Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State for this very interesting debate. He has been here for most of it and I have found it fascinating. I am certainly not a lawyer, and I am not rising with any confidence that I can handle many of the items that have been discussed. I listened very carefully to the Minister and I do not think he would have introduced this particular topic if he did not feel there was a need for it. The fact that the burden of proof has existed since the 1937 Constitution and that there has not been any prosecution seems a little bit strange. The Minister is introducing this on the belief that there is a need for it and I think he has covered the areas that would express concern. The fact that somebody "intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause...outrage" means that intention is crucial to this. However, I have a concern about a second aspect of it, to which Senator Mullen also referred. I would like to formally second the verbal amendment that was proposed by Senator Mullen to try to rectify this problem. I do not think those who have supported the amendment have seconded it. Senator Mullen wants to add the word "religious" to section 36(3) of the Bill, which reads: "It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates." It seems that the Bill needs to provide for the religious value of the matter to which the offence relates. It seems that freedom of religious expression, which is protected by the Constitution, should enjoy as much protection as freedom of literary, artistic, political, scientific or academic expression. If we do not meet the real need to provide such protection, we will be saying we do not regard freedom of religious expression as having the same validity as the other freedoms I mentioned. The manner in which the burden of proof is set out makes it highly unlikely that a prosecution will be secured.

Senator Norris mentioned a nightclub in Wexford that had proposed to make a scandalous and mocking use of the crucifixion as part of its efforts to attract attention. While public opinion and market forces forced the nightclub in question to close, that is not good enough. Some weapon should be available to the Minister and the State to contain or restrict such blasphemous abuses. I am one of the few people in this country who has ended up in the Supreme Court on the basis of Article 44 of the Constitution, which protects freedom of religion. Almost 40 years ago, I won a freedom of religion case on the basis that discrimination should be avoided in line with Article 44 of the Constitution. While I am not confident that I know a huge amount about the legality of our previous blasphemy laws, I have learned a lot today. I support the amendment the Minister made to the Bill and I urge him to accept Senator Mullen's verbal amendment. If we are to recognise "literary, artistic, political, scientific or academic" forms of expression, it is important that we recognise "religious" forms of expression too. On that basis, I urge the Minister to improve the legislation and ensure it is sound by accepting Senator Mullen's verbal amendment.