Update: Email Clarification -- The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL)
I cannot find what I wrote that prompted this email; nevertheless, I believe I must print it in all fairness. If I have offended or misquoted, I hope this clarifies the situation. I still reserve the right to comment here on whatever I wish -- and hang the thought police.
Dear Sir and Madam,
It has been brought to my attention that a report in the Irish Times on Sat 2 August has received widespread coverage and dissemination on web sites including yours, and I would therefore like to bring a clarification to the attention of your readers.
Despite the spin in the paper, we did not issue a press statement or a legal warning to the Catholic Church. We were actually contacted by the paper and asked to comment on the legal position of the document released by the church in relation to the existing Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. As I said, we did not issue a statement on it and have no intention of pursuing any legal action against the Catholic Church. The 1989 act states:
2.=97(1) It shall be an offence for a person
( a ) to publish or distribute written material,
( b ) to use words, behave or display written material
(i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or
(ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence, or
( c ) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds, if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.
And hatred" means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation;
That is the Act that I was asked to comment on and I noted that it is possible that the document could be interpreted as breaching these standards. I also said that the document itself is likely not to be a problem, but if the words in it were used in an active campaign to condemn gays as evil and a threat to children, then that could be interpreted as likely to cause hatred.
I never said that the Vatican intended to incite hatred, but the strong words of the document could lead to problems.
I hope this clarifies the matter. Also to confirm, the ICCL fully supports equal rights for all those irrespective of sexual orientation and has and will continue to campaign for full recognition of same sex unions.
Thank you for your time,
Aisling Reidy
Director, ICCL
Thank you, Aisling Reidy, for writing. I am happy to post your views. Personally, I still believe I have the right to state my views on any subject in a democracy as long as I do not incite people to violence. I am not advocating hatred of gays; I am simply stating my opinion on gay marriage.
A friend--thanks, Jack--looked up the Irish Times reference:
Clergy and bishops who distribute the Vatican's latest publication describing homosexual activity as "evil" could face prosecution under incitement to hatred legislation.
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has warned that the language in the 12-page booklet is so strong it could be interpreted as being in breach of the Act. . . . .
You may read the rest yourself.
Please also note the following section of the Criminal Code of Canada:
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
