Dominic Hannigan (Labour)

Like Senator Boyle, I believe this is progressive legislation, but I do not accept that the way in which it has been proposed to deal with it is the correct way forward. I would like to know the motivation for introducing it now. It is more than ten years since it was first called for. The Minister mentioned that he has received many representations from people who are against the proposal. Has he received many representations from individuals who are in favour of it? If so, I would be delighted to know what is their reasoning in respect of it. I am not talking about organisations or court judgments, but individuals who are calling for the Minister to proceed with the legislation in the manner in which he is doing so.

I agree with Senator Bacik that there are problems in regard to the definition of blasphemy. The phrase "grossly abusive" is cited in the legislation. How do we define what is grossly abusive? That is not clearly set out . Another phase included in it is that of a substantial number of people being outraged, but what number constitutes a substantial number? Is it 20 people? If there are 20 people in the Gallery, that is a substantial number. Is a substantial number 100 or 1,000 people? We need that clarified.

In regard to the defence against prosecution, if a defendant can prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific or academic values, that would constitute a defence, but who is a reasonable person? What is reasonable to one person is clearly not reasonable to another. There are too many woolly phrases in the legislation and that is a cause for concern. A consequence of that is that people will challenge this legislation. They will go to court. They will put themselves in a position that they can be brought to court.

I am aware the Minister has received a letter on this issue because it was sent to him by Mr. Jonathan Pearson and copied to me. The Minister will probably have this in his in tray. Mr. Pearson wrote, "It would not surprise me to find a considerable number of citizens putting their names to a blasphemous statement the day that this Bill is enacted to show that such a provision in our legislation is nothing but a farce". He concludes, "I know that I would be one of the first to sign such a statement". If this legislation is enacted, we will have a mess on our hands. We will end up going to the courts on a ridiculous journey because we all know that this legislation is not needed. The Minister would agree that the best way forward is a constitutional amendment.

The Minister made a point about not wanting to go into O'Hanlon Park to try to win the referendum on the Lisbon treaty at the same time as trying to win an constitutional amendment on this issue. I can see his point. I am not convinced that there is need for us to rush to have a constitutional amendment on this issue this year. If such a referendum is not held at the time of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty, a constitutional amendment on children might be held. We will debate the Bill on the Lisbon treaty referendum this afternoon and it will be 28th amendment of the Constitution in the past 70 or 80 years. A referendum is held every two and half to three years. If there is not a referendum on this issue at the time of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty, it is likely a referendum will be held in next two or three years. The Presidential election will be held in 2011. There will be plenty of occasions within the next three years when we could put a constitutional amendment on this issue to the people without going to the expense of having a referendum purely on this issue. I caution the Minister in this respect. We have waited long enough for this and we can afford to wait two or three years because there will be other opportunities shortly where a referendum on this issue could be put to the people.