Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Before calling on witnesses for closing statements, I should mention that the presentation has been most impressive. The response from committee members clearly indicates their knowledge in the area. Individually, we have brought the subject matter before the Dáil by way of parliamentary questions and letters to the Minister and his predecessors.

It goes without saying that religious intolerance is not new and it has been going on for hundreds and thousands of years. Over Christmas I took to reading about the Crusades in one of my madder moments. It was an interesting period and it is odd that nothing has changed; intolerance is the same as it was then and it continues. There is something particularly sensitive about religious intolerance. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan mentioned an interesting point. Various countries have anti-blasphemy laws but each in their turn believes those laws apply to others only and not themselves. That is the interesting point. There is good cause for anti-blasphemy laws but they should apply to all. This means the degree to which a person can become offended by an ignominious reference to religion is lessened.

All members have dealt with scores or hundreds of refugees over the past ten or 15 years, and we continue to do so. The horrific stories we hear from time to time have been confirmed by the witnesses. I remember dealing some years ago with a young woman from Rwanda who had been a victim of rape and continued abuse in the war. She was 19 years old but on looking at the individual, one would know immediately what she had been through. I remember at the time trying to get a hearing for her here but because this was not her first landfall in Europe, we could not help. She eventually died on the streets in London. Those stories repeat what we have heard many times in the past.

The war in Vietnam started through religious intolerance. Madame Nhu was the influential sister-in-law of President Diem at the time. It has been mentioned many times that the regime was not tolerant and it kept freedom to a minimum but, ironically, it stopped the kind of intolerance that followed. The same pattern emerged in the western Balkans, and after Tito's reign, everything else happened. I am sure all members have at some stage visited Mostar, which has two cemeteries, one on each side of the road. There are 500 Christians in one and 500 Muslims in the other. We have it here as well. Reference has been made to the extent to which we can use the Irish analogy in dealing with issues overseas. I assure the witnesses that we have tried that too. We have done it as a committee and I know the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and its Minister and his predecessor have done exactly that. It does not necessarily resonate with the people with whom we have discourse. They only see one side.

In 1979 I stayed in a kibbutz in Israel and we visited both sides. We got both types of opposing propaganda. I remember an army colonel making a speech detailing all the atrocities which occurred that were offensive to him. I returned two years ago and I heard the same speech. Nothing seemed to happen at all. Any time there is a conflict of that nature, with major emphasis on the atrocities of the past, there is no moving forward. Northern Ireland was a somewhat different case. It is true the issue had been ongoing for 700 years and there was a national issue. Oddly enough, it was the forces outside of Northern Ireland and even Europe that forced the opposing sections to concentrate on the issues.

It was an interesting time and an interesting place to be. While it sets an example to the rest of the warring world, it does not resolve the problems, unfortunately.

We will go to work on the recommendations of the witnesses and members. Given that the recommendations have been made before, we should not expect dramatic results. We have raised these issues, and continue to do so. The policy has been raised most recently by the Minister in debates here and throughout Europe. At the March Human Rights Council, the Minister made freedom of religion and belief a key theme, saying: "Violence in the name of religion is a disturbing phenomenon and one which is not confined to ISIL". The entire free world supported ISIS in the initial stages. Everybody thought they were freedom fighters and that they were going into Syria and Egypt to free the people. This was not what they were doing. They had a different agenda. In Iraq, forces were overrun virtually overnight by people who had prepared plans well in advance, knew what they were doing and were well-funded. The affront to society of people being publicly beheaded on television for us to look at nightly on our screens is something that focuses the mind.

Ireland has done as much as it can do along with its colleagues in Europe, through the UN and the EU, and it will continue in this regard. The fact we have not seen dramatic results to the extent we would like is not a reflection of a lack of effort but an indication of the magnitude of the task before us.