Friday

16th Apr 2021

Opinion

Irish defamation law and EU human rights

  • "Bad legislation has a tendency to spread" (Photo: Wikipedia)

On July 23, a new defamation law went into effect on Ireland.

The new legislation has made blasphemous speech illegal, which means that a citizen of the European Union can be punished for making a comment that is determined to be offensive to a substantial number of followers of a religion.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

The punishment of a fine, up to €25,000, can hardly be consistent with human-rights obligations under the EU treaties, and I have therefore filed a complaint to the European Commission.

Mandatory practicing of a religion is something that most of us associate with times long gone. But this is exactly what a blasphemy law amounts to. A statement is blasphemous only within a religious context, and the systematic avoidance of blasphemy is part of religious practice. Thus, a law against blasphemy is an obligation to live your life according to the religious beliefs of others.

Defining blasphemy as speech that offends a substational number of religious followers gives the churches the power to gradually expand the application of the law. A not too far-fetched guess is that statements threatening the power of religious leaders will awaken the strongest reactions and therefore be considered the most offensive ones, resulting in punishment by the state.

Article 6.1 in the current EU treaty establishes that the Union "is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the member states."

Free speech is a human right, a fundamental freedom and a necessary condition for democracy. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights describes free speech as everyone's right to freedom of expression and adds: "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

There is no obvious reason why free speech should not include the right to characterise religious views or symbols in a way that some might find offensive.

Countries with strong free-speech laws, such as Sweden, have reasons to worry about the Irish blasphemy legislation. The immediate concern is that Swedish citizens, while traveling within the European Union, can run into legal processes and be punished for merely expressing a view on a religion or religious symbol.

The less direct but more serious concern is that bad legislation has a tendency to spread. Once a restriction is in place in one European country it will quickly be legitimised, and politicians in other countries can point to it as they take away fundamental rights from their own citizens. The argument will be that if a developed Western society such as Ireland does it, it surely cannot be incompatible with democratic principles.

In worst case, the spread of blasphemy laws will be accelerated by EU initiatives.

We have already seen the European Union limit free speech to combat problems such as terrorism and racism. Mandatory blocking of websites that facilitate the sharing of banned material is now being discussed amongst ministers of justice, and it's only a matter of time until the French proposal to cut suspected file sharers off the internet is back on the EU agenda. Banning negative statements about religious symbols would certainly fit the European inclination to battle ideas with censorship.

The Irish legislation against blasphemy gives the EU Commission a chance to draw the lines against both online and offline censorship. Let us hope they grab the opportunity, because the obligations of the member states need to be clarified.

How harsh can free-speech restrictions be under a treaty demanding respect for freedom, democracy and human rights?

Karl Sigfrid is a conservative member of the Swedish Parliament

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

'Ethno-nationalism' is not way forward for Bosnia-Herzegovina

In Bosnia-Herzegovina, tempted by the allure of a 'deliverable', the EU, US, and UK are supporting a political process that would enhance the power of ethno-nationalist leaders, cement ethnic partition, and quite possibly lead to violence.

Will Romania be EU's Green Deal laggard?

Of the €30bn allocated to Romania under the EU recovery fund, just four percent is slated to go to renewable energy and energy-efficiency. Despite the pressing need to decarbonise Romania's heat and power sectors, this is not an investment priority.

Column

Muslims, Ramadan, and myths facing 'European civilisation'

Happy Ramadan? The UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief warned the Human Rights Council last month that institutional suspicion of Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim has escalated to "epidemic proportions" worldwide.

Industry lobby to 'co-decide' on nearly €10bn EU public money

Several industry EU lobby groups are about to be entrusted again with the privilege of co-deciding how €9.6bn of public EU research funding should be used - in research areas as essential as healthcare, transportation, energy and IT infrastructures.

News in Brief

  1. EU postpones decision on labelling gas 'sustainable'
  2. MEPs call for mass surveillance ban in EU public spaces
  3. Greek and Turkish ministers trade jibes in Ankara
  4. Biden repeats opposition to Russia-Germany pipeline
  5. Navalny in danger, letter warns EU foreign ministers
  6. Lithuania keen to use Denmark's AstraZeneca vaccines
  7. Gas plants largest source of power-sector emissions
  8. Study: Higher risk of blood clots from Covid than vaccines

Column

Why Germans understand the EU best

In Germany, there is commotion about a new book in which two journalists describe meetings held during the corona crisis between federal chancellor Angela Merkel, and the 16 prime ministers of its federal constituent states.

Why Iceland isn't the gender paradise you think

Iceland's international reputation masks two blunt realities that face the country's women - the disproportionate levels of gender-based violence that they experience, and a justice system that is frequently suspicious and hostile towards victims of this violence.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersDigitalisation can help us pick up the green pace
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersCOVID19 is a wake-up call in the fight against antibiotic resistance
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersThe Nordic Region can and should play a leading role in Europe’s digital development
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Council to host EU webinars on energy, digitalisation and antibiotic resistance
  5. UNESDAEU Code of Conduct can showcase PPPs delivering healthier more sustainable society
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersWomen benefit in the digitalised labour market

Latest News

  1. US rejects Slovenia-linked plan to break up Bosnia
  2. Ukraine urges Borrell to visit Russia front line
  3. Could US sanctions hit Russia vaccine sales to EU?
  4. Polish court pushes out critical ombudsman
  5. Political crises in Romania and Bulgaria amid third wave
  6. Von der Leyen's summer plans undisclosed, after Ukraine snub
  7. Over a million EU citizens back farm-animal cage ban
  8. Three options for West on Putin's Ukraine build-up

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us