Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to make a few observations. Indecency is as flexible a concept as blasphemy. There were times when people who doubted and publicly refuted the biblical explanation of the garden of Eden and the story of Adam and Eve were accused of blasphemy. Obviously blasphemy as a concept is one which has changed with the passage of time, as has indecency. There is no doubt about that. The mere fact that the term "blasphemy" is difficult to pin down is not the problem here, because Members are quite happy to leave "indecency" in the Constitution and to say that the publication or utterance of indecent matter, whatever that means, must be punishable in accordance with law. That is what this amendment is actually setting out to do; to consciously leave that in the Constitution and to leave it to the law, to lawyers and juries in certain circumstances, to decide whether something is or is not indecent in the context of a criminal prosecution.

I would not have put this phrase into the Constitution at all had I been a constitutional draftsman. I do not think it is particularly necessary. However, the stated intention of the Government as announced by the Minister of State here is to decriminalise everything that up to now could have been considered blasphemy. It is not just a matter of hatred or violence.

I refer to the Charlie Hebdo incident in Paris. The mere fact that one could say something about the Prophet Muhammad which was so offensive to people that they became violent could not possibly be grounds for prohibiting one from publishing the cartoon in the Charlie Hebdo case. It is not the reaction, the extremity of the reaction or the probable consequences that I am talking about. It is the actual concept of saying that freedom of expression carries with it the right to utterly deride, devalue and create contempt for the religious thoughts of others. What we are actually doing in twinning this constitutional amendment to a proposal to decriminalise blasphemy of whatever kind and in whatever circumstance is declaring open season for blasphemy hereafter. I repeat, open season. There is no constraint, unless, of course, some clever lawyer comes up with the idea that public morality brings blasphemy back in through the back door.

I do not believe that we should simply passively watch this be removed in the context of a Government commitment to utterly decriminalise all forms of blasphemy no matter how extreme and let it go without comment. That is the only reason I am contributing. I am a liberal. I have no problem whatsoever with people mocking each other's religions. I am not simply talking about "Father Ted" or something like that. I have no problem at all with people deriding the views of the Mormons or the Scientologists, if Scientology was to be considered a religion, or whoever. I have no problem with people mocking and knocking the religious views of others. I am saying there are things at the very extreme about which a society is entitled to say, "That goes too far". I would like it to be noted that if, in the wake of this amendment being accepted by the people, legislation comes before the House to decriminalise all forms and all degrees of blasphemy of every kind, I think we should have a long and searching debate, far more elaborate than we are having this afternoon, as to whether that is what the people really want to do.