Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)

In a situation where the Minister says there is a constitutional obligation, not just on him but on the Oireachtas, to legislate, then it is not an option to do nothing. He says this is the only realistic approach to take on this. He says there is no alternative. We can look at that alternative because the whole sense and purpose of the issue of blasphemy and the way it is interpreted in other member states of the European Union, in the United Nations and in international law is to the effect that it is the issue of offending, discrimination and incitement to hatred on religious grounds or otherwise. The Corway case provided that what is required is to define the offence. The Minister will say there are limitations on how an offence may be defined. At the same time he purports to frame provisions in a Bill, and I shall just refer to the Minister's exact statement on this in the Dáil, lest I be contradicted. He said the legislation had been drafted and he believed the record showed it was virtually impossible to get a successful prosecution for blasphemy out of it. That is what the Minister purports to do here. It is a nonsense.

However, there is an obligation and it is in the Constitution. If we are not going to have a referendum on the matter, which I believe would be the pragmatic thing to do at the first available opportunity, then we just have to define the nature of the offence of blasphemy. We have latitude in doing that, and it may be done in a manner which reflects modern thinking, the thinking of other member states and the United Nations as well as the thinking which now reflects at least customary international law. We have the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial Religious or National Hatred Act. The Minister has said there is no alternative to the manner in which he can do this. Could we not deal with the definition of the offence in that Act? Hatred is defined in that Act as hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere, on account of, inter alia, their religion. It seems to me that would suffice to define the offence of blasphemy and resolve the issues of defining the offence and complying with the constitutional obligation to have it as an offence. In defining it in that manner, we do not have to create an offence which is a complete nonsense in present day terms. On top of that it is highly dangerous because in its formulation it raises a host of issues. Apart from the definition of the offence, we are now defining religion. We will have litigation about what constitutes a religion. It:

does not include an organisation or cult-----

(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or

(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation-----

(i) of its followers, or

(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

Where are we going with this? It is opening a vista of litigation and confrontation on issues pertaining to religion which we do not want to contemplate.

There is an easier alternative. It is a reflection of the manner in which the Minister adopts an approach and doggedly pursues it, entertaining no alternative, variation or nuanced thinking on how problems can be resolved in the legislative field. Lateral thinking such as this, defining blasphemy in a way that reflects in essence the purpose today of dealing with such issues, that it is essentially offending people and is a form of discrimination, disturbing the peace and unsettling people by offending followers of a particular religion or segments of the community, allows us to deal with this in a pragmatic, professional and progressive manner.

We live in a multi-religion society. We know the issues and sensitivities regarding the Danish cartoons and the Muslim religion. This raises all these issues again. We have grown out of and changed our Constitution regarding the preference given to the Christian and Roman Catholic religion. To reintroduce this type of provision is such a step backwards. For the Minister to tell this House there is no alternative to doing it this way is incorrect, a bad political decision and is legally flawed. I have suggested an alternative approach. On that basis I have submitted an amendment to delete these provisions from the Bill.