(previous reply may have not been posted properly so here goes again)

The post's title has no basis except perhaps shallow reading. What the pope actually said about digital media is positive and hard to fault. First, he apparently says that digital media 'can have a positive and civilizing effect "not only when, thanks to technological development, they increase the possibilities of communicating information, but above all when they are geared towards a vision of the person and the common good that reflects truly universal values.”'

But he also warns, 'media and technology must “focus on promoting the dignity of persons and peoples, they need to be clearly inspired by charity and placed at the service of truth, of the good, and of natural and supernatural fraternity.”' What he rails about is the potential for the use of digital media to dehumanize people.

Well the whole point of legislation is hopefully to make sensible and fair laws regardless of how the pendulum swings, if by this you mean in terms of a majority in either secular- or religious-minded citizens and members of parliament. No one wants to go back to lawlessness where some group holds power unchecked.

As for religious "nuts" complaining too much in Canada, I'm not so sure that a $5000 fine plus legal fees for exercising free speech in the context of public debate about impending legislation is too much. And, I have yet to hear of any case of religious groups "getting the ear of the government" concerning human rights abuses against their groups in Canada.

In the Catholic Insight case, it's more than a little unsettling when someone is prosecuted for stating the Catholic viewpoint in a Catholic publication. But that just goes to show that laws can be stretched beyond appropriate applications. It's almost up to people not to sue at the slightest itch, because lawyers can run rings around laws that seem reasonable, at least on the surface.

``In other words (as far as I understand it) "God condemns homosexuality", or even "I hate queers" likely won't get you prosecuted'' -- apparently, less than that can get you prosecuted.

Stephen Boisson sent a letter in 2002 to the Red Deer Advocate where he attacks, not gays in general, but activists of a homosexual agenda. He was prosecuted for this letter reproduced here:

http://rootleweb.blogspot.com/2008/06/boissons-letter-to-red-deer-advocate.html

He was ordered to pay a $5000 fine, and his own legal fees, and was ordered by the court not to make further "disparaging comments against homosexuality".

In 2008, Fr. Alphonse deValk published a defense of the Catholic position on homosexuality and same sex marriage in a Catholic publication, Catholic Insight. He quotes the Bible, the Catechism, papal encyclicals, etc. He is facing thousands in legal fees and fines. As I understand it, even if he wins, he pays for his own fees, and gets nothing for the trouble.

Admittedly, the Irish definition of blasphemous libel can be abused too. Just as in the Canadian case, where the question of whether or not a publication or public act "incites hatred" can be stretched to cover many things.

But I am starting to think that this is indeed just a political maneuver to cover a gap in the constitution while not really intended for enforcing the law, as some have opined above.

It is also unlikely, from a Catholic perspective, that grave abuse in a publication concerning sacred Catholic matters will ever be acted upon. We've been insulted on Jesus, his mother, the Eucharist, the popes, the Bible, etc., for a pretty long time now, with not a lawsuit lodged against anyone.

But.. I just thought I'd point out that the Canadian situation is not as far-fetched nor as harmless as one might think.

What Jason Walsh writes is incorrect. The bill's amendment concerning blasphemy does not "seek to shield religious belief from criticism". The amendment to the Defamation Bill defines what the constitution does not, and so clarifies the law. It describes blasphemous matter as .. matter "that is *grossly abusive* or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; *and he or she intends*, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage." (emphasis mine)

(source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0429/1224245599892.html)

Other countries have similar laws to protect ethnic minorities from unwarranted contempt. The above definition is actually narrower, as it specifically pertains to

- grossly abusive attacks,
- to what is held to be sacred by a religious group, such as religious items,
- and where the purpose is to cause outrage.

This does not include criticizing a doctrine, the actions of a bishop or the pope, nor the text from ecclesiastical literature. Perhaps we need to remember that criticism seeks as its objective some form of correction. While outrage may be a response of those criticized, the former is not the objective of criticism.

Freedom of speech should not include grossly abusive speech that would take away from other people their own freedom to hold beliefs without anxiety about arbitrary gross insults. Engaging in healthy criticism and the debate that ensues is one thing, and is welcome. There is a meeting of minds and a clash of ideas. It is an entirely different thing to grossly abuse the beliefs of a group of people concerning what they hold to be sacred matter simply for the sake of insulting them.

It would be nice if governments didn't need to legislate such things, and for the citizenry to exercise common decency and engage instead in honest criticism whose objective is to right wrongs in the context of dialogue. Unfortunately, we have many published celebrities today who instead exercise their ego and vile contempt for those whom they disagree with, and copycats aplenty with blogs, YouTube accounts and art degrees at their disposal.