Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I certainly make no apologies for it. I make the comparison with Senator O'Toole's contribution on Tone republicanism. I regard myself as a republican and the essence of that is tolerance for other viewpoints. That should be injected into the debate. I do not think anyone will be a victim of this Bill. It will be difficult to prosecute. It does not interfere with the freedom of speech but it does provide that those who are grossly abusive or insulting on matters held sacred by a religion and cause outrage among a substantial number of the people when their intention was to cause such outrage will be guilty of an offensive. I see nothing wrong with that. I do not see any reason anyone should embark on that course of action. That does not deprive people of the ability to put forward their points of view in a reasoned, measured way which are contrary to the views of people who have faith or whatever else. That is as it should be.

I find Senator Mullen's amendment quite persuasive. I do not necessarily have any objection to an offence of blasphemy and I can see why it was put in our Constitution. I do not agree with the modernists who feel we have gone past the 1937 Constitution. It has been held in the courts on many occasions as supporting the underlying principles of human rights. In the debates we had in this House on the European Convention on Human Rights, it was clearly stated by the Minister and by many of the contributors that our Constitution had most of those human rights covered. There should be a defence to section 36(3) and I think the amendment is a good one. I can obviously see why genuine literary, artistic, scientific and academic values are matters that can be used in the defence. I find it difficult to see why there would be a political element to that. However, if these are being put in, the compelling argument made by Senator Mullen about religious values is equally important. Our Constitution protects religious expression. Its inclusion here would certainly be compatible with that. The corollary of that would be that its exclusion might be unconstitutional.

I am not making any apology for this particular Bill. I notice that some of my colleagues mention that a referendum should be a priority. If that is the case, the people will decide. I am not quite as sure as some of them that they will get the answer they are looking for from the public, but it is their right to seek that. If this is a priority in the midst of the most serious recession we have had since the Great Depression, then our priorities might not be in the right order.