Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

The Minister has had the opportunity of getting some relief from the drudgery of debate for the past 90 minutes. Unfortunately, the rest of us have had to suffer it here. It is interesting that a topic such as this has taken up so much time and focus. The Minister suggested he had three options for dealing with the issue: dropping the Bill, legislating or holding a referendum. I am sorry he did not take the first option. I am sure that if he were here, Senator Norris would agree for other reasons, that would be a good choice.

Senator O'Toole's last point was an interesting one, that it should have been dealt with under the Incitement to Hatred Acts. Senator Bacik made a similar point in her submission. Blasphemy seems different, however, because incitement to hatred legislation deals with racism, including inciting people against minorities. I am not sure that legislation is relevant or applicable in this instance. It is interesting to hear some of the points being made by Members of the House who are barristers. We must accept that it is a constitutional matter. One Senator said that we should let sleeping dogs lie. Senators Regan and Bacik said that the "Father Ted" television series could be blasphemous. If the content of "Father Ted", which is a very humorous programme, is considered grossly abusive or insulting to religious matters that are held sacred and if the purpose of the programme is to cause outrage to believers, it is certainly news to me. That would not stand up to scrutiny.

I thought Senator O'Toole's contribution was more focused than others. In discussing this matter, we are dealing with respect and tolerance, which should underline anything we do or say. I will come back shortly to what Senator Mullen said because he put the matter in focus. Perhaps respect is lacking in society. It is only when one visits other jurisdictions, such as Asian countries, that one sees there is a real necessity for tolerance and respect in all sorts of ways, because of the density of population. In that regard, one can recognise some of the thrust of our society which is probably not to our benefit. I do not have a fundamental difficulty with the Oireachtas legislating in this area. We legislate in many areas.

Senator Norris referred to the Wexford disco issue and public opinion had the effect of causing that change. It might well be that the outrage in public opinion it engendered meant it was going to be a commercial failure, but I do not think it caused any change in the mindset of people who were prepared to adopt that approach which was offensive to people who believe. On the other hand, they saw it as being commercially advantageous. Let me compare it to the advertisement by Paddy Power, which showed a picture of the Last Supper. I think that kind of thing is unnecessary and gratuitously offensive to people. I am not saying it was designed to insult people. It was designed to exploit and create controversy which engenders the advertising benefits the company is seeking. I do not think that should be allowed in society and it does not matter what religion it offends.

The Danish cartoons have been referred to in the House. There are those who will argue that freedom of expression is valuable in society, and this is a fundamental principle in democracy. However, that this Bill is before us at all means it is not unfettered. Society does not regard it as being unfettered and uncontrolled and we in the Oireachtas do not regard it so either. In fact, those who work in the newspapers have themselves acknowledged it is not uncontrolled. Therefore, it comes back to a balanced view as to how we regulate it. I do not see anything unbalanced in the Bill. Liberals may well disagree with this.

Some people claimed that section 36(3) makes the thing meaningless, but I do not think so. We all remember the controversy about Salman Rushdie's book when there were many objections to it and his life was threatened as a consequence. There must be scope for artistic, scientific and even religious contrary views against some doctrines religions hold dearly. Senator Mullen strongly made this point but I do not think that necessarily means everything is fair game. When we speak about the Defamation Act, we may feel people's reputations are secondary to freedom of speech. They are not. People have these important rights.

Atheists can be very critical and abusive of religion. I do not find that trait in agnostics, who are trying to discover the truth. They do not believe but they are seeking the truth. They are not dismissive of others' views, even if they do not agree with those views. It comes back to respect and tolerance, which should permeate society. We should promote that within our laws and where it is not taking place, we should certainly oppose it.

Even though he was interrupted by some of his own colleagues, Senator Mullen put his finger on it. There are pseudo-liberals, some of whom are in this House, who pursue an aggressive secularism. There is no doubt about that, and it is obvious to anyone who follows public-----