Alex White (Labour)

On the final point made by Senator Bacik, I would like the Minister of State to comment on the question of its application in the context of inter-country adoptions. In looking at the Bill again perhaps I am missing something in terms of where the matter appears. Section 32 covers religion. Does it have equal application to inter-country adoptions? How on earth is it suggested it could have any practical value or application in those circumstances, as touched on by Senator Bacik?

The Minister of State's justification of the section in the context of the rights of people to pursue their religious views or practise their religion is not really convincing. Of course people have the right to religious views and to practise their religion. To remove section 32 would not remotely undermine either of those rights. How could it conceivably affect people's rights to have a religious view or practise their religion?

It is problematic in the case of an adoption where a child is to be adopted and the natural mother takes an interest in the destination of the child. Religion is one aspect which would enter her mind. Listening to the debate, I find it problematic. I do not agree that included in a person's right to practise his or her religion or in the State's vindication of that right is a veto on the question of religion. I know this is a different area but I find it problematic. I do not think removing section 32 remotely undermines one's right to practise religion or hold religious views and I find it singularly unconvincing as a justification for the section.