Ireland's New Blasphemy Law: Say What?

Well, Bonnie and Ria, I think I've found a solution to all those nasty, hate-filled freepers who've been saying ugly things about Malia Obama. Ship them over to Ireland.
As of last week, Ireland has a new law on the books preventing blasphemous libel. Specifically, anyone who publishes or utters words that are "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," is now guilty of a criminal offense. They may be required to pay a fine of up to 25,000 Euros (approximately $35,000).

Ouch.

Apparently, the Irish Constitution requires some form of punishment for blasphemy, which dates back to English law originally designed to protect the established church (then the Church of England) from attack. Short of modifying the Constitution to eliminate or alter this procedure (which would require a referendum), the current government decided that it would be easier just to enact a law, which was folded under a broader defamation law reform.

But not a whole lot of people are buying into this logic. After all, the country muddled on for years without enacting this legislation, so why now? And while modifying the Constitution is costly, it's not unheard of. "We have referendums on the European Union, why not make it a two-fer?" one columnist for the Guardian effectively asks.

Many are concerned that -- as Donna pointed out here recently -- outlawing hate speech of any sort, including blasphemy, is a slippery slope. As one columnist from the Irish Examiner put it: "One man's blasphemy is another man's comedy classic." If the only metric for judging blasphemy is the magnitude of the outrage perceived by "a substantial portion of the adherents" of a religion, what constitutes "outrage" and how many adherents are enough?

Odder still, when a U.N. resolution was passed last December condemning defamation of religion, the Irish government voted against it, arguing that such a resolution could be used to justify arbitrary limitations on the freedom of expression. So what gives, Ireland? Are such strictures a constraint on free speech or are they a necessary protection?

Meanwhile, a grass-roots movement spearheaded by Atheist Ireland and backed by scientist, author (and atheist) Richard Dawkins, is gunning to have the new law overturned. As Dawkins says of the bill: "It is a wretched, backward, uncivilized regression to the Middle Ages. Who was the bright spark who thought to besmirch the revered name of Ireland by proposing anything so stupid?"

Say what you will about him, the man does have a way with words. I wonder what he'd say about the Freepers . . .