Ateistët e Irlandës sfidojnë ligjin për blasfemi

Atheist Ireland protests blasphemy law

A group of Irish atheists are using the words of Bjork and Mark Twain to protest a blasphemy law that went into effect on New Year's Day.

Atheist Ireland has published a book of 25 "blasphemous" quotations in response to a new law that slaps a $35,800 fine on blasphemers, CNN reports.

The group has labeled the law "silly and dangerous" for its capacity to inspire religious violence.

The quotes include, among others, sayings from Jesus, Mohammed, Mark Twain, Salman Rushdie and Bjork.

"Despite these quotes being abusive and insulting in relation to matters held sacred by various religions, we unreservedly support the right of these people to have published or uttered them," the group wrote on their web site, where the list was published on Friday.

"We unreservedly support the right of any Irish citizen to make comparable statements about matters held sacred by any religion without fear of being criminalized, and without having to prove to a court that a reasonable person would find any particular value in the statement."

The law was passed by the predominantly Catholic country in July, but was not implemented until January 1, 2010.

According to the law, a person can be fined if they say or write anything 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."

Guilty parties may, however, prove that what they have said or published has literary, artistic, political, scientific or academic merit, the law says.

Atheist Ireland is demanding that the Irish government repeal the law and that a referendum is called to clear the Irish constitution. of all references to God.

ndiq nyjen

Ireland to vote on blasphemy ban

Ireland's justice minister has announced there will be a referendum on whether to maintain the country's controversial law against blasphemy.

The law, intended to prevent people from abusing or insulting any faith, has outraged civil libertarians and atheists since it was passed by parliament in July last year and was introduced in January.

The legislation defines blasphemy as: publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion.

The Irish government said the law was necessary because the 1936 constitution only protected Christians.

Reverend James Haire, a professor of theology with Charles Sturt University, says it was argued the law needed to be expanded to include a growing population of immigrants with diverse religions.

"Ireland has had a very considerable migration of people of non-Christian faith since days of the Irish Celtic tiger, the economic boom, especially people from Eastern Europe and from Asia and Africa," he said.

"That and also the decline of the influence of the Catholic Church in the Republic of Ireland ... has led to an idea that these should be introduced."

But when the ban came into force in January, secular campaigners immediately challenged it by publishing anti-religious quotes.

No-one has yet taken action against them using the new laws, and the government has now decided to hold a referendum on whether to scrap them altogether.

Terry O'Gorman, the president of the Australian Civil Liberties Council, says he can understand the outrage.

"They represent an unacceptable infringement of free speech," he said.

Mr O'Gorman says he is also concerned about a proposal for a global blasphemy ban that was put to the United Nations last year.

"The UN has absolutely no business trying to restrict the expression of ideas and that's what those who want blasphemy laws are all about," he said.

"They want to restrict criticism, even offensive criticism, of either the head of their religion or of certain aspects of their religion."

Some religious groups are also not keen to see such a law introduced in Australia or at the UN.

Jeremy Jones, with the Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Council, says he thinks blasphemy laws are too complex and difficult to get right.

"Often with blasphemy laws it's not about people who are being protected it's about a belief system," he said.

Lyle Shelton, from the Australian Christian lobby, says blasphemy and anti-vilification laws are unnecessary and unhelpful.

"I don't think there's any need for it in Australia," he said.

"We already do have these anti-vilification laws in several states, including Victoria. Where it's been tested, it's just made a farce of the law and I don't think Australians want to see that repeated.

"I think we do want to live in a tolerant society [but] there's going to be criticism of religions from time to time.

"Christianity was vilified significantly last week by the atheist conventions. That's fine. That's their right in a free society. I don't think we should be taking them to court for it."

Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act was passed in 2002 and has also been criticised as being too restrictive on the freedom of speech.

But Dr Helen Szoke, the commissioner for the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, says the laws value cultural diversity and encourage racial and religious tolerance.

"If your listeners think about what it would be like to have someone actually in a public space basically saying you people deserve to die, your faith group is completely off the mark," she said.

"[Saying] I'm going to actively seek to wipe you from the Earth, it's that kind of severity that we're talking about when we talk about vilification.

"It's ridiculous to suggest that we as a society should have a right protected to actually incite hatred against another group."

The Irish referendum on the blasphemy laws will be held towards the end of the year.

ndiq nyjen