The Irish Independent reports that the Gardaí (the Irish police) have launched a blasphemy probe into comments made by Stephen Fry (pictured left) on the television show The Meaning of Life:

Gardaí have launched an investigation after a TV viewer claimed comments made by Stephen Fry on an RTE show were blasphemous. Independent.ie can reveal that a member of the public reported the allegation to Ennis garda Station following a broadcast of ‘The Meaning of Life’, hosted by Gay Byrne, in February 2015.

The story has been picked up by the media, in Ireland and abroad – including the BBC, CBS, the [UK] Independent, the Irish Times, RTE, the Mail online, The Journal.ie the Sunday Times (sub req’d), the Observer, the Sunday Telegraph, and the Sydney Morning Herald.

The crime of blasphemy is provided for in section 36 of the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here). Subsection (1) provides that a “person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter” shall be guilty of an offence; anyone guilty of the offence is liable to a fine not exceeding €25,000.

Subsection (2) provides a threefold definition of when a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter.…

Read More »

On Sunday 10 January 2015, the Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) joined an array of world leaders and an estimated two million people at a rally in Paris against terrorism in the aftermath of the murderous attack on Charlie Hebdo. In Ireland, unfounded claims that the publication of Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed would amount to blasphemy at Irish law have led to several calls to repeal the blasphemy provisions in Article 40.6.1(i) of the Irish Constitution and section 36 of the Defamation Act, 2009.

However, despite his attendance at the Paris rally on Sunday 10 January 2015, not two days later on Tuesday 12 January 2015, the Taoiseach was insistent that a referendum on removing the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution will not be held during the lifetime of this Government. …

Read More »

I wrote the following as an OpEd for the University Times:

The attack on Charlie Hebdo, and the murders of ten journalists and two policemen, are not only a tragedy for the victims, their families, and their colleagues, but also an assault upon freedom of expression and the fabric of western democracy. The only appropriate response is to refuse to give in to such an outrage, and instead to support and exercise the fundamental freedoms for which the victims gave their lives.

It is therefore troubling that Dr Ali Selim – admittedly in response to a line of leading questions from a radio journalist – should threaten legal action against any Irish media outlet which chooses to publish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed which had been published by Charlie Hebdo. I assume that he has in mind the offence of blasphemy contained in section 36 of the Defamation Act, 2009. It was included in that Act to give effect to the constitutional requirement that the publication of “blasphemous … matter” should be a criminal offence. However, section 36 is very narrowly drawn, and its terms would not be satisfied by the publication of a Charlie Hebdo cartoon to illustrate a story on the attack on the magazine.…

Read More »

Yesterday was International Blasphemy Day (Facebook | twitter). According to a post I came across late yesterday evening on Media Law Prof Blog, the day

… was instituted after the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, came under fire in 2005 for publishing twelve cartoons that mocked the Prophet Mohammed. More here from the Campaign for Free Expression, here from the Telegraph, here from the Huffington Post.

In honour of the day (with apologies that it’s a day late), here’s an extract from a post on the Irish Philosophy blog about Ireland’s first recorded blasphemy trial:

Thomas Emlyn spent fourteen of his seventy-eight years in Dublin (1691-1705), but they were easily the most eventful of his life. He wrote his An Humble Inquiry into the Scripture Account of Jesus Christ as a result of events there. The result was his appearance as the … [defendant] in what “appears to have been the first reported blasphemy prosecution in Irish law” (UK Select Committee on Religious Offences in England and Wales First Report). …

blasphemy … was defined in the statute as … “a scornful and spiteful reproach uttered in designed contempt of God;” … The jury was pressured and despite his book not reaching the standard for blasphemy, and his authorship remaining unproven (the printer swore that he didn’t know the writing), Emlyn was found guilty.

Read More »