
Iceland makes blasphemy legal - teh_klev
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33378778
======
s_dev
In Ireland blasphemy was made a crime in 2009! There was a provision in the
constitution that mandated it be defined but politicians never got around to
it which kind of left it an open ended question but decided it would be a good
idea to follow through on the provision and define it.

Atheist Ireland campaigned against it as Ireland as it was being introduced as
Ireland was clearly becoming more secular and non religious and yet we were
introducing religious laws and leaving its Catholic past behind.

It was controversial internationally because Ireland is an advanced Western
country and then Pakistan literally lifted the wording straight from Irish law
and implemented in their own law which granted the action some legitimacy.

That said the law actually has no teeth and was challenged by Michael Nugent
of AI who released 25 blasphemous statements to show that he'd never be
convicted. [http://atheist.ie/2010/01/25-blasphemous-
quotations/](http://atheist.ie/2010/01/25-blasphemous-quotations/)

Its an interesting selection as Jesus and Mohammed, the Pope and a slew of
comedians, politicians and creatives are quoted.

~~~
gjm11
Ireland held a "Constitutional Convention" to consider this and a bunch of
other changes. They decided to introduce referenda on some of them, including
removing the requirement for blasphemy to be illegal. So far they've held
referenda on reducing the age at which a person becomes eligible to be
president (result: rejected by a large majority) and on permitting same-sex
marriage (result: accepted by a sizeable majority). There is not likely to be
a referendum on blasphemy until after the general election in 2016.

------
sker
Meanwhile New Zealand will put you in jail for offending someone on the
Internet:

[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11473545)

~~~
veb
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I've lived here all my life and I
didn't realise this had been passed.

"A new offence will now be created of sending messages or posting material
online that were intended to cause harm, and did so."

Really worrying, that. If I were to say, "NZ's National Party government is
really shitty, and everyone reading this should not ever come to NZ, ever!"
and people listened, does that mean I just caused... harm to a political
party? It's so vague and stupid it's not funny! Ahhhhh!

EDIT: If anyone is interested in a write up about this;
[http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2015/0702.shtml](http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2015/0702.shtml)

------
_stephan
In Germany we have this law:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law#Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law#Germany)

------
austenallred
Kind of crazy that it wasn't already legal, to be honest

~~~
kzhahou
Not the same thing, but I'm always perplexed that the normally free-expression
country of Germany prohibits Nazi symbols and salutes.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a)

You'll even go to jail if your DOG does a nazi salute!!
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dogs-nazi-
sal...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dogs-nazi-salute-lands-
owner-in-jail-for-five-months-766438.html)

~~~
astrobe_
When something can't do any good to anyone, but rather the contrary, it makes
sense to forbid or restrict it.

~~~
benkuykendall
Do you really believe that?

"Can't bring any good to anyone" is such a low bar for making something
illegal. I understand restrictions in the case that an action actively hurts
someone, but only permitting actions that the government deems good is a
worrisome trend.

Even if an action appears to do some small harm, I would argue it is often
more harmful to ban it. A ban suggests enforcement and punishment, and in
marginal cases, the cost of banning an action can be greater than the reward
of its absence.

Finally, some people believe that the ability to determine for oneself whether
an action is good is a benefit in its own right. I for one would much prefer
for the government not to tell me with such absolute certainty the morality of
my expressions.

Just my personal stance.

~~~
astrobe_
> Do you really believe that?

I do, but it's not important. I was trying to state the average point of view
of European countries.

> "Can't bring any good to anyone" is such a low bar for making something
> illegal

Perhaps the wrong wording, but by this I meant "obviously" bad actions.
Driving while being drunk doesn't right away cause harm (if you're lucky
enough), but it is dangerous and therefore unacceptable. Hate speech doesn't
cause direct harm because "that's just words after all", but hatred is
dangerous and spreading it is considered not acceptable by a majority of
people.

> I for one would much prefer for the government not to tell me with such
> absolute certainty the morality of my expressions

Individual rights and the rights of the People are in conflict (e.g. the right
to go naked versus the right not to have to see you naked). In democratic
countries, it is solved by letting the people vote laws to strike a balance
between the two. At least in theory, it's not the government that tells you
what moral and what is not: it's the people around you.

------
sorokod
Shouldn't it be "Iceland abolished blasphemy" ?

~~~
mryan
No. The act of blasphemy has not been abolished, but it is no longer a crime.

Blasphemy is subjective. What is blasphemy to one person is common sense to
another.

------
ommunist
Aha, Britain demonizes Iceland because it allowed to hunt for banksters in
2013. And UK banksters are the most notorious.

