Another feature of the law is that it comes into force at the same time as the new European Arrest Warrant. So, for example, if the Danish cartoons were published in Ireland, any outraged person based in Ireland could ask to have the Danish publishers extradited to Ireland to face prosecution here.

That's a chilling thought, Scotlyn. (And I really like the term "incentivizing outrage" - an all too accurate description, unfortunately.) As an Irish citizen, do you see any prospect that this law will actually be enforced? Is this something the European Court of Human Rights might strike down?

I guess this will have to do for now.

EDIT: This edit is to test my ability to edit. Success, I presume!
DOUBLE-EDIT: Success, I confirm! Great job, Ebonmuse!

it's not up to the prosecutor's discretion whether a speech act constitutes blasphemy or not. Instead, it expressly punishes only speech which "caus[es] outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion". In other words, if I write an essay mocking Christianity but don't get an outraged response from Christians, I'm not liable.

Incentivising outrage may be the most dangerous part of this law. Quoted here, Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland said:

And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic states led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

Another feature of the law is that it comes into force at the same time as the new European Arrest Warrant. So, for example, if the Danish cartoons were published in Ireland, any outraged person based in Ireland could ask to have the Danish publishers extradited to Ireland to face prosecution here.

Some background - it was pointed out to the Irish government many years ago that the Irish Constitution mentions blasphemy, but that no government has legislated for it - therefore it was leaving it to common law (ie the courts) to decide how to implement the constitutional prohibition. The government had two choices - 1) a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy in the constitution, or 2) make a law. They chose the second and made a balls of it. The aim of the campaign, of course, is not only to overturn the law, but to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish constitution.

Or, even better, how about Mohammad getting anally sodomized by Jesus in a gay version of an Islamic paradise?

This kind of assumes Jesus was a virgin.

Actually I'm not sure any purpose is served by going for extremes. A gentle but persistant satire would probably serve us better, liberally sprinkled across all media so that there were no obvious targets for the nut jobs.

TEP, think about how people felt about Jesus in the 1600s, 1700s and in some places even into the 1800s. The Divine Mister M has a few more centuries to go before he's in the running for most stable personality cult.
Of course you could argue the historicity of Jesus, or at least the extent of his influence on the faith. But that just shifts the focus to Paul, the founder of Christianity.

______
Jesus never managed to become a dictator, and the religions that came about as a result of him likely had very little to do with his actual teachings, and slowly materialised in an ad hoc manner long after his death. There's little reason to believe that whatever figure or figures the many conflicting Jesus narratives were based on had any real plan or intent to start a new religion, or that he was anything more than your typical crackpot. In contrast, Mohammed ruled over a powerful empire, and carefully crafted a religion around himself in order to make people obey him. Mohammed's personality cult was of his own doing, whereas Jesus was just some nutter who would have been completely forgotten by history, who by some crazy stroke of luck just happened to have some other people make a viable religion around him, albeit one that likely had little to do with who he actually was. The point being that Jesus was never the head of a regime for which violence in his name could be considered a continuation of; the same is not true for Mohammed, whose regime effectively persists to today.

I can't believe that after the huge Ireland Catholic school sex scandal involving Irish priests sexually abusing children for many years, they now pass a blasphemy law. I bet you the Irish Catholic church will hide behind this law to protect themselves from any future investigations or allegations of child sex.

TEP, think about how people felt about Jesus in the 1600s, 1700s and in some places even into the 1800s. The Divine Mister M has a few more centuries to go before he's in the running for most stable personality cult.
Of course you could argue the historicity of Jesus, or at least the extent of his influence on the faith. But that just shifts the focus to Paul, the founder of Christianity.