Ivana Bacik (Independent)

What the Minister is doing is the worst of all possible worlds. He is basing the new statutory definition on the old understanding of blasphemy from the 19th century, and including within the definition words and phrases that remain so vague as to render the new offence effectively unenforceable. Indeed I believe the Minister has said his intention is to make it virtually impossible to get a successful prosecution. It seems this stated intention undermines the entire point of introducing a new definition. While it is clearly welcome that no prison sentence is imposed, the fine is ludicrously high. We have not yet mentioned the proposed section 36. The powers of the Garda of entry by reasonable force if necessary and the seizure of copies of statements, etc., and the fine make it a draconian offence. However, it is still so vague in the terms used as to make it very difficult to see how any prosecutions could ensue and yet the danger is that they will ensue.

The Bill provides that persons who publish "matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion" may be prosecuted for blasphemy. The concept of "matter that is grossly abusive or insulting" is extremely subjective and very vague. The Bill provides that it must thereby cause "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion". However, with the proliferation of the Internet we know how quickly substantial numbers of people might be offended and feel grossly abused or insulted.