David Norris (Independent)

I thought it was Violet, but it is actually Senator O'Toole.

The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.

Article 19 of it considers freedom of expression as a cornerstone right and something that enables all the other rights to be articulated, protected and exercised, and that the full enjoyment of the right of freedom of expression is to the enjoyment of those rights, but does provide for restrictions.

The restrictions are provided to protect the rights of others and public order, in so far as is necessary for a democratic society. This is the point Senator Mullen made. However, there is a three part test, a point Senator Mullen did not put on the record. For the test to be legitimate, all three parts must be satisfied. A restriction must pursue the legitimate aim it claims to pursue. Therefore, there is no point in writing a pornographically blasphemous novel simply to aggravate people and then pretending it is a work of art. The restriction must also be imposed in a democratic framework by Parliament or pursuant to powers granted by it. The last provision is where a test could be applied to this Bill, and by which it would fail. The restriction must be necessary in a democratic society, and the term "necessary" must be taken quite literally and means the restriction must not be merely useful or reasonable. The Minister suggested the re-introduction of the offence of blasphemy is useful. From his point of view politically it may well be. However, he has certainly demonstrated that it is unnecessary, and for that reason it fails the test of the fundamental document guaranteeing freedom of rights.

There is an obligation with regard to blasphemy laws on all member states and the United Nations to take measures to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language and religion. There is no denial that certain forms of expression can threaten the dignity of targeted individuals and create an environment in which the enjoyment of equality is not possible, which introduced the notion of hate crimes and so on. There is no effective hate crime legislation in this country. I have tried, on several occasions, to initiate it and have never been able to. It might as well not exist and is a dead letter.

Article 19 recognises that reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression may be necessary to prevent advocacy of hatred but are not required to introduce legislation on blasphemy. Several established democracies still have blasphemy provisions on their statute books, but they are rarely, if ever, used. I understand the United Kingdom has recently reversed its legislation. There have only been two prosecutions since 1932 in the UK, one of which I have dealt with already. Norway had its last case in 1936 and Denmark in 1938. Other countries, including Sweden, Spain and the UK, have repealed their blasphemy laws. In the United States, which is frequently used as a persuasive precedent in legal cases in Ireland, the Supreme Court steadfastly strikes down any legislation prohibiting blasphemy for fear that even well-meaning censors would be tempted to favour one religion over another, and because it was not the business of government to suppress real or imagined attacks on particular religious doctrines.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that the right to freedom of religion is, under international standards, better served or religious ideas protected through blasphemy laws. Under international human rights law freedom of religion, for instance, is not about respecting a religion, but about respecting peoples' right to practice. The practice and not the religion is protected. I agree with that. Do offensive statements threaten the ability of adherents to religion to exercise and express their own beliefs? I do not think so. I do not think it is appropriate to introduce legislation merely to protect the sensitivities of people who might be offended.

Senator Bacik referred to communication from Atheists Ireland. I welcome the presence in the Gallery of the prophet Michael Nugent. I am in receipt of correspondence from him in which he makes a number of very serious points about the problematic behaviour indicated in the Bill regarding outrage and not the expression of a different belief, which is wrong. He makes the point that we should not be incentivising outrage and encouraging people to be outraged, because people will take the slightest hint. Look at Princess Diana's funeral, where people who had no inkling of her human reality were gushing tears.