One good thing about the whole Irish blasphemy ruckus is that New Zealand just decided to get rid of a similar law on blasphemy over there. I don't think theirs is constutional, so a simple vote in their Parliament would be enogh to decide.

Back to the upcoming elections for a bit. Quite a bit of in fighting among both the nationalist and unionist camps. The big two, DUP and Sinn Fein are accusing their little brothers, SDLP and UUP of helping the opposition by refusing to get out of the way.

Sinn Fein and the SDLP have never had much common ground, the SDLP having been the "nice" nationalists who renounced violence while Sinn Fein was joined at the hip with the IRA. The SDLP claims Sinn Fein wastes their seats by refusing to go to Westminster, Sinn Fein still considers the SDLP London's lap dog.

The UUP has even less relevance, although they are getting a bit press lately by photos of one their leaders, Mike Nesbitt, face down on the floor of a Belfast hotel. Nesbitt has yet to offer an explanation, seems he may have over indulged a bit. At least it was in one of Belfast's better hotels.

More interesting still is an upcoming visit to Londonderry by HRH Charles, Prince of Wales. Also known as Colonel in Chief of the Parachute Regiment, the last time Charles visited Londonderry, the Taigs rioted.

Of course, even Londonderry is a very different place today. Local IRA commander McGuinness from the time of the Bloody Sunday massacre had met with both Charles and the Queen before his death. Definitely unthinkable twenty or even less years ago. I've not seen any stories of how his visit was received, so either it hasn't happened yet, or passed without incident.

Regarding the blasphemy debate, it is worth considering that during the Thatcher years, there was a silly law preventing members of Sinn Fein and other terror linked organisations, from giving interviews on television. Broadcasters got around this by presenting a sillouhetted head on screen, and having an actor speak the words of the likes of Gerry Adams, talking about a campaign to build a by-pass road in Belfast!

No incidents on the northern portion of the trip. Prince Chuckie and wife are in the Republic now. Curiously no fishing trips on the agenda. Apparently some people just don't appreciate good seafood.

That's a bit unfair to Charles, after all, he is a hero of the Cod War.

Very true, to this day, little children all over Britain, and perhaps beyond, mention him in their nightly prayers. He saved western Europe, perhaps more, from being plunged into a new dark age at the hands of a wave of Icelandic Viking berserkers. One day they fish for your cod, before you know it they are sacking London