Blasphemy Punishable by One Year in Jail!

[The Atheist]

While I was cruising around the [still current] New Zealand Crimes Act of 1961, looking for an offence to commit, I happened to stumble across the mind-boggling fact that blasphemy is still illegal in NZ, with a penalty of jail time not exceeding one year!

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year who publishes any blasphemous libel.

link (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes)

(note the link takes you to the index page only: Click "C" > Crimes Act > scroll down to 123 and voila. And for those too lazy to check: )

123 Blasphemous libel

(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year who publishes any blasphemous libel.

(2)Whether any particular published matter is or is not a blasphemous libel is a question of fact.

(3)It is not an offence against this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever on any religious subject.

(4)No one shall be prosecuted for an offence against this section without the leave of the Attorney-General, who before giving leave may make such inquiries as he thinks fit.

Being the model citizen I am, I have already published a minor blasphemy while I think of a worse one. One of my mates is in already. (pretty tame blasphemy, the wimp)

Feel free to blaspheme at the link provided on the page, which is HIGHLY NSFW, PROFANE AND CONTAINS EXTREMELY NAUGHTY WORDS:

Click this link to view (http://www.immortality.co.nz/blasphemy.htm)

If you do want to break this idiotic law and want to have more than 100 words, send me a PM. Obviously, you'll need to creatively work around the auto-censor if you PM me - and keep it reasonably short.

I intend to report myself to the Attorney-General asap.

[Tanstaafl]

You sure do things the hard way.

If you want an offence to commit, why not just rob a bank? The money you get is just a bonus. :D

To be a bit more serious though, if your offense has to be both blasphemy and libel, you may find it a hard law to break. Wouldn't they have to prove their religion is true to show that your blasphemy is libelous?

Of course I'm not a lawyer.

[Dunstan]

Apparently Massachusetts still has a blasphemy law on the books, too. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/can_i_be_banned_in_boston_plea.php#more)

[The Atheist]

You sure do things the hard way.

If you want an offence to commit, why not just rob a bank? The money you get is just a bonus. :D

Yes, the only problem with that one is that I see 14 years mentioned. Just a little longer than I'd like.

To be a bit more serious though, if your offense has to be both blasphemy and libel, you may find it a hard law to break. Wouldn't they have to prove their religion is true to show that your blasphemy is libelous?

Of course I'm not a lawyer.


Pretty sure that mine will meet the criteria!

;)

It has to be libellous against one of the god-thingies, which in christianity would would be YHWH, his boy, the "holy ghost" chappie and Mary, Jesus' mum. Piece of cake.

[The Atheist]

Apparently Massachusetts still has a blasphemy law on the books, too. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/can_i_be_banned_in_boston_plea.php#more)

Bizarre.

I wonder when anyone was last prosecuted for the crime.

[Papermache]

The last conviction for blasphemy was in 1968, according to this item from a review by Viginia Hench of Leonard W. Levy's Blasphemy: Verbal Offense against the Sacred from Moses to Salman Rushdie.. In 1968, Maryland truck driver Irving K. West ran afoul of a 1723 Maryland statute providing, "If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the person thereof, he shall on conviction be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisioned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court." West's classic advice to a police officer to "Get your goddamn hands off me," earned him the distinction of the last blasphemy conviction in America to date. His motion for postconviction relief led to the Maryland Court of Appeals' holding in State v. West, 263 A.2d. 602 (Md. App. 1970) that the 1723 Maryland blasphemy statute violated the First Amendment.http:// www.h-net.org (http://www.h-net.org) /~law/ reviews/ levyl4.htm

[triadboy]

The last conviction for blasphemy was in 1968, according to this item from a review by Viginia Hench of Leonard W. Levy's Blasphemy: Verbal Offense against the Sacred from Moses to Salman Rushdie.. In 1968, Maryland truck driver Irving K. West ran afoul of a 1723 Maryland statute providing, "If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the person thereof, he shall on conviction be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisioned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court." West's classic advice to a police officer to "Get your goddamn hands off me," earned him the distinction of the last blasphemy conviction in America to date. His motion for postconviction relief led to the Maryland Court of Appeals' holding in State v. West, 263 A.2d. 602 (Md. App. 1970) that the 1723 Maryland blasphemy statute violated the First Amendment.http:// www.h-net.org (http://www.h-net.org) /~law/ reviews/ levyl4.htm

:D

[joobz]

Stupid legal question:
If there was no such thing as a seperation of church and state in the US and it was allowable to have a state endorsed religion, would blasphemy laws still be unconstitutional on freedom of speech grounds?

[Dunstan]

Bizarre.

I wonder when anyone was last prosecuted for the crime.

Laws like these tend to stay on the books even when they're never enforced for the simple reason that there's almost no political benefit to repealing them, and a political cost (even if only a small one) to doing so, as the religious right cries foul.

I think most of them tend to go away if there's a wholesale revision of the criminal code -- then the omission just gets buried amid all the other changes.

There are still some state laws against abortion on the books despite being unconstitutional, just waiting there for the day if/when the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade.

[The Atheist]

Laws like these tend to stay on the books even when they're never enforced for the simple reason that there's almost no political benefit to repealing them, and a political cost (even if only a small one) to doing so, as the religious right cries foul.

I think it's simply an oversight in NZ's case - the gov't here has been pursuing a secular agenda for years, including repealing a couple of items which the religious right [such as it is down here] were not best pleased with.

I'm going to follow up with the A-G to see what his take is.

[Puppycow]

Stupid legal question:
If there was no such thing as a seperation of church and state in the US and it was allowable to have a state endorsed religion, would blasphemy laws still be unconstitutional on freedom of speech grounds?

The first amendment is the amendment that establishes separation of church and state, and freedom of speech.

* First Amendment – Freedom of religion, speech, press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So I guess it basically depends on how you change that sentence.
And it depends on how the courts interpret the meaning.

[The Atheist]

If Badger's watching, your blasphemy is now online.

Expect an extradition request to be forwarded to your government immediately.

[Tristan Chi]

Badger? :D

[Beerina]

Sigh. Can't God do the dirty work to oppress his political enemies himself instead of relying on decidedly finite mortals?

[tkingdoll]

Blasphemy, blas for you, blas for everyone!

[Crossbow]

Just because a certain law is on the books, that does not mean that the law will be enforced.

I live in West Virginia that still has a law on the books forbidding abortions, however the Roe v. Wade nullified that law even though it is still in the code. There are about 17 other states that have similar laws that have been similarly nullified.

[Tanstaafl]

Blasphemy, blas for you, blas for everyone!


Ah, that reminds me of the beer blas at college. Good times.

[IMST]

Stupid legal question:
If there was no such thing as a seperation of church and state in the US and it was allowable to have a state endorsed religion, would blasphemy laws still be unconstitutional on freedom of speech grounds?

They probably wouldn't be unconstitutional because the courts have recognized the right of the government to regulate "obscene" speach. With a state endorsed religion, I think it would be trivial to get blasphemy classified as obscene.

[JoeTheJuggler]

To be a bit more serious though, if your offense has to be both blasphemy and libel, you may find it a hard law to break. Wouldn't they have to prove their religion is true to show that your blasphemy is libelous?


My take was that the libel should be directed against a person, and the utterance with which you commit that libel happens to include a blasphemous remark.

In other words, my guess is this law is probably in the section on libel and just makes it a bigger deal if you say G-- D--- while you commit normal libel.

Just a guess.

[Tanstaafl]

That would make sense.

[The Atheist]

My take was that the libel should be directed against a person, and the utterance with which you commit that libel happens to include a blasphemous remark.

In other words, my guess is this law is probably in the section on libel and just makes it a bigger deal if you say G-- D--- while you commit normal libel.

Just a guess.

Nope, it's in its own section entitled "blasphemy". The libellous bit means that saying; "Jesus sucks!" even though blasphemous, wouldn't count, while explaining what he sucks would.

[Dunstan]

Nope, it's in its own section entitled "blasphemy". The libellous bit means that saying; "Jesus sucks!" even though blasphemous, wouldn't count, while explaining what he sucks would.

Oh, I'm sure you could find some Christians who would cheerfully prosecute you on the grounds that Jesus does not, as a matter of fact, suck.

[The Atheist]

Oh, I'm sure you could find some Christians who would cheerfully prosecute you on the grounds that Jesus does not, as a matter of fact, suck.

Just to be on the safe side, my blasphemous statement is libellous to both JC and his mum.

[Taffer]

Isn't our country quaint, TA? :D

Seriously though, I'd like to know why this was never removed. It's not like Labour needs the backing of the Christian Party or anything.

[Lonewulf]

If Badger's watching, your blasphemy is now online.

Expect an extradition request to be forwarded to your government immediately.
I, Vincent DuBach, have posted my blasphemy.

If you would, could you please edit it to say, "The God of the bible" instead of "God" in general, when I mention how he's a genocidal dictator? There are, after all, multiple definitions.

I still don't see evidence of ANY God in general, but I want that to be clear. Not every proposed deity is evil.

(That is, if you have actual control over the content...)

[The Atheist]

Isn't our country quaint, TA? :D

Seriously though, I'd like to know why this was never removed. It's not like Labour needs the backing of the Christian Party or anything.

Yes, but they do need the backing of the other christian party - that twat Peter Dunne's one.

I'll post the feedback from the A-G when it arrives. (If I'm not in jail!)

I, Vincent DuBach, have posted my blasphemy.

If you would, could you please edit it to say, "The God of the bible" instead of "God" in general, when I mention how he's a genocidal dictator? There are, after all, multiple definitions.

Posted and edited as requested.

Cheers. Beware of renditions.

[Lonewulf]

Posted and edited as requested.

Cheers. Beware of renditions.
Dankeschoen!

[hgc]

The last conviction for blasphemy was in 1968, according to this item from a review by Viginia Hench of Leonard W. Levy's Blasphemy: Verbal Offense against the Sacred from Moses to Salman Rushdie..In 1968, Maryland truck driver Irving K. West ran afoul of a 1723 Maryland statute providing, "If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the person thereof, he shall on conviction be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisioned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court." West's classic advice to a police officer to "Get your goddamn hands off me," earned him the distinction of the last blasphemy conviction in America to date. His motion for postconviction relief led to the Maryland Court of Appeals' holding in State v. West, 263 A.2d. 602 (Md. App. 1970) that the 1723 Maryland blasphemy statute violated the First Amendment.http:// www.h-net.org (http://www.h-net.org) /~law/ reviews/ levyl4.htm


Interesting that he was convicted under a law that predates Maryland statehood by some 70 years. I wonder how often people are convicted of laws of such relative antiquity.

This is clearly a case of prosecutorial indiscretion in support of the supremacy of police power. The blasphemy was not the issue at all, but merely a figleaf for hauling someone in for being disrespectful and bucking police authority. So, I'm doubly troubled by this conviction (transported indignation to a 40 year ago circumstance) not only in that blasphemy was still being prosecuted, but by the use of the power to convict, fine and jail to enforce obeisance to the stinkin' cops.

[Beerina]

shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ

They should probably stay out of the Usenet newsgroup alt.(rule 8).the.skull.of.Jesus.

[Taffer]

Yes, but they do need the backing of the other christian party - that twat Peter Dunne's one.

Point. And yes, he is a complete twat.

[Damien Evans]

While I was cruising around the [still current] New Zealand Crimes Act of 1961, looking for an offence to commit, I happened to stumble across the mind-boggling fact that blasphemy is still illegal in NZ, with a penalty of jail time not exceeding one year!



link (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes)

(note the link takes you to the index page only: Click "C" > Crimes Act > scroll down to 123 and voila. And for those too lazy to check: )



Being the model citizen I am, I have already published a minor blasphemy while I think of a worse one. One of my mates is in already. (pretty tame blasphemy, the wimp)

Feel free to blaspheme at the link provided on the page, which is HIGHLY NSFW, PROFANE AND CONTAINS EXTREMELY NAUGHTY WORDS:

Click this link to view (http://www.immortality.co.nz/blasphemy.htm)

If you do want to break this idiotic law and want to have more than 100 words, send me a PM. Obviously, you'll need to creatively work around the auto-censor if you PM me - and keep it reasonably short.

I intend to report myself to the Attorney-General asap.

Blasphemy submitted. I eagerly await my extradition.:D

[The Atheist]

Point. And yes, he is a complete twat.

I had to congratulate myself on not going and offerring him a few words of advice [???] when he was on the same plane as me recently, just a couple of seats away.

I used to live in his electorate. Say no more.

Blasphemy submitted. I eagerly await my extradition.:D

And posted!

We have a sheep with your name on it!

[Jekyll]

If anyone is looking for inspiration the last person to be found guilty of blasphemous libel in the UK was privately prosecuted for writing this poem:
NSFW (http://torturebyroses.gydja.com/tbrkirkup.html)

Maybe you could publish a copy on your website, TA?

[hgc]

If anyone is looking for inspiration the last person to be found guilty of blasphemous libel in the UK was privately prosecuted for writing this poem:
NSFW (http://torturebyroses.gydja.com/tbrkirkup.html)


Sorry for my ignorance of British legal terminology, but what does "privately prosecuted" mean?

[geni]

If anyone is looking for inspiration the last person to be found guilty of blasphemous libel in the UK was privately prosecuted for writing this poem:
NSFW (http://torturebyroses.gydja.com/tbrkirkup.html)

Maybe you could publish a copy on your website, TA?

Lame. There was a public reading in St Martin-in-the-Fields church in 2002. Total number of resulting prosecutions? Zilch. Blasphemy laws in this context are only slightly less dead than trial by combat in the US.

[Jekyll]

Sorry for my ignorance of British legal terminology, but what does "privately prosecuted" mean?

It means that the public prosecution weren't interested in pressing charges and an individual had to press the charges against them (I've no idea how it works).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse_v._Lemon

[Jekyll]

Lame. There was a public reading in St Martin-in-the-Fields church in 2002. Total number of resulting prosecutions? Zilch. Blasphemy laws in this context are only slightly less dead than trial by combat in the US.

I just think that a poetic description of someone repeatedly violating the corpse of Jesus, in his many wounds, is a really good example of what blasphemous libel should look like.
I didn't mean that people were still being prosecuted for it over here.

[The Atheist]

If anyone is looking for inspiration the last person to be found guilty of blasphemous libel in the UK was privately prosecuted for writing this poem:
NSFW (http://torturebyroses.gydja.com/tbrkirkup.html)

Maybe you could publish a copy on your website, TA?

I've written to the site owners to see if that's ok with them - copyright and all that - and if so, it will be up immediately!

[Damien Evans]

And posted!

We have a sheep with your name on it!

Excellent. I shall call him George.:D

[Damien Evans]

Still waiting for my extradition papers...

[Bill Thompson]

I, Vincent DuBach, have posted my blasphemy.

If you would, could you please edit it to say, "The God of the bible" instead of "God" in general, when I mention how he's a genocidal dictator? There are, after all, multiple definitions.

I still don't see evidence of ANY God in general, but I want that to be clear. Not every proposed deity is evil.

(That is, if you have actual control over the content...)

What about Spinoza's God (if I am spelling that right)?

[Bill Thompson]

How is that militant Athiesm working out for you?

Anyone ever read Dale Carnige's "How to Win Friends and Influence People"? Or, have you ever even heard of it?

[The Atheist]

How is that militant Athiesm working out for you?

What militant atheism is this? I'm a well-known religious apologist.

Anyone ever read Dale Carnige's "How to Win Friends and Influence People"? Or, have you ever even heard of it?

Never heard of him. I read a book called How to Win Friends and Influence People a long time ago, but that was by some Carnegie bloke.

[Lonewulf]

What about Spinoza's God (if I am spelling that right)?

You mean this belief?

He contended that everything that exists in Nature/Universe is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect are only understood in part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

Am I getting this wrong? If so, tell me.

I don't see what's in there that could possibly be taken as religious. It leaves out the supernatural, it leaves out miracles, it leaves out everything that's possibly "God". There is no entity, there is only "Nature", which is defined as "God".

If I define my pencil as "God", then yes, "God" does exist. But it's a meaningless definition of "God".

As Richard Dawkins said, Deism is weak theism, Pantheism ("God is defined as Nature") is weak Atheism.

[quixotecoyote]

All hail the pencil god!

[Lonewulf]

All hail the pencil god!

May He touch you with his leaded appendage.

[quixotecoyote]

May He touch you with his leaded appendage.

Yea verily and hail to another all nighter!

[Damien Evans]

How is that militant Athiesm working out for you?

Anyone ever read Dale Carnige's "How to Win Friends and Influence People"? Or, have you ever even heard of it?

Militant Atheist? Me?

I'm an Apatheist.

[Lonewulf]

I'm an atheist that doesn't respect theism, and will attack illogical arguments as fast are they are made.

In that sense, I am a "militant atheist".

But, on the other hand, you will not see me with a switchblade, about to stab someone else because he's a "filthy Jew". You will not see me with a boxcutter knife, about to ride a plane to strike famous Muslim mosques. You will not see me with an AK 47, about to put down Christians or Catholics.

If people are so offended by the words of people they don't agree with that they have to label them "militant", while not capable of putting up any logical argument in the meantime, then they have already lost.

[saizai]

FYI, I brought this up in a post a while ago. It's law on books still in the US as well.

You could try suing the state by
a) very loudly blaspheming in public, then
b) claim that you feel threatened by their ability to unconstitutionally prosecute you for this.

(Not sure how NZ law works though, if that'd pass... here, you wouldn't have standing.)

[The Atheist]

Militant Atheist? Me?

I'm an Apatheist.

Shhh!

The militant ones aren't in this thread. [yet]