It seems as if the nation is set to jettison one more connection with the Middle Ages. It emerged this week that the Government will seek a referendum to remove the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution. The legal status of witches and necromancers remains unchanged.
Nobody much wanted the current legislation. Introduced as an amendment to the 2009 Defamation Act, the prohibition was intended to plug a legal gap while – to quote Dermot Ahern, then minister of justice – “we wait for an opportune moment to move a constitutional amendment”.
Nonetheless, an absurd state of affairs still exists in Ireland. The courts can fine you up to €25,000 for being rude about certain citizens’ personal beliefs. Specifically, the offence concerns behaviour “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion”.
Certain provisos were added. Works of literary, scientific or academic value get some leeway. The wording makes an attempt to exclude more barmy cults from protection.
It remains the case that one (admittedly large and varied) class of philosophy – that which allows a supernatural creator – has been granted protection not afforded any other system of thinking. Were you to make lewd jokes about Karl Marx, no Marxist sect would have any recourse to law (nor should they). If you felt the urge to stage plays portraying Sigmund Freud as an impaler of babies, then no legislation would stand in your way (nor should it).
Rampaging secularism
For all the talk of rampaging secularism,
[ religious people are still accorded a respect not grantedOpens in new window ]
those who do not permit the supernatural into their lives. Such people can, moreover, decide for themselves what is and what is not offensive. That’s the nature of religion. If you, as a Forest Deacon, decide the Acorn of Plenty – eaten on the Festival of the Squirrel God – is a sacred item, who am I to question its place in your philosophy? If, as part of my silly art installation, I display the blasted thing suspended in my own urine then I should expect the full force of the law to pursue me into bankruptcy.
I am being only slightly facetious here. To gather the maximum penalty, you and your Sylvan followers would need to have established your religion some time ago. The court would, presumably, have to be convinced that a longstanding tradition had been knowingly and maliciously debased. To be fair, good intentions drove the legislation. For many years, only the Catholic Church was protected by the Constitution. The amendment sought – until all notion of blasphemy could be excised – to extend that protection to Jews, Hindus, Muslims and the rest.
Faithful elevated
It remains the case that the faithful are elevated above others in the eyes of the law. Such blasphemy edicts hang around the implicit argument that religion – like race, sexuality or disability – is
[ burnt into a person’s metabolismOpens in new window ]
. We are being told that there is more to religion than mere belief. To offer insult to the tenets of Catholicism or Islam is, by this logic, akin to berating somebody for being African or Chinese. Yet you can, at any stage, choose to stop being a Methodist or a Snake Handler. This is not the case with race.
People, quite properly, enjoy the music, traditions and art associated with their community’s religion. Nobody should be discriminated against because of his or her personal philosophy (whether religious or not). Hate crimes will, of course, continue to be prosecuted.
There can, however, be no justification in a modern society for prohibiting analysis – however offensive – of a belief. It would be wrong to say religious doctrines are “merely” ideas. The theory of natural selection is an idea. The belief in universal suffrage is an idea. There is no “merely” about it. These things can matter very much. Here’s the crux. If an idea is worth holding then it can stand up to the most robust battering from the least respectful opponents. Let’s be shot of this medieval legislation.
To Hong Kong barricades Something very serious is happening in Hong Kong. Huge numbers of protesters – many young and well-educated – have come out to oppose the Chinese government’s cynical scheme to subvert democracy. As is often the case, a popular song has emerged as the anthem of the movement.
It could have been We Shall Overcome. They might have picked Rage Against the Machine's Killing in the Name. No, the banners reference a tune from a 1980s musical that, after opening to iffy reviews, went on to become the most successful of all time. Do You Hear the People Sing from Les Misérables has echoed round the squares and been quoted on the banners. Let us hope the protesters fare better than those who participated in the 1832 Paris uprising at the heart of Victor Hugo's source novel. Worrying times.