In defense of the introduction of this law, the Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern said back in May that due to the fact blasphemy is an offence in the Irish Constitution (again highlighting the pervasive influence of the Catholic Church in the founding of the Republic of Ireland) he was obliged to include it in an update of the defamation laws. To remove blasphemy from the constitution would require a referendum of the people of Ireland, and Mr Ahern reckoned that the “current economic environment” was not conducive to this.

The law does include a fairly broad get-out-of-jail clause, specifying that “It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates”. However one could argue that the number of “reasonable persons” in a world that outlaws blasphemy is questionable…

I personally found point 4 of this new law to be particularly interesting, where they attempt to distinguish between “religion” and mere “cults”.

“In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—

• the principal object of which is the making of profit, or

• that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—

• of its followers, or
• for the purpose of gaining new followers.”

I assume telling people they are going to live an eternity of torment and pain for not following your god counts as oppressive psychological manipulation, no?

• 

[gplayer href="http://skeptic.org.uk/archivemedia/bsl.mp3" ] K9 Magazine podcast [/gplayer]or download here.

He brings parallel arguments from his personal area of expertise and from the consequences of the inept and archaic Dangerous Dogs Act, an issue about which K9, DDA Watch and countless other organisations have mounted campaigns against, and an issue I’ve highlighted on this blog previously. O’Meara also queries whether the principles of Darwinian selection can be applied to thought, a line of reasoning which is perhaps not far removed from meme theory.

The lack of evidence and evidential quality involved in the policies O’Meara cites, is striking.

It is appalling, for instance, that an individual with no more than a few hours’ training can provide expert testimony in court alleging that a dog possesses the characteristics of a banned breed (and therefore apparently poses a danger and should be destroyed), despite the dog doing nothing wrong and potentially being of a completely different, ‘permitted’ breed.

It is then truly inexcusable when such testimony is accepted by a court without question.

This illogical, crass and ultimately cowardly decision making bears sinister similarity to the involvement of racial profiling in policing, an issue about which there has been great public discussion and political hesitancy. Certainly, considerable caution is used in exercising any type of racial profiling in the proactive identification and investigation of crime, yet the Dangerous Dogs Act, almost devoid of practical regulation, permits decisions of life and death to be made on exactly this basis.

With Prof. David Nutt being sacked for daring to question knowledge he believed to be unsubstantiated, the issue of the use (and abuse) of evidence in public policy is once again exposed for widespread public examination. Listening to any reasoned, considered commentary is certainly worthwhile and this is no exception.

• 

Perhaps once or twice every year, the broadcast or print media cover a story en masse relating to a dangerous dog or a breed which has been banned. In the UK, four breeds of dog were banned by the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA), one of which was the Pit Bull Terrier.

Superficially, introducing legislation allegedly intended for the protection of animals and humans would seem a rational and sensibly cautious measure, however this blunt and inconsistently applied legislation has caused the suffering of considerable numbers of animals and numerous humans, all at cost the public purse.

One of the most recent examples of the inconsistency with the DDA is the case of Bruce , who, without further intervention, is now due to die on Monday 6th July (three days from today) as a direct result of living in a part of Ireland where the Pit Bull breed is also banned.

- Bruce has been professionally identified as a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (a breed not banned by the DDA), not a Pit Bull terrier
- Bruce is completely innocent. Bruce has demonstrated no aggressive tendencies and has not harmed anyone.
- Bruce was taken from his family and impounded nearly two years ago, having sustained injuries and an amputated tail whilst in confinement
- Importantly, Bruce has received an offer of sanctuary from the East Galway Animal Rescue centre (EGAR), a specialist in bull breeds, where he could live comfortably for the rest of his natural life in an area where even Pit Bulls have not been banned.

Concerningly, while the court ignored the medical evidence demonstrating that Bruce was not a banned breed, the Kennel Club create ‘experts’ to identify banned Pit Bull breeds through a course lasting only three and a half hours.

The issues above are only the start of the inconsistencies with the DDA: its concept and enforcement are fundamentally flawed.

I’m planning to research and write an article on the misapplication of legislation but would be interested in cases you feel exemplify this. Please do leave comments below or email me at digest [at] skeptic.org.uk.

In the mean time, please do spare a thought for Bruce. His campaign could benefit greatly from further support. The following page provides a little more information and a link to a petition, campaigning to permit his safe passage to the East Galway sanctuary.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1513-Philadelphia-Dog-Advocate-Examiner~y2009m6d4-Can-social-networking-save-Bruce-the-pit-bull

EDIT 20/07/2009: It appears there is now confusion about whether the law regarding the DDA in Northern Ireland is in fact identical to the law in place in the UK. The situation for Bruce arose as a result of the alleged differences but it appears UK and Irish legislation may have been identical for the last eight years, yet no-one with responsibility realised. To follow this story and its developments, look at K9 magazine and subscribe to their free email newsletter here (top right).

• 

The government has put forward an an amendment to the current Criminal Justice Bill abolishing the offence of blasphemy and this has been passed by the House of Lords. The rather interesting debate is reported at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80305-0005.htm (scroll three quarters of the way down and click on “next section” to continue)

I will be discusss this development at the talk at Skeptics at the Pub on 15 April 2008.

Do let me have any thoughts.

Best wishes,

David

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=24240495280

• 

This is a long one as there’s lots on in April…

Firstly, we’re all happy to announce that we’ve had successful year so far. SitP has had an article in both Nature and the Londonist’s websites and have also been awarded “Top 50 best London websites” and “Top 10 best London communities” by Time Out magazine. Thanks to everyone who has helped us over the last 9 years, 100 Skeptics in the Pubs and have lent support by coming each month to make us one of the best communities in all Ye Olde London towne.

On the 15th April, our resident lawyer and skeptic, David Green, will be giving us the lowdown on how the law handles the issues of belief and non-belief through the courts. It will range from The repeal of The Fraudulent Mediums Act to blasphemy. Full details below.

Date: 15th April
Time: 7.00pm
Location: The Penderels Oak (Cellar Bar), Holborn
Title:
The Skeptic in the Courtroom

This talk will address, in an objective and balanced manner, how the law deals with certain controversial issues of belief and non-belief. Prompted by recent developments, the talk wil explore whether the courtroom is really the appropriate forum for settling disputes that relate to controversial issues of belief and non-belief.

For example, the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, the last remnant of the old witchcraft legislation, is to be repealed in April 2008. Mediums and psychics will now be under a new and modern legal regime in respect of any unfair commercial practices. But how will these new sanctions work in practice? Will mediums and psychics who adopt questionable practices be more or less likely to face legal action?

The ancient common law offence of blasphemy may also soon be abolished. A recent High Court decision has effectively narrowed its scope in any case. There is the new offence of incitement to religious hatred. But can the legal process really deal with what can be questions of religious dispute?

Other examples of where the law grapples with issues of belief and non-belief include the “Evolution” trials in United States, the Holocaust denial trials, and when religious groups seek to incorporate aspects of religious law into more general legal systems.

The talk will describe and assess these and other legal developments, using practical examples. It will also offer practical suggestions for both skeptics and non-skeptics on how legal regimes may affect them.

David is a solicitor in London with wide experience of the communications, media and public sector fields. He is the author of the chapters on the restrictions that criminal law places on free speech in the current edition of Law and the Media.

————————-

As I mentioned at our April Fools’ special, James Randi will be giving a lecture at Conway Hall on the 19th April.

Guest Speakers will include:

Simon Singh

Ben Goldacre

Chris French

Susan Blackmore

Richard Wiseman

Details and tickets can be booked from here: http://skeptic.org.uk/randi/

————
Last, but not least; TAM regular, Phil Plait – otherwise know as the “Bad Astronomer” – will be having a get together in London while he’s over here filming about the particle accelerator at CERN (LHC) with Prof. Brian Cox of the University of Manchester. When I get details of the meeting place I’ll post them on The Skeptic Magazine News page.

Please feel free to forward this email on to anyone who would be interested in coming to any of these events.
You can always subscribe and unsubscribe from our website: http://www.skeptic.org.uk/pub

See you all soon.

Sid Rodrigues

•