Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

My views on the question of a referendum on blasphemy are as stated in the House during the debate on 20 May 2009 on Committee Stage of the Defamation Bill 2006. I clearly stated that I hoped the matter could be addressed by referendum at a suitable opportunity in the near future. In debates on the Bill in this House, I explained the nature of the constitutional obligation imposed, not just on me but on Members of the Oireachtas generally, in Article 40.6.1o.i of the Constitution, in regard to blasphemous libel.

Section 13 of the Defamation Act 1961 provided for the offence of blasphemous libel, which was punishable by monetary and prison penalties. Up to two years' imprisonment was possible under that legislation. Successive Attorneys General had advised the Government that until the Constitution is amended by referendum, it is necessary that blasphemous libel remain a crime and that legislation must make provision for punishment of this crime. This presented a certain difficulty if we were to proceed to repeal the 1961 Defamation Act and bring to a conclusion the lengthy process of reforming our defamation legislation.

Having regard to the constitutional obligation, I was faced with essentially two choices - although, probably a third choice was that I could drop the Defamation Bill altogether. Of the other two choices, the first was to put on hold the reform of defamation legislation and seek the Government's approval to conduct a referendum to delete the provision on blasphemous libel from the Constitution. This choice would have involved considerable expense as a stand-alone referendum. I believe it would have been an unwarranted diversion and would have attracted significant criticism as such. I made clear at the time that I felt this was not a viable option, given the current circumstances.

The approach that I and my Government colleagues favoured mirrored that of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution which, in its 2008 report, recommended that the specific reference to blasphemy in the Constitution should be deleted. They were of the view that if there was a need to protect against religious offence or incitement, it is more appropriate that this be dealt with by legislative intervention with due regard to freedom of expression. At that time, however, the committee saw no need - and, subsequently, neither did I - for a constitutional amendment in the short term. Pragmatically, the committee was of the view that any appropriate opportunity should be availed of in the future. In other words, the matter was not of immediate importance.

The approach, which I felt had significant support, was to proceed with the reform of the defamation legislation and to make minimum provision in regard to blasphemous libel in the new Act. Section 36 of the Defamation Act 2009, therefore, removes the possibility of prison sentences from the old section 13 of the 1961 Act, and also removes the possibility of private prosecutions for blasphemous libel, as laid down in the 1961 Act. It also provides for a defence to a defendant who proves that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates. I commenced operation of the Act by order on 1 January 2010.

I remain of the view that on grounds of cost, a referendum on blasphemy on its own should not be held. It should possibly be run together with one or more other referenda. I would be happy to propose to the Government a referendum on blasphemy at the appropriate time when there will be a possibility of other referenda, in order to save costs.

See this speech in context