David Norris (Independent)

There is such a thing as blasphemy, as I said on the Order of Business. Blasphemy was outlined by Mr. Michael O'Brien, when he talked about the treatment he suffered in an institution where he was beaten and raped and the next day the host was placed in his mouth by the same men. That seems to be something that is blasphemous, being in defiance of the decency of God and man. In terms of literature, Ulysses by James Joyce, which was banned, would certainly be considered blasphemous under the terms we have been discussing in the House today. It contains prayers such as "Kidney of Bloom, pray for us" and the entire first section is a black Mass in its form. That would certainly raise some difficulties in terms of the reprinting of Joyce.

Some of this material is very offensive. I am not referring to Ulysses but to the kind of thing that occurred in Wexford some months ago - which I spoke out against in the House and on the radio - in which, for purposes of promotion, a disco owner organised the whipping of a partly clad male figure around the disco to the accompaniment of disco music in a reproduction of the Crucifixion. That is deeply offensive and utterly childish and disgusting. On that occasion, public opinion provided the appropriate corrective. That was partly because of comments made in this House, on the radio and by people in the local authority. There is a self-correction mechanism. I am not defending that kind of behaviour, which I think is abhorrent and repellent, but the correct mechanism for dealing with it is the process of public disapproval which can be expressed.

The Minister's heart appears not to be in it. He has said, as I mentioned on the Order of Business the other day, that this law was deliberately framed so that it could not be used. That unquestionably brings the law into disrepute and is the wrong approach. However, I understand it has a long tradition in the Minister's party. It smacks of the Haughey idea of an Irish solution to an Irish problem. I remember saying at that time that the notion of an Irish solution demeaned the Irish people and held them up to ridicule and contempt.

I have been quite close to a blasphemy prosecution. In the 1970s a newspaper with which I had some involvement, Gay News, was successfully prosecuted by Mary Whitehouse on foot of a poem by Professor James Kirkup about the Crucifixion. When I first read the poem myself I found it extremely shocking because it suggested that there was an erotic sexual focus between the figure of Christ on the cross and the Roman legionaries who were guarding him. It certainly caught my attention and disturbed me, but that was what it was intended to do. Nowadays in theology there is considerable discussion on profound issues of the relationship between the erotic and the spiritual and Kirkup's poem would be seen in that context. It was only a short poem on one page of a newspaper that took up about 20 pages, which was a lifeline for many people here because it contained interesting and useful news about legal advances, social events and so on. The issue was banned in England and we had great difficulty as a result. We had some discussions with the police because after that several editions were impounded, although only one edition had been banned, and the case was eventually appealed. Thus, the issue is not entirely a dead letter.

There is a long tradition of opposition to this form of censorship, which is dangerous in terms of both religious thought and literary experiment. The Earl of Chesterfield, in 1749, in the preface to a pamphlet which reproduced his speech in the House of Lords against the proposed Licensing Act which introduced the requirement for stage performances in the UK to be licensed by the Lord Chamberlain, wrote:

As we trace the genius of a nation by their taste in poetry and music, so by their encouragement of these we may judge of their rise or fall; good authors have never been wanting in happy climes. Barbarism begins her reign by banishing the Muses. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear!

I am grateful to Fintan O'Toole of The Irish Times for drawing my the attention and that of other members of the public to the fact that it is almost exactly 100 years since the celebrated controversy about a play called "The Shewing-up of Blanco Posnet" by the late George Bernard Shaw. Shaw wrote the play deliberately and fomented a controversy precisely to focus the public's attention on the issue of censorship, especially as it related to blasphemy. It was refused a licence for performance by the British censor, which was exactly what Shaw wanted. He managed to provoke a parliamentary select committee of inquiry into the matter at which he said, when summoned to appear before it: "I think that the danger of crippling thought, the danger of obstructing the formation of the public mind by specially suppressing such representations is far greater than any real danger there is from such representations." He continued:

I am not an ordinary playwright in general practice. I am a specialist in immoral and heretical plays. My reputation has been gained by my persistent struggle to force the public to reconsider its morals. In particular, I regard much current morality as to economic and sexual relations as disastrously wrong; and I regard certain doctrines of the Christian religion as understood in England today with abhorrence. I write plays with the deliberate object of converting the nation to my opinions in these matters.

In Britain the play was suppressed. Shaw brought the project to Ireland and submitted it to the Abbey Theatre. Yeats and Lady Gregory took it up with alacrity and the play opened in August 1909, almost 100 years ago.