Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Ós rud gurb é seo an chéad uair dom bheith anseo agus an tAire Stáit nua i láthair, ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a ghabháil leis as ucht a cheapacháin. Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go geal leis ina chuid oibre.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this issue and on the progressive work of the Constitutional Convention. At the outset, I should reflect the points I have made to the Taoiseach on a number of occasions in the House in respect of the sense of disappointment on my part and that of many of the members of the convention regarding the timescales the Government originally set down. There were three such timescales, the first of which related to the convention's completing its work, the second to the Government's consideration of the reports submitted by the convention and the third to the House's evaluation of the individual reports. Only the convention met the time deadlines which were set down by the Government. I am sure the Minister of State will agree it is regrettable that the important business of the convention, which was assiduously addressed by its members and prioritised by the Taoiseach, has not been given the priority it deserves in Departments. It has been regularly stated at meetings of the Whips that the cause of the delay is that individual Ministers have found it inordinately difficult to generate from within their Departments the necessary reports required to respond to the proposals of the convention. In addition, discussion of the convention's reports has tended to be tagged onto the week's business in this House. I am not seeking to undermine any debate which might take place here, but it must be noted that the time available to us today to discuss the convention's sixth report is very limited. There is also a limited level of interest in participating in this debate, which is extremely regrettable.

I put it to the Minister of State that it was a mistake for the Seanad not to be included in the important convention process from the outset.

11 o’clock

I am certain that if these reports had been brought before the Upper House, they would have been considered in far greater detail than they have been in this House, sadly, which is a cause of some regret. I hope the reason for this is not that there was an arrogant assumption on the part of the Government that the Seanad would no longer exist by the time the reports fell to be discovered.

Fianna Fáil took the view that the remit of the Constitutional Convention was too narrow and expressed fears about the Government's role. However, the convention has proved to be highly effective. The hard work of those involved and the attentiveness of the participants have yielded results that will help to reshape our way of doing politics in this country. It would be a shame if the Government prevaricated further on the matters involved or spurned the opportunity presented. We need to re-engage citizens who are increasingly tired with the way we do politics. Working through the convention was a step but only one towards that end. I hope the Government will revitalise the work of the convention with a fresh push. This needs a clear timeline for debates and, ultimately, future referendums, where necessary. I trust that next week's memorandum to the Cabinet, to which the Taoiseach referred yesterday and to which the Minister of State has just referred, will meet these criteria. Putting it on the long finger will only do more harm.

Fianna Fáil supports the Constitutional Convention's decision to remove the blasphemy provision from Article 40.6 of the Constitution. Its replacement with a new provision covering incitement to religious hatred, backed up by fresh legislation, would be a more effective mechanism in protecting the unique sensibilities of deeply held religious beliefs. The current provision has, effectively, proved to be unworkable, with the result that its role in protecting the distinctive sensibilities of religious groups has not really materialised. Furthermore, the ethnocentric definition of blasphemy is widely seen as outdated in an Ireland that has changed immensely since the 1937 Constitution was promulgated. It is important that any new provision strike the delicate balance necessary between freedom of speech, the cornerstone of human dignity, and respect for deeply held religious values. It is possible to strike this balance and put in place a framework whereby the Constitution would reflect a pluralistic Ireland that respected the wide belief systems of its citizens.

There are four specific reasons we should replace the existing provision. Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Any constraint on it must be clear and limited, but that is not the case with blasphemy under Article 40. Freedom of speech is a vital part of the development of any human being. We should always be vigilant in any constraint placed on it in the name of the public good. The lack of clarity on the definition of blasphemy has meant that this explicit restriction on freedom of speech remains vague. In the United Kingdom, for example, common law cases defined it as referring solely to the Christian definition of "God" rather than any other religious deity.

The lack of clarity has also meant that no case has ever arisen in Ireland, as the Minister of State noted. It remains unclear if religious sensibilities based on unique fundamental ideals are protected from unwarranted and inflammatory attack. The content of the offence of blasphemy is also unclear. The Law Reform Commission observed that the offence was "totally uncertain as to both its actus reusand its mens rea", terms applying to the guilty act and the guilty intention, respectively. The special place of religious beliefs and non-beliefs needs to be recognised and protected in a clear and legally sound manner.

The offence of blasphemy is an ethnocentric Judeo-Christian definition and not appropriate in a modern liberal democracy in which all beliefs should be respected. The fact that case law in the United Kingdom has limited blasphemy to the Anglican tradition excludes other religions in an increasingly diverse society. Its inclusion in the Constitution reflects the deeply Catholic society that created it in 1937. Reforming the Constitution would allow us to mirror the shifts in Irish life and the need to show a more diverse society. Respecting the beliefs of all traditions and none is vital in a democratic liberal republic.

Autocratic regimes throughout the world are citing Ireland as an example in respect of blasphemy laws in creating stringent limits to freedom of expression. It is deeply unfortunate that autocratic regimes across the globe are citing Irish law as a pretext for introducing blasphemy provisions in their constitutions. For example, Indonesia is one of several Islamic states that has cited Irish blasphemy legislation in support and defence of its own. Irish blasphemy law was cited as an authority in support of Indonesia's constitutional court's decision to uphold its law prohibiting blasphemy in 2010.

Alexander Aan is a 32 year old Indonesian civil servant who started an atheist group on Facebook on which he published articles about Mohammed and questioned the existence of God. He was beaten up by his work colleagues, arrested for blasphemy, jailed for two and a half years and fined the equivalent of $10,000. As a liberal democratic country in western Europe and part of the European Union, Ireland has been used as a pretext for these oppressive laws and systemic discrimination, often against Christians or other religious groups that do not accord with the majority. There is a moral obligation on Ireland, therefore, as a democratic nation, to stand up for human rights, of which freedom of expression and speech is one of the most fundamental. Ambiguity on the issue undermines Ireland's international role.

A new provision on blasphemy and fresh legislation would protect deeply held religious beliefs more effectively. The debate at the convention agreed on a new provision that would recognise the concerns expressed around the need to protect religious beliefs. It mirrored the view of the 1996 Constitutional Review Group:

The Review Group considers that the retention of the constitutional offence of blasphemy is not appropriate. The contents of the offence are totally unclear and are potentially at variance with guarantees of free speech and freedom of conscience in a pluralistic society. Moreover, there has been no prosecution for blasphemy in the history of the State. In so far as the protection of religious beliefs and sensibilities is necessary, this is best achieved by carefully defined legislation along the lines of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 which applies equally to all religious groups, but which at the same time took care to respect fundamental values of free speech and freedom of conscience.

Putting in place renewed provisions would provide a constitutional and legislative bulwark against intolerance of any form.

While blasphemy seems outdated to us today, religious belief continues to form a core part of the daily lives of the majority of people on this island. It plays a positive role in shaping the value system of a society that cherishes the innate and non-negotiable dignity of every human. I am profoundly weary of any cultural war whereby we seek to eliminate religious values from public life. The separation of Church and State is a cornerstone of the republic, one of which we are proud, but it should not be misconstrued as the complete removal of religion from public life and debate. Religious values have a vital place in our national discourse and must be respected. We would be the poorer were that not to be the case. Changing Article 40 would be a step in the right direction towards protecting religious sensibilities and moving away from a restricted ethnocentric religious view. New legislation would strengthen this approach.

I trust the Government will take on board the debate in the House today and views from the convention and move towards a referendum in the near future. I welcome the commitment the Minister of State has given in this regard. Those of us who participated at the convention accept that the Constitution, while having served us rather well, would benefit from rejuvenation to reflect the modern Ireland in which we are all happy to live. With these thoughts, I commend the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention to the House. It is welcome that the Government has taken the proposal on board and I look forward to those in my political party being able to be enthusiastic supporters of the referendum when the matter is eventually put to the people.

See this speech in context