Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 14: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his plans to further reform on law on blasphemy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13198/10]

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 42: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his plans to propose a referendum on blasphemy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13192/10]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 and 42 together.

My views on the question of a referendum on blasphemy are as stated in the House during the debate on 20 May 2009 of Committee Stage of the Defamation Bill 2006. I clearly stated that I hoped that the matter could be addressed by referendum at a suitable opportunity in the near future.

In debates on the Bill in this House I explained the nature of the constitutional obligation imposed on me - in Article 40.6.1. i of the Constitution - in regard to blasphemous libel. The Defamation Act 1961, in section 13, provided for the offence of blasphemous libel which was punishable by monetary and prison penalties (up to 2 years imprisonment was possible). Successive Attorneys General had advised the Government that until the Constitution is amended, by referendum, it is necessary that blasphemous libel remain a crime and that legislation must make provision for punishment of this crime. This presented a certain difficulty if we were to proceed to repeal the 1961 Act and bring to a conclusion the lengthy process of reforming our defamation legislation.

Having regard to the constitutional obligation, I was faced with essentially two choices. The first was to put on hold the reform of defamation legislation and to seek the approval of the Government to conduct a referendum to delete the provision on blasphemous libel from the Constitution. This choice would have involved considerable expense as a "stand alone" referendum and would I believe have been an unwarranted diversion and would have attracted significant criticism as such. I made clear at the time that I felt that this was not a viable option given the current circumstances.

The approach I favoured mirrored that of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, which in its Report in 2008, recommended that the specific reference to blasphemy in the Constitution should be deleted. They were of the view that if there is a need to protect against religious offence or incitement, it is more appropriate that this be dealt with by legislative intervention with due regard to freedom of expression. However, the Committee saw no need, nor did I, for a Constitutional amendment in the short term and, pragmatically, were of the view that any appropriate opportunity should be availed of in the future. The matter, in other words, was not of immediate importance.

The approach, therefore, which I felt had significant support, was to proceed with the reform of our defamation legislation, and to make minimum provision in regard to blasphemous libel in the new Act. Section 36 of the Defamation Act 2009, therefore, removes the possibility of prison sentences and private prosecutions for blasphemous libel. It also provides for a defence to a defendant who proves that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates. I commenced operation of the Act by Order on 1 January, 2010.

I remain of the view that on grounds of cost, a referendum on its own on blasphemy should not be held and that it should instead run together with one or more other referendums. I would be happy to propose to the Government a referendum on blasphemy at the appropriate time.