'Blasphemous libel' to be a criminal offence

Just two questions. Why? And why now?

Melancholicus was surprised to learn that, despite the reputation of Ireland’s Catholic past, blasphemy has never been a criminal offence in this country.

One would have thought that in this secular age, and in the midst of the most serious economic downturn the State has seen since its inception, the last thing required to occupy the attention of government ministers would be legislation introducing a new offence of ‘blasphemous libel’.

Melancholicus is not impressed.

For the past two hundred years it has ever been the fashion for the rulers of the States, as embodying the temporal power, to pretend incompetence in matters spiritual in order to excuse themselves from the obligations attendant upon adherence to the Christian religion: this, that they might be unfettered in their rule by the doctrines of any Church, whether Catholic or Protestant, and that they might appeal to both by appealing to neither.

The notion of the agnostic or atheistic State was condemned by the Popes down to the middle of the twentieth century.

Then in the 1960s there occurred an Event^TM which saw the holy Church turn turkey and completely reverse her position, in which religious liberty for all and sundry was ebulliently proclaimed from the basilica of St. Peter’s, and enshrined for Modern Man^TM in Dignitatis Humanae.

So if even the Catholic Church herself now prescinds from the notion of the confessional State, what business does an elected politician—here today, gone tomorrow—have in prescribing penalties for controversies touching upon religious matters?

How ironic, that the same State which confessed itself agnostic in matters religious these many years past suddenly claims to know what blasphemy is, how to sniff it out, and how best to punish it when detected.

When Melancholicus first heard of this proposed law, and once he had retrieved his jaw from its recumbent position on the floor, he wondered if it might not actually be a good thing. The Irish media, and not least RTÉ, have for unnumbered years made a sport out of baiting doctrines, practices and persons associated with Catholicism, not least the Holy Father himself. It would not be at all unpleasant if a stop were to be put to such odious practices.

Melancholicus has read grossly offensive articles in daily newspapers in which the writer’s treatment even of our Divine Saviour and His Blessed Mother has appalled him. But instead of going out rioting and setting cars on fire and taking up a scimitar to start beheading people, Melancholicus’ response has been simply to stop reading, or to say a prayer for the smug, self-satisfied writer—or at the most, to submit a letter of complaint to the paper concerned.

Then he realised he was deluding himself by believing that this might redress the current state of open season against the religion he himself professes. The proposed law will be of no benefit whatsoever to Christians. It is now many decades since the government of this country pretended concern for the welfare of Christians and for the integrity of the religion they profess. The relentless spiteful, sarcastic and mocking attacks in the nation’s media on the religion of the majority of the nation’s citizens—attacks including ridicule and defamation which could certainly be regarded as blasphemous—has in recent years never been a cause of concern to the nation’s government.

So why start now? Has Dermot Ahern suddenly found God?

Blasphemy is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§2148) as “uttering against God—inwardly or outwardly—words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those “who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called” (2:7). The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death”. (This last sentence is as clear a condemnation of the religion of Mahomet as ever was written).

As Ireland is now what they call a ‘diverse’ and ‘multi-faith’ society, the Church’s definition of blasphemy is most certainly not that which will inform the proposed law. Instead, we find blasphemy now defined as matter “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”.

This law will not take a single step towards banishing anti-Christian prejudice from the airwaves and the printsheets. No, this law is being introduced in order to protect the Mahometan—or rather, to appease the Mahometan and thus protect the peace by forbidding any criticism of Mahomet, or the religion he founded, or the Qur’an, or the behaviour of those who practice that religion, lest there be disturbances against public order. For if anything which might offend Mahometans be prohibited by the new law against blasphemous libel, perhaps they shall not riot if they see the offender punished by the full rigors of the law.

Melancholicus rather doubts that. The Mahometan will riot anyway because it is in his nature to do so. Perhaps by saying so Melancholicus has himself uttered blasphemy—at least according to how Dermot Ahern might define it.

From The Irish Times:

Crime of blasphemous libel proposed for Defamation Bill

CAROL COULTER, Legal Affairs Editor

A NEW crime of blasphemous libel is to be proposed by the Minister for Justice in an amendment to the Defamation Bill, which will be discussed by the Oireachtas committee on justice today.

At the moment there is no crime of blasphemy on the statute books, though it is prohibited by the Constitution.

Article 40 of the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech, qualifies it by stating: “The State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

“The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent material is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”

Last year the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of Fianna Fáil TD Seán Ardagh, recommended amending this Article to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafting the Article along the lines of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression.

The prohibition on blasphemy dates back to English law aimed at protecting the established church, the Church of England, from attack. It has been used relatively recently to prosecute satirical publications in the UK [Although Melancholicus has no knowledge of such matters, he guesses Private Eye as a likely victim of that law. The ironic thing is that the Church of England now, more than at any other period of her history, most fully deserves a thoroughgoing lampooning].

In the only Irish case taken under this article, Corway -v- Independent Newspapers, in 1999, the Supreme Court concluded that it was impossible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists” [and the Supreme Court is impeccably correct since its judgement is not informed by adherence to one religion or another].

It also stated that a special protection for Christianity was incompatible with the religious equality provisions of Article 44 [indeed. Denial of special protection for Christianity ipso facto confers that special protection to other religions, of which Mahometanism will no doubt be the chief beneficiary].

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern proposes to insert a new section into the Defamation Bill, stating: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000.” [That’s rather steep. To deter those who persist in warning the western world about the grave threat posed by Islam, perhaps?]

“Blasphemous matter” is defined [by whom, precisely?] as matter “that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, [pay attention... here’s the meat] thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; [of what religion, gentle reader, do “a substantial number of adherents” become outraged when confronted with ‘blasphemous’ matter? It ain’t Catholicism. When was the last time Catholics rioted because an off-colour journalist made some off-colour remark about the Pope or about the doctrines of the faith? When was the last time a film-maker was murdered by outraged Catholics after a piece of his work which reflected badly on the Church was screened by RTÉ?] and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.” [One thinks at once of the Motoons, and perhaps indeed those who drafted this definition even had the Motoons in mind when they did so]

Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may issue a warrant authorising the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary using reasonable force, a premises where the member of the force has reasonable grounds for believing there are copies of the blasphemous statements in order to seize them [in order that books, pamphlets, other writings, images, video footage, computer disks or any other media containing criticism of Islam may be seized and destroyed. Melancholicus wonders if it will even be an offence to download Pat Condell’s videos for personal use].

Labour spokesman on justice Pat Rabbitte is proposing an amendment to this section which would reduce the maximum fine to €1,000 and exclude from the definition of blasphemy any matter that had any literary, artistic, social or academic merit.

The Legal Affairs Editor of The Irish Times clearly disapproves of the proposed law. Melancholicus cannot blame her.

Religion of Peace update: Qur’anic protection racket in the Philippines

From Catholic World News:

"Muslim warriors" threaten bishop in Philippines

Manila, Jul. 24, 2008 (CNA/CWNews.com) - A Catholic bishop in the southern Philippines’ Basilan province has received a letter from self-described “Muslim warriors,” possibly linked to Abu Sayyaf, who are threatening him with harm if he does not convert to Islam or pay “Islamic taxes.”

Further, authorities are seeking the return of three adults and two children, all Catholics, who were kidnapped in the same area this week.

On July 19 Bishop Martin Jumoad of Isabela sent a copy of the threatening letter to Church-run Radio Veritas in Quezon City, UCA News reports. Bishop Jumoad told UCA News that a student at Claret College in Isabela was told to give the letter to the school secretary who could pass it along to the bishop.

The writers of the letter claimed to be “Muslim warriors” who “don't follow any laws other than the Qur'an.” They say the bishop should convert to Islam or pay the Islamic tax, called a jizya, to their group in exchange for protecting him “in the place of Muslims.” If the bishop refuses, the letter threatened, “force, weapons or war may be used” against him. Citing bombings in other Philippines cities, the letter said he should not feel safe even if protected by soldiers.

Bishop Jumoad was given two mobile cell phone numbers and told he had fifteen days to respond. The letter bore the two names “Puruji Indama” and “Nur Hassan J. Kallitut,” both of whom were titled “Mujahiddin.” The letter was accompanied by a letterhead in the local dialect that said “Al-Harakatul Islamiyya.” The bishop said he has seen the phrase “Al-Harakatul” in kidnapping incidents in Basilan involving the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf. He also reported that other Catholics have said they are receiving threatening letters. “Bishop, we are disoriented and we cannot sleep. What is our reaction to this?" they have reportedly said.

On July 21 the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines’’ CBCP News reported that three adults and two children who are members of a parish in Basilan had been kidnapped from a public jeep. Provincial administrator Talib A. Barahim on Tuesday told UCA News that no one has reported receiving a ransom demand.

Muslims who commit violence were rebuked at a joint conference between Catholic bishops and Muslim scholars on Monday in Manila, where Hamid Barra, the Muslim convener of the conference, underlined Islamic belief in the sacredness of life.

“It is God who gave life; he is the only one authorized to take life,” he said.

Barra, an Islamic law expert, explained that non-Muslims protected by an Islamic state are required to pay the jizya tax, which is used to support the needy, but no such payment is required in a non-Islamic state.

As these events are taking place in the far-off Philippines, an exotic foreign land which Melancholicus (and presumably most of his readers) has never visited, we tend to read these stories, frown disapprovingly, perhaps say a prayer for the unfortunate victims, and then forget all about it.

But how long, gentle reader, before similar events begin taking place in western countries? There are already places much closer to home in which hot-headed fanatics and Qur’anic bullyboys feel themselves entitled to behave whatever way they want towards the indigenous inhabitants without fear of rebuke from the law—or if the law gets too close for their liking, they look forward to the day in which they can overturn western democracies and install their hideous sharia.

These fanatics cannot be reasoned with, and they are no respectors of persons, property, laws or custom; there is only one language that they understand. The west keeps making the mistake that these people think as we do, that their reasoning processes and our reasoning processes are identical. Not so. With them there is no such thing as human rights or human dignity, never mind religious liberty. Whatever they find in their Qur’an—or think they find in their Qur’an—is used as an excuse which justifies all kinds of inhuman and criminal behaviour.

Under Islam, as under Communism, there is no “opt-out” clause exempting non-Muslims from the dreary yet violent Orwellian society these savages would impose upon us if we let them. It has happened in parts of Nigeria, and in parts of the Philippines also. Sharia is already clandestinely practiced in Britain, and the situation has become so grave that sections of the British government are giving serious consideration to recognising ‘aspects’ of sharia in British life. More fool they if they do.

Notice that at the conference in Manila referred to at the end of the story, the Mahometans wheel out one Hamid Barra, a “moderate”, who obligingly wrings his hands and deplores the violence, cocksure that all us dhimmis will be reassured that Islam really is a religion of peace after all, and that its violence is an aberration.

Melancholicus is not impressed by these “moderates”. In his eyes they are just as guilty as the terrorists for whom they make excuses.

Why do they not condemn the Islamofascists? Why do they do nothing to stop them?

It is because they too are Islamofascists. They are in agreement with the aims of the extremists. They are just more subtle regarding the means whereby those aims are to be achieved.

The difference is only in degree, not in kind.

Where are those 138 signatories of that letter for peace now?

Indeed, where are they?

From Catholic World News:

Iraqi bishop begs help for Christian minority

Milan, Jun. 2, 2008 (CWNews.com) - "Do not leave us isolated and abandoned," an Iraqi bishop pleaded as he accepted an award for defending the faith.

Archbishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk received the Defensor Fidei prize in Milan for his activities on behalf of Iraq's embattled Christian minority. In his acceptance speech he urged international pressure on Iraq to protect Christians in the face of Islamic pressure, the AsiaNews service reported. The Chaldean Catholic prelate said that the Church is Iraq is threatened by a "terminal exodus" of Christians, as the result of "ethnic-religious cleansing" by Muslim zealots. He begged Christians in the Western world to "take stock of the seriousness" of the situation, and "apply diplomatic and political pressure to the United States, the Iraqi government, and also to the countries that support the Islamization of Iraq."

Archbishop Sako spoke at length about the Christians who have fled from Iraq and now live, often under desperate conditions, in neighboring countries. After centuries of faithful witness in Iraq, he said, the Christian presence must be preserved.

Those 138 allegedly ‘moderate’ Islamic leaders who signed that much-hyped letter for peace addressed to Christian leaders last October are of course silent in the face of the bitter persecution of the Christian minority in Iraq as in other countries. This is because the Mahometans, just like conciliar bishops, will never act against the infamies perpetrated by their own unless compelled to do so by some sufficiently powerful third party.

Amnesty International is likewise silent on matters such as this; apparently, being persecuted for bearing the name of Christ is not as egregious a violation of one’s human rights as to be persecuted for belonging to such and such an ethnic group, or to such and such a sect within Mahometanism. Melancholicus has trawled the Amnesty website, has found much evidence of the appalling horrors and miseries to which human beings are subjected in places without number all over the world, but there is hardly any mention of the persecutions and hardships suffered by Christians on a routine basis in Mahometan lands. Amnesty is more concerned with the welfare of the inmates of Guantanamo (islamist combatants and budding terrorists to a man) than with the fate of ordinary Christian people in some of these God-forsaken places.

But this silence coming from an organisation which promotes abortion as a woman’s right is not really surprising, is it?

Will they or won’t they?

Melancholicus rather thinks they won’t. But who knows? After all, stranger things have happened. Allegedly.

From Catholic World News:

Saudis again weigh building Catholic church

Riyadh, May. 12, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has renewed talks with Saudi Arabian leaders about the possible construction of a Catholic church in that country, Vatican Radio reports.

Vatican officials have confirmed that in November 2007, when King Abdullah became the first reigning Saudi monarch to visit the Vatican, he was pressed by Pope Benedict about the possibility of allowing a parish for the estimated 800,000 Catholics -- mostly foreign laborers -- who now live in Saudi Arabia. Although Saudi law does not allow public worship for followers of any faith other than Islam, King Abdullah reportedly signaled his willingness to consider building a Catholic parish church.

In March an influential Saudi leader -- the president of the Middle East Center for Strategic Studies, Anwatr al Oshqi -- announced that the government had decided against proceeding with plans for a Catholic church. That announcement was unofficial, but because it was broadcast by a television station controlled by the Saudi royal family, it was widely interpreted as an authoritative signal that the matter was closed. But Vatican Radio now reports that the conversations continue several weeks later.

How does one say “we’ll let you know” in Arabic?

There is no way that Saudi Arabia — the home of Wahhabi extremism — will ever permit the construction of a Catholic church within the borders of the same country which contains the centre of the universe. When all is said and done, no outward expression of any religion other than Mohammedanism is permitted in that country. There are no churches. Christians are forbidden to gather for common prayer, even in private homes. The importing of Bibles, missals, and prayer books of any description is outlawed. It is unlawful to use a rosary, or to have one in one’s possession. One may not wear a cross, crucifix, miraculous medal, scapular or anything of that nature in Saudi Arabia. The Islamist ethos of that country is all pervasive, and non-Muslims cannot help but know their place in such a society.

However, if God wills that a church to His honour and glory be constructed in that unbelieving land, so shall it be. It will probably be a humble edifice, devoid of steeple, cross, bells and the like — and probably devoid of windows also — and who knows how long it will last before being firebombed or blasted to smithereens by jihadi fanatics?

We await the outcome of this one. But Melancholicus will not be holding his breath.

Orwellian society update: anglican bishop forced to undergo "re-education"

From Catholic World News:

Anglican bishop fined for refusing gay youth worker

London, Feb. 12, 2008 (CWNews.com) - An Anglican bishop has been ordered to pay a heavy fine and undergo “equal-opportunies training” for refusing to approve the hiring of an openly homosexual man for a post in youth ministry.

The Cardiff Employment Tribunal on February 11 settled a discrimination case against Bishop Anthony Priddis of Hereford, ordering the bishop to £47,435 (about $92,000) in compensatory damages to John Reaney, who had complained that the bishop denied him a job as a youth worker because of his sexual orientation. The tribunal ordered that officials of the Hereford diocese who are engaged in hiring employees — including the bishop — should be given training to make them more sensitive to homosexual applicants.

Bishop Priddis said that he may appeal the panel’s ruling.

Let us expose this “equal opportunities training” for what it is: nothing more or less than brainwashing. It is an indoctrination of the kind practiced by communists seeking in a less than gentle manner to wean straying souls away from dangerous counter-revolutionary ideas. Not as overtly violent or psychologically damaging, to be sure, but the principle is exactly the same.

With whom is Oceania at war? Is it Eurasia or Eastasia? Melancholicus does not know, and he doubts that bishop Priddis knows either, but after the equal-ops nazis have done their work, the good bishop will probably be ready to parrot, without a trace of irony, whatever “truths” the henchmen of Ingsoc wish him to.

While Melancholicus does not know the details of this case beyond what has been included in the CWN story quoted above, he would be interested to discover if Mr. Reaney were refused employment solely on the grounds of his sexual proclivities, or if there were other reasons.

But it makes no difference. For once a “minority” of any stripe is refused employment on any grounds whatever, the good people of the middle class, politically correct social elite will assume immediately that such refusal can only be on foot of majoritarian discrimination.

Because Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.