Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I certainly welcome the changes, particularly those to sections 43 and 44 to allow for religious broadcasting. Not allowing it was a case of liberalism gone too far in the wrong direction. Tolerance should be the issue. I have never seen the democratic process or free will undermined by allowing religious advertising. Not allowing it was a step too far. If a church wants to spread its message through the media, it should be allowed to do so. I might not like the message but that is not my call.

While I am glad "offending good taste or decency" is being replaced by "causing harm or offence", which change is very welcome, I would hate to be the judge of what causes offence. The question is like that which arose in the blasphemy debate. On Second Stage and Committee Stage, I felt content that causing offence must be calculated to incite hatred.

Causing offence is very much a passive process. While I agree that people who set out to cause offence should be made answerable, I believe there is a difference between doing so and causing offence inadvertently. If somebody tells me I offended them greatly, which happens to me regularly, I apologise immediately if I did not intend to cause offence. It would not matter if there were no intention to cause offence because, if I actually caused offence, I would have a civilised duty to deal with the matter. It is not difficult to apologise and state one did not wish to cause offence. On the other hand, people can be overly sensitive about taking offence when it was never intended in the first instance.

How will the Minister decide what is offensive and what is not? It is like the debate on what constitutes blasphemy. We have heard various views on what might offend followers of Allah or others. In Ireland, making certain remarks about the Moslem religion would cause offence but the Catholic religion would be regarded as fair game. There is some justification to this contention because there is a lack of balance in our approach. I am not putting up a staunch defence on behalf of the Catholic church because it can do its business without me. It is an Irish phenomenon that it seems to be okay to have a go at that church but not at others. As a disinterested observer, I must say that. I have seen this occur time and again and have often got into arguments over it. Perhaps it is a case of familiarity breeding contempt – I do not know – but am using this as an example of the difficulty in determining what causes offence. Perhaps the Minister has no answer.

The provision is not a bad idea in that nobody can say it is not fair enough for the Minister to say he does not want people to cause offence. However, if somebody says he was offended, is his saying so enough to point to an offence? Must one prove it or must we do so? How do we get to that point? The provision is not implementable. It is like motherhood and apple pie in that it is hard to speak against it. However, I welcome the other changes. The changes have improved the Bill but we will have difficulty with the provision on causing offence. I am worried an authority will spend years trying to sort out small complaints.