Ivana Bacik (Independent)

Anyone who has any regard for the history of censorship in Ireland will recognise a long history of repression in the name of religion. For a long time institutions such as the Magdalene laundries symbolised the sexual repression of women in particular in the name of religion and in the name of the domination in this society by the Catholic Church in particular. Anyone with regard for that would be very wary of the creation of a new statutory definition for an offence that seems to give this sort of elevated position to adherence to a religion to persons who may feel grossly abused or insulted in all sorts of ways in all sorts of satirical and political commentary and publications. That is the real concern. The Minister may have in effect said he does not want this to be a workable offence, but the reality is that by creating a statutory definition he is making an offence that will potentially be used against people. We will see a great deal of Garda time wasted if nothing else because cranks will come forward making complaints that they feel grossly abused or insulted by satirical matters.

I am very grateful to a new organisation, Atheist Ireland, which has made various comments about the legislation and has rightly criticised it as being both silly and dangerous in effectively reviving a medieval crime in a modern pluralist republic. It is quite right in that. When one considers the history of the blasphemy offence, that is what we are doing. We are changing the status quo of an unworkable offence. All the expert groups recognise it should be removed from the Constitution. We are actually making it more workable by placing a statutory definition in a modern law without considering ways to adapt it, particularly through the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act in a way that would be much more appropriate to the needs of a modern pluralist state. The law will become absurd in practice. We will see groups rightly seeking to challenge the definitions etc. A great deal of time will be wasted in seeking to enforce it.

The writers of "Father Ted" and others have come out against it. Various people have pointed out different absurdities in it. This morning I suggested that Fr. Willie Russell from Rathkeale, County Limerick, who criticised those in his parish who appeared to be worshipping a tree because it took on the appearance, in their eyes, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, could be open to a charge of blasphemy because he said one cannot worship a tree. He was very critical - and perhaps insulting - of those who believe one could worship a tree. I urge the Minister at this late stage to accept Senator Regan's amendment and to delete these provisions which are silly and dangerous.