Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

It is incredible in a modern society that Deputies are spending time discussing the inclusion in legislation of measures on blasphemy. These provisions should not have been introduced in the first instance.

I have a certain sympathy for Deputy Michael Colreavy's argument that it is convenient for the Government that the House is discussing this issue as it can pretend to be delivering progress at a time when many families and individuals are terrified that they will not be able to make ends meet following the imposition yesterday of water charges as part of continuing Government austerity measures. That said, the House should discuss these issues more rather than less often.

The Constitutional Convention was an unprecedented exercise in participation. It is regrettable that the House is discussing its sixth report, given that its fourth and fifth reports have not yet been dealt with. The deadline for a response to the fourth report was December 2013. I note the Minister's comment that the convention's reports will be dealt with in the lifetime of the Government. I am not sure this will be possible because the lifetime of the Government has been considerably shortened recently. Some of the participants in the convention are disappointed that not enough has been done in response to some of its reports. I share their disappointment and encourage the Minister of State, in his remaining time in office, to address, as effectively as possible, the issues raised in the reports.

Our approach to the issue of blasphemy has been consistent only in its inconsistency. In 2009, when Deputy Micheál Martin was Minister for Foreign Affairs, he opposed an attempt by Islamic states at United Nations level to make defamation of religion a crime. In a speech at the time he stated:

We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.

It is difficult to disagree with any of the sentiments expressed by the then Minister. A couple of months later, however, his colleague, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Dermot Ahern, introduced legislation on blasphemy that was in direct conflict with the position the then Minister for Foreign Affairs had adopted. It would be difficult to make this up. Under the Defamation Act of 2009, "blasphemy" was defined as the publication or utterance of "matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion". While some defences are permitted under the Act, its provisions on blasphemy contravene Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits discrimination.

We live in a world with competing and, sometimes, clashing viewpoints on the nature and origin of the universe, ethics and other matters. Only religious viewpoints have been made exempt from robust criticism, while the non-religious outlook is not so protected. I will give the example of attitudes to homosexuality. The sacred texts of several of the world's major religions state in clear language that homosexuality is an abomination and that the death penalty should be applied to gay people. In some countries gay people are murdered under the law, while a large number of other countries take a more pick-and-mix approach to the holy books and the death penalty is not advocated for gay people. Nevertheless, one finds that the homophobia and discrimination against gay people that prevail among the various conservative religious outlooks are rooted in passages taken from religious holy books.

Let us examine the other side of this argument. Those who hold a liberal and secular world view also hold sacred and cherished beliefs about the treatment of gay people. All instances of homophobia and discrimination against gay people are offensive in their value system. If a person of a liberal, secular disposition were to openly condemn religious texts or the founders of certain religions for inspiring centuries of hate and discrimination against gay people, some religious people would be deeply offended, not on the basis of the accusation but on account of the fact that they believe their views alone should be protected. We must address that issue.

The legislative provisions on blasphemy are flawed. They stem from constitutional provisions that protect religious views from offence but do not extend similar rights to anyone else. The cost of living in a society that values freedom of expression is that one must tolerate the views expressed by others, especially views one does not like. Noam Chomsky put it well when he stated those who do did believe in freedom of expression for the people they despisd did not believe in it at all. I share that view. None of us has the right to be protected from feeling offended by views that are contrary to our own. A society that cherishes free speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression cannot have on its statute books a law that protects religious ideas, while discriminating against free speech for those who are critical of religion. We need to address this issue by fostering a culture in which no ideas are afforded protections beyond those already in place.

I note the Minister's statement that the Government supports the proposal to delete the relevant passage from the Constitution. While I welcome that undertaking, I am a little concerned about what will happen next, given the inference that new legislation may be introduced to replace the current law. The Constitutional Convention was divided on whether to take this approach. Replacement legislation is not needed because incitement to hatred on religious grounds is already covered by the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 which specifically protects individual citizens from being the target of hate, violence and mistreatment on the basis of their religion, lack of religion, race, gender, nationality, ethnicity or sexuality. It is correct that the State should protect people from becoming the target of religious hatred. The law on blasphemy should be repealed, however, as occurred in the United Kingdom, on the basis that one can commit incitement to religious hatred against people but one cannot commit blasphemy against a person. Given that these are two different issues, our approach to them must also be different.

This is 2014 and Ireland is limping towards becoming a more secular country. In that context, the 1937 Constitution needs to be radically reformed and any legislation arising from it should be eliminated. This would bring us closer to becoming a real republic and, I hope, a step closer to achieving complete separation of Church and State.

I would probably disagree with Deputy Ó Fearghaíl. I am all in favour of protecting people's right to practice their religion and to have their religious ceremonies but that should be kept separate from matters of State. At a practical level, we can see that there is the recital of a prayer at the start of the day here which, to me, is offensive. I do not think that has a place in modern Ireland. We therefore need to go a lot further with the separation of church and State which is still there in a religious context in our education system and health service.

According to the way in which the legislation is framed, the blasphemy must cause outrage for it to be blasphemous. That is like an incitement to cause outrage in that people would have to demonstrate that they are outraged. It is a bit like what happened at the time of the Danish cartoon when people were mobilised to express their outrage. We should encourage people to be more proportionate in their views.

The blasphemy law purports to protect religions from blasphemy but it is actually encouraging division between different religions and different sects within a religion. One person's idea of what might be blasphemous is often another person's sacred belief. One only has to look at the Catholic-Protestant and Sunni-Shiite conflicts as prime examples.

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl mentioned how our blasphemy laws have been used internationally, which is a critically important point in this debate. It is outrageous that the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, OIC, has used the Irish law's wording as a model for a proposal to the United Nations to push for that to be a normative principle in international law and to encourage other states to pass anti-blasphemy legislation. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan have been roundly condemned by Human Rights Watch for their grave violation of human rights. Pakistan is a leading member of the OIC, which holds the Irish law up as a model. Human Rights Watch had this to say:

Pakistan’s vaguely worded blasphemy law has led to discrimination, persecution and murder since its imposition almost three decades ago. It should be reformed or repealed immediately. It is appalling that lawyers who defend the rights of people charged with blasphemy should themselves become the targets of deadly violence.

It is sickening that in 2011, when Ireland's blasphemy laws were being applauded by the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, people in Pakistan were being jailed or sentenced to death for blasphemy. Even critics of the blasphemy law lived in mortal danger. The Moslem governor of Punjab defended a 20 year old Christian woman who was sentenced to death on the hearsay evidence of her neighbours that she had allegedly blasphemed. That governor protected the woman and called for the blasphemy legislation to be repealed. He then became a target of calls for his assassination. He was eventually assassinated by his bodyguard who was applauded and escorted into court by hundreds of people championing him as a great hero. That is where blasphemy laws can lead to in extreme circumstances. They do infringe freedom of speech and expression. They can be used by one majority religion to discriminate against a minority religion or a rival sect.

Let's face it, for Ireland to be cited by countries like Pakistan as having the best practice makes us worse than bedfellows. We are really on the other end of the scale. It must be removed from the Constitution and we do not need any replacement legislation to fill the vacuum. We should aspire to be a republic that cherishes all the children of the nation equally, as well as encouraging and welcoming the divergent views of its citizens, as long as those views are held respectfully. We have sufficient protection on the Statute Book to ensure that is the case. Eliminating these blasphemy laws will lead us in the direction, at least at the top, of setting the tone of a more tolerant and accommodating society.

See this speech in context