Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

People outside this building in the real world - the Paddys and Patricias as the Taoiseach likes to refer to them - are scratching their heads and wondering why given the state of the nation and the challenges some of them face, the Parliament is spending so much time debating blasphemy. Tomorrow I have to meet a family originally from Slovakia in my constituency. There are five children, including three who are Irish born. The family has been deemed by the Department to Social Protection not to qualify for welfare support under the habitual residence condition, which means the parents do not qualify for the jobseeker's allowance or even for supplementary welfare payments. The family is homeless, including three infants who were born in this country, without money for food and has no hope. The State's doors are being closed on them. If we want to talk about morality, we should talk about a State that is prepared to see children go homeless and hungry before we spend so much time discussing blasphemy. It is blasphemous to be talking about blasphemy when humans are being hurt like this. However, that is the Ireland in which we live today, the Ireland of the closed doors. That is the Ireland where the inflexibility of rules is the immorality surrounding us.

In 2009, the then Fianna Fáil Government tabled an amendment to the Defamation Bill, which provided that "a person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000." This Act also allows members of the Garda to obtain a warrant to enter any premises to remove documentation that might be blasphemous.

The 1937 Constitution upholds this attempt to nullify blasphemy under Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution. However, the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution recommended as long ago as 1996 that this provision should be removed and this view was endorsed by the Law Reform Commission. Most recently, it was the view of the Constitutional Convention that blasphemy should be removed from the Constitution.

Blasphemy laws were first introduced to protect churches from public criticism and were used to suppress voices of dissent against their rule. The first blasphemy laws that can be found in common law can be traced back to protecting the Anglican religion, which, as the established church, was part and parcel of the law of the land. The charge of blasphemy was used throughout the 20th century as a means of silencing dissenting voices to what was perceived to be the natural order of things. In 1938, Cardinal McRory of Armagh called for a conference on atheism to be banned. In 1929, the Dean of Tuam called on local vigilance committees to deal with newsagents which sold "blasphemous" literature "as they thought best". Dr. Gilmartin, Archbishop of Tuam, in 1930 praised Mussolini as "a great head" of state for banning blasphemous language in public places. The archbishop bemoaned the fact that Ireland was not more like fascist Italy. In a more sinister turn of events, two members of the Jehovah's Witnesses community were set upon in County Clare in 1956 by a gang, including a Catholic priest, for spreading “blasphemous” literature. The judge in the case that followed sided with the attacker claiming that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had escaped very lightly.

Religious defamation laws are not the right way to achieve tolerance, mutual respect and equality. Blasphemy is not a valid offence in public law, and should not be a criminal offence in a democratic society that respects diversity. It is not an acceptable limitation on the fundamental rights to freedom of opinion and expression and it should have no place in the Constitution. Rather, religious groups and non-believers alike must be adequately protected from incitement to hatred and discrimination on the grounds of religion, which must be legally prohibited, and such protections of religious minorities' right to equality should be constitutionally entrenched in a Bill of rights and in any all-Ireland charter of rights.

Freedom of belief and of religion are rights of special importance to the major traditions on this island, each with its own historical experience of official suppression by the State. However, despite significant advances by the peace process and under the Good Friday Agreement, sectarian violence continues to plague our country. Constitutional protection of plurality of belief and robust constitutional prohibition of discrimination, harassment or incitement to hatred on grounds of religious belief are needed to underwrite national reconciliation on the basis of equality and parity of esteem. In contrast, the continued presence of a blasphemy offence in the 1937 Constitution can only act as a barrier to building Unionist confidence in a unified future.

With regard to international law, freedom of expression is guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although subsection 2 allows for exceptions on the usual safety-security grounds and for the protection of "morals". In the 1989 case Wingrove v. UK the European Court of Human Rights found that the country’s blasphemy law did not violate Article 10. However, two aspects of this decision should be noted. First, it is 20 years old and, second, the case dealt with the denial of a certificate by the British Film Board. It cannot be assumed that a 21st century European Court, faced with a law that resulted in a criminal prosecution and a €100,000 fine, would reach the same conclusion.

The Satanic Versesis an example of a publication that could very easily have fallen foul of this law. Attempts to prosecute it in England failed only because the blasphemy law in place at the time, which has since been abolished entirely, applied only to the Church of England and not other religions.

The Danish cartoons could also be prohibited under this law. The Conway v.Independent Newspapers case, in which a prosecution failed only because of the absence of anything like the amendment being considered, dealt with a cartoon portraying Catholicism as anti-progressive. Whatever offence these materials may cause to some, criminal prosecution is hardly an appropriate response.

The charge of the offence of blasphemy has clearly been extended to enforce censorship. The State has had a very poor relationship with censorship. For many years, some of our most promising and gifted authors had their works banned in the Twenty-six Counties under what was, effectively, moral guidance disseminated by the State. This resulted in a suppression of the arts and while Ireland produced many talented artists and writers, they were not allowed the freedom they should have been given. Writers such as Edna O'Brien and Brendan Behan who are now celebrated once witnessed their novels being suppressed. This is what occurs when the State tries to enshrine in law measures that attempt to bring about respect, tolerance and mutual understanding but which are subsequently used by organisations and individuals to suppress freedom of expression. As such, blasphemy provisions should not be included in legislation.

See this speech in context