Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am happy to make some remarks about the Bill. When the Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018 was debated on Second Stage in September last year, I began by acknowledging that the issue of removing the offence of blasphemy was a source of deep concern for a significant proportion of the population. I shared the view that respect for authentically held religious values had been on the decline for decades. Anti-Catholic rhetoric, in particular, is rampant. Some have even described such views as the last acceptable public prejudice. That said, I supported the Government's Bill to repeal the blasphemy clause from the Constitution.

As Our Lord said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." While many of us have wished matters to be different, it has been clear ever since the 1996 Constitution review group report that the contents of the offence of blasphemy are totally unclear and potentially at variance with the guarantee of free speech and freedom of conscience in a pluralistic society and that the end has been coming for this clause in Article 40.6.1o for some time.

The issue also received substantial and detailed analysis in the sixth report of the Constitutional Convention, which was established by the then Government in 2012. As I understand it, the convention voted in favour of including a new constitutional provision against religious hatred with 53% of members in favour, 38% against and 9% undecided.

Many people saw the position I adopted as some kind of concession to those who want to remove even the mention of God or the sacred from our culture and society. That is emphatically not the case. I simply hold the view that it is not tenable for the State to involve itself in the making of theological judgements, much less enforce specific theological and philosophical judgements by any one particular creed or church. I believe in the separation of church and State. I do not believe, however, that the separation should become a division. Some people would like to see a big division. The church has a vital role to play in our society and it works effectively in a spirit of collaboration with the State on so many issues. That role needs to be respected and protected. It is not appropriate for the State to act as the guard dog of any particular church. Such a position harms both church and State - an outcome that is in nobody's interests at any time.

In the broader international context, we know that one of the arguments put forward for the abolition of the offence of blasphemy was that it gave encouragement to other regimes where the penalty for such an offence was death or some other awful physical punishment. There is merit in that view but it is not the entire truth. I am conscious that perhaps we should have investigated that claim in a bit more detail because while we wanted to give the impression that we are now an enlightened people, the record of the State when it comes to protecting those who suffer religious persecution for their beliefs is very mixed, to put it mildly. In November of last year, I asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he had made representations to the government of Pakistan or its ambassador regarding the high-profile imprisonment of Asia Bibi, a Christian, for blasphemy. I also asked him if requests had been made to his Department to offer asylum to the individual in question and her family following public disturbances and disorder after her release. The Tánaiste assured me that under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and that Ireland works within and alongside the EU and UN to address the persecution of religious minorities wherever it occurs. Those words are fine and dandy but we do not do so. Deputy Grealish, Senator Mullen and I visited Lebanon some years ago, a country that is a pretty difficult topic at the moment with regard to refugees and asylum seekers. We met Syrian refugees in the refugee camps in the mountains. Thankfully, we were there for a few days and met them. They gave us a fíorfáilte - a wonderful welcome. We saw young children and very old grandmothers in many cases. They told us about the savage persecution they endured and about how all the men had to flee. They only got 24 hours to leave, otherwise they would have been slain.

We were pretty chastened by what we heard and saw and returned to this Parliament determined to get a debate on it. However, there was no debate about the persecution of Christians and many other minorities, including minority Muslim groups. It is not just Christians who are being slaughtered. I am sad to say that we found out that under Saddam Hussein, Colonel Gadaffi and other dictators, people were free to practise their faith. They had full freedom to do so. The US-British coalition then went in, blew the hell out of the place and caused massive destruction. Now there is slaughter. We saw how minorities suffered genocide of the worst order but there was no meaningful debate here. We tried and tried but the Government kept paying lip service and there was no debate because we did not want to offend the Americans or British. Yet it was rather poignant that when four of us looked for and were granted a Topical Issue debate, it fell on Holy Thursday evening - the evening of the Last Supper. That was the only debate we had. Four Members got together. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving us a chance to have a debate on the atrocities in the Middle East. We are paying lip service.

The Tánaiste told me that under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and that Ireland works within and alongside the EU and UN to address the persecution of religious minorities wherever it occurs. They do not address it. We are shamefully lacking as a country when it comes to this. We have a proud record of peacekeeping all over the world but as far as this subject is concerned, it is just a nod and a wink. We might raise it here and there but we do nothing publicly. Nothing is said and no proper calls or demands are made by Ireland as a sovereign neutral country that this not be carried out in our name and that we will not allow Shannon Airport to be used to transport arms and planeloads of soldiers going to and from the Middle East. What is happening in the Middle East is unbelievable. The fact that I went and saw for myself what is happening there was one of the best experiences of my life. We have had no debate on it here when we have had debates on everything. We have Members going to the courts today to get a debate on money messages. You name it, we have debates on it yet we have had nothing when it comes to our international role in the protection of human rights. We looked for help here when we were being persecuted ourselves but of course, we have citizens here who are now being persecuted by the banks and the system and we do not look after them either.

The Tánaiste was not correct when he said that Ireland works within and alongside the EU and the UN to address persecution because we do not. Our voice is shamefully and abysmally absent. Our voice is silent, which is pitiful and shameful for a modern free country. The case of Asia Bibi, a Pakistani woman convicted in 2010 of blasphemy and sentenced to death, does make that very commitment clear. Following an appeal, the supreme court of Pakistan, thankfully, overturned her conviction. In fact, we commended the judges of the Pakistani supreme court for doing so and for upholding the rule of law in a very difficult situation. Thankfully, her life was spared. The Tánaiste went on to say that Ireland attaches great importance to the fundamental human rights of freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief but, again, how credible is that when we see doctors being threatened with removal from their jobs if they display a conscientious objection to abortion? It is pretty hollow. How credible is it when we see medical doctors and nurses being threatened with removal from their jobs by the Minister for Health if they display a conscientious objection to abortion - to the taking of a human life? It is shocking for someone to be so threatened as if we did not have enough of a scarcity of doctors and nurses. I salute the courageous ones who have refused to have any hand, act or part in that savagery.

I supported the Government last year during the blasphemy referendum and not because I wanted to see respect for God or the sacred diminished in any way. I did so primarily because it has been clear for years that our courts and legal system have found no meaningful way to prosecute an offence under the previous blasphemy law system. There is little point in having a law on the Statute Book if we cannot enforce it.

There are many laws that are barely enforceable, some that are not enforceable and some where there has never been an attempt to enforce them. It is very odd that while arguments are being made that this Bill will increase and protect freedom of speech, that the reality points in another direction entirely, namely, the polar opposite direction. In fact, we appear to be getting ready to put in place a kind of secular blasphemy law where it will be a criminal offence to say almost anything deemed offensive by the great and good who constitute the new elite in our society. We are going down the road where we will not be allowed to have a contrary view, and it is a slippery slope.

Parishioners and people in small rural communities want to be welcoming and engaging. They are full of generosity, just witness the money given to hospices and missions. If those people have a contrary view, however, the Minister, Deputy Flanagan, threatens them and tells them to back off. We need to have debate and discourse. This is not a dictatorship, although we might think that at times. A community cannot express reservations about disproportionate immigration because that is now deemed, or soon will be deemed, hate speech. That is ridiculous. I am referring to the best of communities that have every voluntary organisation possible, from tidy towns committees to community alerts schemes, meals on wheels, St. Vincent de Paul societies and hospices. They are welcoming and engaging communities.

All they want is to be treated with some modicum of respect by the Government. That is a Government that has taken everything away from them, every last vestige of that to which they should be entitled. These communities only want to be allowed to live in peace and not have the heavy hand of the law down on top of them when they want to have reasonable consultation and proper services put in place for people who come here by way of immigration. I refer to people fleeing from what we saw in Syria and Lebanon. We can see the powder keg Lebanon is at the moment. The people in those communities need to be listened to, engaged with and not talked down to and dictated to by a Minister telling them to put up or shut up and stating that communities are lucky to be getting what they are getting. I blame the officials in the Department of Justice and Equality as well for not having a template at this stage.

Borrisokane in Tipperary can be used as a template, even if they do not perhaps wish to be used in that fashion. The same kind of shoddy, underhand work happened in that community. The people there found out about it, however, and had a public meeting. I salute Councillor Joe Hannigan, the other four members and the public for coming together. They had a proper discussion. When unwanted visitors came in shouting hate speech at the meeting, they were told where to go. Things have now been worked out, Syrian refugees are being welcomed and there are more families to come. That has been done with understanding and acceptance and those people are stepping up to the plate and doing their bit for our less lucky neighbours from yonder in Syria and elsewhere. That is what happens when it is handled that way. I mentioned Ballaghaderreen the other night, where there was disquiet when something similar happened. The local foróige group got involved with the younger children and teenagers. I salute all those people for doing that. That is what I saw, women and young children and I have no problem at all with them coming and being welcomed.

I have problems with the figures and the Taoiseach referred to them at the weekend. Massive numbers of people here from Albania and Georgia, 99% and 97%, respectively, have been refused entry. That is because they are not refugees and are not fleeing any war or persecution. They are clearly coming here as economic migrants. I have the figures on deportation, I just do not have them with me. I refer, however, to some 99% and 97% being refused by our system. I salute the people working in the system and issuing deportation orders. Less than 70% or 80% of the people issued with those orders have left, however. Where are they? We cannot afford that kind of money, some €50 million and €60 million. We are a small country and people will want to come here because we are, thankfully, reasonably wealthy and prosperous.

Parents cannot express difficulties and challenges concerning our school ethos and faith matters because that is now being seen as non-inclusive and disrespectful to those who have no faith. It is shocking. Deputy Connolly and many others here demonise the Catholic Church day in, day out. Without it, however, many of us would not be educated. The matrons and the nuns ran the hospitals as well and did so much work. We should respect that. There are bad apples and that happens in every barrel. There is a rush now to destroy our ethos that has stood us in good stead in times past. There is now a rush to throw it out. I have no problem with Educate Together and people like that but they should not be dictating what should be done in a hospital and what religious artefacts can be displayed here and there. It is not the Muslim people. We have many Muslim doctors, whom we support and welcome. They have no issue with the crucifixes and everything else. These so-called liberals and atheists have a big problem with everything like that and they want to banish all of it.

We had mass here this morning, thankfully, and it was celebrated by a wonderful priest. It was in the Ceann Comhairle's dining room and there was a good turn out. It was a holy mass for our former Members, but we did not have that from 2009 to about 2013. We could not have it because the media would not like it. We are kowtowing to the media and the liberals and we are going to end up with nothing. We will see how this Bill works out in the courts and how Bills concerning free speech and so-called hate speech work themselves out. My feeling is that they will just become the new sacred idols and anything or anyone who challenges them will be guilty of secular blasphemy. We have to remember too that the Constitution, as it stands, provides that:

The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

How can we get that balance right? Do we even care about that part of the Constitution anymore? We are very selective of the parts that we want to promote and those parts that we want to tread on. Attempts to remove that section will not be as easily supported by me for one. The preamble to the Constitution states:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,

Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

To my mind that preamble speaks to much more than respect for God. It speaks to issues surrounding how and where laws get their legitimacy. Are our laws just about majorities or must they reflect a moral law written into the hearts of men and women? That is why any attempt to remove that preamble will not be supported. Blasphemy laws in our State were a dead letter for decades. It was not possible to bring an effective prosecution, so something had to happen to remedy that. I just hope that the Minister can ensure religious people of all persuasions can have their views protected from deliberate attempts to ridicule or attack them.

See this speech in context