Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

However, it does not change the hard fact that the Constitution, whether we like it, requires that blasphemy be an offence. It cannot be put any plainer than "the publication or utterance of blasphemous....matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law". If we choose to ignore the Constitution, or to take an À la carte approach to it, we will be abdicating our responsibility as legislators.

I would like to refer to an argument that has been made previously. It has not been made in this House today, although I thought it would be. God forbid that abortion should be brought into the debate. A recent editorial in the paper of record suggested that I was insisting on complying with the Constitution in respect of blasphemy, even though the Oireachtas is happy not to comply with the Constitution in relation to the right to life. I will not go into the very good and valid reason for that distinction. There is a definite answer to that accusation made by the newspaper. In the X case, neither the Supreme Court nor Mr. Justice McCarthy suggested that legislation was an essential ingredient in the protection of the constitutional right to life of the unborn, or the equal right to life of the mother.

However, opposite to that in the Corway case, the Supreme Court said that legislation was essential to give effect to the constitutional requirement of making blasphemy an offence. The main reason for that is that Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution provides a clear rule of law, authorising the courts, as organs of the State, to defend the constitutional rights guaranteed by that article in relation to the life of the unborn. In effect, the Constitution protects the right to life of the unborn, free-standing of any legislation. Therefore, those who raise that canard are wrong.

On the point raised by Senator Mullen, that is not allowable, but he makes a reasonable point in that regard. Nonetheless, it would be unworkable. If we were to amend that, we would have to look at other possible qualifications and areas where we might have to give expression to it. Ultimately, this comes back to the requirement of mens rea, as he rightly said. It is possible that somebody may say something blasphemous without being necessarily aware of the teachings of a particular religion or certain aspects of it. Everything goes to the core of what the Senator describes as the "new" inclusion of an intent, the mens rea, which was not in the previous offence. If we were to open this up, it would have to be done for other issues to be included as a possible offence.