Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am conscious that there are some secondary school students in the Visitors Gallery who may be interested in this debate because the Constitutional Convention was established because we wanted to have a Constitution that was not reflective of the Ireland of 1937 and was more reflective of the Ireland in which young people lived. This is interesting because, when the convention was established, it was suggested it was a waste of time and money and a vanity project. We were experiencing an economic disaster and economic issues were regarded as much more pressing and it was said we should not spend our time discussing issues related to the Constitution. However, in fairness to anyone who held that view but delved further into the issues presented in the weekend debates, generally in the Grand Hotel in Malahide, adopted a different view of how the Constitutional Convention worked. I echo the sentiments of Deputy James Bannon on the chairmanship of the debates by Mr. Tom Arnold.

As a result of the work of the convention, there are to be three referendums next year, one of which will definitely be of interest to the students listening to the debate in the Visitors Gallery because it will be on the lowering of the voting age to 16 years. There is to be a referendum on same-sex marriage and one on the Presidency.

A number of criticisms were made in the House and I appreciate the comments made. One was that debates such as this should not be happening at all because there were more pressing matters than a discussion on blasphemy. Another was that we should not be tagging on this debate at the end of the week in the Dáil. A reasonable position probably lies somewhere in between.

As echoed across the House, there is a danger of referendum fatigue. We have had quite a few referendums and there are to be some more next year. It was announced today that the intention was to hold a referendum on blasphemy. The issue is not so much that we have two competing rights but two very deeply cherished rights, one being the sacred right to freedom of speech, while the other concerns the freedom to practise one's religion. The suggestion of the Constitutional Convention and my belief is that the provision on the offence of blasphemy does not belong in the Constitution. It is the kind of matter Members should be charged to address legislatively. There is no intention to replace the provision within the Constitution in legislative frameworks, but, at the same time, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 could readily deal with the issues being discussed.

We will have plenty of time to toss over and back the arguments on this issue. The Constitution should be a living document, not one necessarily set in stone. People should be sufficiently comfortable with it and sufficiently open-minded and generous of spirit to revisit it as time passes and different circumstances arise. I appreciate the comments made. There has been much discussion on the 2009 Act which, in fairness to the previous Government, emerged as a result of the Corway case and a recommendation from the Attorney General that the judgment be legislated for. That was the context to the 2009 Act on blasphemy. If we were to remove the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution, we would have a better chance of revisiting the Act.

I thank all contributors whose contributions are very much appreciated. We will have a chance in public discourse to discuss this issue much more thoroughly before it is put to the people in order that they can make their final decision on it.

See this speech in context