Sacred Profanity
This year, a new blasphemy law took effect in Ireland. How do they define blasphemy?
...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, with some defences permitted.
Somewhat vague, but it sure seems that any general insult to or criticism of a religion could potentially get you up on charges.
I happen to believe that freedom of speech is a basic human right, and part of that freedom is the right to insult religion. In America, that last sentence isn't especially provocative, but it's quite controversial almost everywhere else.
I don't know exactly how the law wil be applied. I'm guessing garden variety insults will be ignored. But that's half the problem--you always have to watch what you say, because you'll never know when you go over the line.
Ireland (and Europe in general) has had blasphemy laws for a while. Indeed, the most fascinating thing about this new law is the reason for updating it:
The justice minister, Dermot Ahern, said that the law was necessary because while immigration had brought a growing diversity of religious faiths, the 1936 constitution extended the protection of belief only to Christians.
So we need to be fair in our unfairness.
Many liberal types across the pond oppose this law, as they should. But many of them favor laws against hate speech. This seriously undercuts their argument. Once the government is allowed to play referee as to what insults are allowable, then you're not acting on principles, but merely on what's politically acceptable at the time.
PS In a related issue, a Dutch court will hear a case where a high public official is charged with inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims.
Whenever people say we should be more like Europe, I wonder what they're thinking.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:27 AM
6 Comments:
This is from a nation where a woman mentioning a see through nightie on a 1960s TV talk show was nearly prosecuted for obscenity and birth control was illegal. The church has long arms
"The church has long arms"
The Catholic Church certainly had great power in Irish politics from the time of its independence all the way until the 1990s.
But you need to read some recent history (or some modern Irish newspapers) to see how much that's not the case anymore. The collapse of the Catholic Church as a political force in Ireland in the past two decades is unprecedented in Europe except in cases of political force being used. (The collapse in Spain after 1975 was faster, but that was because it was in an artificial position before 1975.)
This law, like all the recent European laws of a similar nature, is primarily designed to prohibit anti-Muslim acts. And -- speaking cynically -- the real purpose behind them is not that the powers-that-be really care if Sean O'Grady mocks Muhammad, but that they are aware that if the courts don't punish Sean, individuals will.
In other words, they are not choosing codified anti-blasphemy law over true freedom. They are choosing choosing codified anti-blasphemy law over violent anti-blasphemy vigilantism.... and crossing their fingers that the former will prevent the latter.
Whenever people say we should be more like Europe, I wonder what they're thinking.
The United States is not faced with anywhere near the same quantity of assimilation-resistant Muslim immigrants as Europe is. (In France, for instance, the highly secular and sexualized culture still controls all the good parts in all the cities; Algerian immigrants move straight to slums and live there for generations. In America, in contrast, the relatively high level of religiosity among the Christian majority is ironically a comfort to many Muslim immigrants.)
But, facing the same problem, I think American liberals would choose the same solution as their European brethren. Consider their choices: (1) Massively curtail immigration. (2) Entice or coerce immigrants to conform to the local culture. (3) Allow immigrants to punish blasphemy and honor violations by violent vigilantism. (4) Limit the free-speech rights of people who are prejudiced and racist and "insensitive".
1, 2, and 3 are anathema to American liberals. The New Left in the 1960s showed it was quite comfortable with censoring its opponents and even the "working class" it claimed to love, and many elements of the New Left have influenced American liberal politics since the late 1970s. Can there be much doubt that, given this unpleasant choice, they would choose # 4, just as the liberals in Europe have?
Of course there's also (5) Severely punish incidents of vigilantism. It's not clear to me why that is off the table. Perhaps the post-modern mind considers this to be a form of cultural imperialism (i.e. # 2)?
By the way, I suspect that in places such as Scandinavia, the after-effect of centuries of racism, culminating in the Holocaust, is a big factor here. It seems that a clear majority of Scandinavians, even those far too young to remember the old days, hold as the very first moral axiom that "prejudice is wrong". Now, I too consider prejudice to be wrong, but I honestly don't know how I could defend that proposition if I had to start with the kind of postmodern relativist ethics that are evident whenever these people try to address any other moral question. So I'm guessing this axiom is now a knee-jerk cultural axiom, rather than resulting from rational analysis.
Discussing religion at all in the slightest negative way on TV or movies was simply not allowed up through the 1960s. This wasn't just unofficial practice, it was officially prohibited by the Production Code and TV's standards and practices. These grew out of early Supreme Court decisions that said movies weren't covered by the First Amendment and broadcasting decisions that declared scarcity of channels allowed government intervention. We can see how unfortunate these decisions were, but the rules have changes since the 1970s so that people (even in entertainment) may say whatever they choose against religion or other matters (within the bound of social propriety, but that's not actionable). Unfortunately, during the same period, Europe, with no codified First Amendment (or their own version of a First Amendment which is full of holes and controlled by the courts) has decided to move in the direction of less freedom of speech. Liberals in America, who have moved in the direction of less freedom too since the 60s, when they realized their freedom was no longer threatened, look across the sea with envy.
It all boils down to the evolution of men. We are barbarics which will never get to see eye to eye.
Post a Comment
<< Home