New crimes: from discrimination to blasphemy

[Skybird]

Some of the 25 quotes that I like best:

4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name – The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy – he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.

11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”

12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas – uncertainty, progress, change – into crimes.”

19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”

23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”

24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.

and finally these two slightly different:

25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.

Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.

And here is the 35 paged Defamation Act.
http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/eAct/2009/a3109.pdf

We have blasphemy laws in Finland too, people have even been thrown to jail for blasphemy against the christian church.

[Letum]

The English Blasphemy Law was abolished in 2008. Unlike SB and
OTHerring, I am free to say that God has three nipples, Mohammed stuck
beans up his nose and Vishnu smells like a goat.

One day the rest of the world will catch up. It's a matter of time.

Ed: not that one can be complacent about such things.

[Skybird]

Great Britain is object to EU anti discrimination laws. Thus you can be brought to court for saying something of wich soembody claims he feels offended in his precious religious feelings, Letum.

But not that it stops there. This totally idiotic law can be used to sue people for almost everything, over arbitrary claims. It opens opportunities for the most absurd charges you can think of. the argument that it will not be absued for that, does not count. It opens the legal door for it - and at court that is what counts.

Bleasphemy Laws abolished in 2008 yes or not - it does not matter, Letum. You're in the big one happy EU-family crowd type of boat now. The Blasphemy Law can't catch you. but the Anti-Discrimination Law can be used for the same effect. The EU has compelled Britain twice in the past two or three years to take back attempts to include exemptions from the EU set of A-D-laws that the EU found to be violating the law.

"The Eu loves you nevertheless - even if you hate it."

[NeonSamurai]

I am looking forward to when the religions start charging each other under the blasphemy laws.

[Letum]

SB: I am curious as to which bit of the EU's extensive anti-discrimination laws you think prevent me from blaspheming.

[Respenus]

Originally Posted by Letum

SB: I am curious as to which bit of the EU's extensive anti-discrimination laws you think prevent me from blaspheming.

The ECJ has taken an open interpretation of EU treaties, regulations and directives. Non-discrimination in the workplace (economy related) is enshrined in the founding treaties. About non-discrimination in general, I would need to take a closer look at exactly which EU directive is limited freedom of speech, although I think the ECHR would be a more appropriate place to be "afraid" of.

Now, I'm not saying every ECJ decision is a bad one, far from it. It's rulings have ensured the right of privileges of many an individual. The only problem is when one "false" decision destroys any sort of legitimacy and respect it might had earned before.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

SB: I am curious as to which bit of the EU's extensive anti-discrimination laws you think prevent me from blaspheming.

None, you can do whatever you want. You can also commit murder, if you want. The laws do not prevent you from doing it - but by the law you can be held legally responsible for it. Same is true with the anti-discrimination laws of the EU. they do not prevent you from voicing criticism that some believer claims to be blasphemic to his beliefs - but they allow that you will be charged for it. In the EU's understanding, if a believer claims to feel offended by your questions aboiut his faith, that already is discrimination.

It does not matter what your intention is, Letum, or whether you consider your deed or comment blasphemic or not. that the other claims it is blasphemy, or is offending, or is discrimination, is the criterion. Criticism of the EU time and again mentions that examples like this, the anti discrimination directive, reverse the burden of evidence, and that accusation now is valid proof of your guilt as long as you cannot prove that you are innocent.

In other words: it is censorship, plain and simple.

To be precise, though, what usually is called EU anti discrimination law is a legally binding directive that all member nations of the EU have to transform into national laws. It overrides existing national laws. To obey such EU directives is mandatory, which is one of the many problems with the EU, because obeying such directives leaves parliaments no choice - they have to wave it through, no matter national constitutions or concerns or not. From the perspective of the EU, EU directives are as good as direct, legally binding laws. EU directives translate into national law making.

In Germany, more than 80% of all national laws are enforced by EU directiuves, and Eu regulations. That number I learned for 2007, two years ago. with the dictate of Lisbon implemented now, it will become worse.