The Cedar Lounge Revolution

It’s that time of the week again, when our thoughts stray to the second chamber of this democracy. What debates are taking place, what arguments are being arrayed, what minds are being swayed? Let’s draw the curtain back a moment… what’s this, they’re discussing blasphemy? Interesting, interesting…

Senator Ivana Bacik: I echo the words of Senator Coghlan and again call on the Leader to ensure we have a debate on the pharmacy issue with the Minister for Health and Children next week. I believe he has already promised and I would like him to confirm it.
I also support Senator Ó Murchú’s call for an all-party motion to be adopted in this House on the need for humanitarian relief to get through to the beleaguered people of Gaza who have been suffering so badly since their bombardment by Israel earlier this year. Yesterday, Senator Ó Murchú and I along with others had the privilege of meeting Derek Graham, one of the people from the Free Gaza Movement who was detained by the Israeli authorities when the ship on which he and Mairéad Corrigan Maguire were travelling was detained. That ship was trying to bring humanitarian supplies through to Gaza. Derek Graham’s account of the dreadful conditions in which people are living in Gaza made chilling hearing. Senator Ó Murchú and I promised him that we would do our best to try to ensure adoption of an all-party motion condemning the actions of Israel and Egypt in blocking humanitarian relief getting through to Gaza. I urge the Leader to arrange for the adoption of such a motion.
On a day that we will debate the blasphemy laws, it is nice to be able to agree for once, which I rarely do, with a Catholic priest, Fr. Willie Russell, who I note from an article on the front page of The Irish Times, is the local parish priest in Rathkeale in County Limerick. He has been rather critical of people there who appear to be paying homage or worshipping a tree stump which they believe depicts an image of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Senator David Norris: She is on her holidays, give her a break.

Senator Ivana Bacik:  Fr. Russell says there is nothing there, it is just a tree and one cannot worship a tree.

An Cathaoirleach:  I remind the Senator that we are dealing with questions to the Leader on the Order of Business.

Senator Ivana Bacik: Fr. Russell might be at risk of being found guilty of blasphemy since he is being critical, grossly abusive or insulting to people of a religion who seem to want to worship a tree. We should be mindful of the danger of introducing an offence like blasphemy in light of the sort of events that we are seeing in Rathkeale in Limerick.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.
…

Deputy Dermot Ahern:    It is because of the Corway case. It is being incorrectly alleged that neither of my predecessors felt there was a need for this. A member of the Labour Party was on a programme and said something that was a complete untruth, and he knew it. The Minister, Deputy Lenihan, said on 11 March 2008:
If we repeal, in full, the provisions of the 1961 Act in reforming the defamation laws, we create a gap unless some provision is made for constitutional offences. We must also be mindful of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Corway v. Independent Newspapers in 1999, where the Supreme Court indicated a need to address the law on blasphemy. At this stage, I would suggest our duty is to ensure that there is no gap created in the case of these offences, which are recognised by the Constitution. [Indeed, they are the only criminal offences recognised in the Constitution.] I reiterated this very clear position on Second Stage during the debate in the Dáil on 8 May 2008. My predecessor as Minister and I clearly signalled that a new legislative proposal regarding blasphemous libel would have to be made at some stage on Committee Stage in the Dáil.
The deletion of Article 46.1.1° was recommended by the constitutional review group in 1996, and more recently in July 2008 by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution in its report entitled “Article 46.1.1 – Freedom of Expression”, which dealt, inter alia, with blasphemy. Deletion was also recommended by the Law Reform Commission in its report in 1991, but they also recommended a number of other matters. However, the committee saw no need for a constitutional amendment in the short term, but rather that we might avail of any appropriate opportunity in the future.

Senator Joe O’Toole:    October 2.

Senator Ivana Bacik:    Lisbon II.

Deputy Dermot Ahern:    I do not know what the Senators are talking about.

Senator David Norris:    He is suggesting that we add a referendum to remove blasphemy to the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

Deputy Dermot Ahern:    I understand. I do not know whether Senator Norris knocks on doors on North Great Georges Street, but I knock on doors in O’Hanlon Park in Dundalk, and when I go around knocking on doors asking people to vote in favour of the Lisbon treaty, I do not relish—–

Senator David Norris:    The Government can get the blasphemy law through first.

Deputy Dermot Ahern:    —–asking at the same time if they want to take blasphemy out of the Constitution. I hazard a guess that Senator Norris might not get the response he wants when he knocks on doors in O’Hanlon Park.

Senator David Norris:    I accept the Minister’s invitation to travel to Dundalk and knock on doors with him. The Minister can do Lisbon and I will do blasphemy.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:    The Minister, without interruption.

Deputy Dermot Ahern:    We do not have the luxury of a “do nothing” approach.

Senator David Norris:    Why not?

Senator Ivana Bacik:    We have done nothing for ten years.

….

Senator Ivana Bacik:    I second Senator’s amendment to delete the Minister’s amendments and express my very strong opposition to them. I will first respond to a couple of technical points the Minister made. He said he envisages no prosecution would be taken without the DPP’s approval. I am surprised there is no provision in the proposed new sections that no prosecution may take place without the DPP’s consent. I was going to raise this. The Minister will be well aware of the formula used, for example, in the offence of marital rape and a number of other offences where some sort of public policy issue is at stake. That would have been a sensible insertion into this section.
During the Minister’s speech I made a point of order on his comment that he envisages that this offence would be tried in the High Court. I presume he means the High Court in its criminal jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court. I expressed surprise at that, not because I am necessarily in opposition to that.

An Cathaoirleach:    I think Senator Bacik has a telephone ringing and it is not good enough that anybody leaves a telephone turned on in the Chamber. I ask people to leave telephones off and respect the staff who have to listen to telephones ringing.

Senator Dominic Hannigan:    There is a telephone around the front of the Chamber.

An Cathaoirleach:    It can be anywhere. I am not saying who has it [although you'll note he just did]  but telephones are not allowed to ring here when there is business on.

Senator Ivana Bacik:    I have no telephone ringing, but I thank the Chair. The Minister said he would prefer not to see this offence tried in the Circuit Court and I hope I am not—–

Deputy Dermot Ahern:    I was just making a point about the mobile telephone.

Senator Ivana Bacik:    I presume the Minister was making the same point I was, denying responsibility.

Deputy Dermot Ahern:    Given the job I have I require to be in 24-7 contact with the Garda. I have already asked Clerk of the Dáil to give me an exemption on the use of my mobile telephone.

Senator Ivana Bacik:    Nobody was seeking to attribute blame for the mobile telephone to the Minister.

Senator Rónán Mullen:    There could be blasphemers needing to be arrested even as we speak.

…

Senator Ivana Bacik:    What the Minister is doing is the worst of all possible worlds. He is basing the new statutory definition on the old understanding of blasphemy from the 19th century, and including within the definition words and phrases that remain so vague as to render the new offence effectively unenforceable. Indeed I believe the Minister has said his intention is to make it virtually impossible to get a successful prosecution. It seems this stated intention undermines the entire point of introducing a new definition. While it is clearly welcome that no prison sentence is imposed, the fine is ludicrously high. We have not yet mentioned the proposed section 36. The powers of the Garda of entry by reasonable force if necessary and the seizure of copies of statements, etc., and the fine make it a draconian offence. However, it is still so vague in the terms used as to make it very difficult to see how any prosecutions could ensue and yet the danger is that they will ensue.
The Bill provides that persons who publish “matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion” may be prosecuted for blasphemy. The concept of “matter that is grossly abusive or insulting” is extremely subjective and very vague. The Bill provides that it must thereby cause “outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion”. However, with the proliferation of the Internet we know how quickly substantial numbers of people might be offended and feel grossly abused or insulted.

Deputy Dermot Ahern:    I know. I do not know if I ever received as many e-mails on any other issue in my political career as I did on this.

Senator Ivana Bacik:    I am glad the Minister pointed that out.

Deputy Dermot Ahern:    They showed outrage. They were all outraged.

Senator Jim Walsh:      They were all from the same sources.

Senator Rónán Mullen:    There is considerable anger out there.

Deputy Dermot Ahern:    Outrage.

An Cathaoirleach:    Senator Bacik only, please.

Senator Ivana Bacik:    People justifiably feel outraged at the proposal to introduce the new statutory definition because they are rightly concerned that satirical matters, like the “Father Ted” series that poke fun at religion will now be subject to criminalisation. That is the fear.

Senator Rónán Mullen:    Down with that sort of legislation.

Senator Ivana Bacik:    I could not have put it better. I believe “Careful now” is the other phrase from “Father Ted”. That is a matter of very serious concern.

Senator Dominic Hannigan:    And “Lovely girls”.

Senator Ivana Bacik:    I hope Senator Mullen was not accusing me of being a lovely girl, because that is something I would find grossly abusive or insulting.

Senator Rónán Mullen:    It came from Senator Hannigan.

An Cathaoirleach:    We are dealing with group 5 of amendments.

Deputy Dermot Ahern:    That is a compliment.

Senator Ivana Bacik:    I know, but I could institute a prosecution.

Senator David Norris:    I am sorry, but the Senator is not a goddess.

Senator Ivana Bacik:    The definition of religion is very broad in its terms, which might make it easier for a prosecution to be instituted. The definition of religion in section 36(4) states what it does not include as follows:
(4) In this section “religion” does not include an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.
It clearly leaves wide open the possibility of all sorts of groupings of persons—–

Deputy Dermot Ahern:    My recollection is that that was inserted to assuage the Labour Party.

Senator Ivana Bacik:    Most people who have been contacting us have been opposing the idea of the blasphemy offence at all. Where we look at the definition of religion, the problem is that it is still too vague and leaves wide open the possibility of what I would describe as cranks. The danger is that it becomes a cranks’ charter. The Minister has said he hopes the State will not proceed and that prosecutions will not ensue by the State. However, we should remember that the Corway case was not a prosecution taken by the DPP, but a case taken against Independent Newspapers—–

Deputy Dermot Ahern:    That is why there is a change in law so that it will be on indictment.

Senator Ivana Bacik:    —–by an individual who took offence at a satirical cartoon that he claimed caused offence to the Eucharist. There are cranks in all sorts of religions.

Senator Rónán Mullen:    And none.

An Cathaoirleach:    No interruptions, please.

Senator Ivana Bacik:    Anyone who has any regard for the history of censorship in Ireland will recognise a long history of repression in the name of religion. For a long time institutions such as the Magdalene laundries symbolised the sexual repression of women in particular in the name of religion and in the name of the domination in this society by the Catholic Church in particular. Anyone with regard for that would be very wary of the creation of a new statutory definition for an offence that seems to give this sort of elevated position to adherence to a religion to persons who may feel grossly abused or insulted in all sorts of ways in all sorts of satirical and political commentary and publications. That is the real concern. The Minister may have in effect said he does not want this to be a workable offence, but the reality is that by creating a statutory definition he is making an offence that will potentially be used against people. We will see a great deal of Garda time wasted if nothing else because cranks will come forward making complaints that they feel grossly abused or insulted by satirical matters.
I am very grateful to a new organisation, Atheist Ireland, which has made various comments about the legislation and has rightly criticised it as being both silly and dangerous in effectively reviving a medieval crime in a modern pluralist republic. It is quite right in that. When one considers the history of the blasphemy offence, that is what we are doing. We are changing the status quo of an unworkable offence. All the expert groups recognise it should be removed from the Constitution. We are actually making it more workable by placing a statutory definition in a modern law without considering ways to adapt it, particularly through the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act in a way that would be much more appropriate to the needs of a modern pluralist state. The law will become absurd in practice. We will see groups rightly seeking to challenge the definitions etc. A great deal of time will be wasted in seeking to enforce it.
The writers of “Father Ted” and others have come out against it. Various people have pointed out different absurdities in it. This morning I suggested that Fr. Willie Russell from Rathkeale, County Limerick, who criticised those in his parish who appeared to be worshipping a tree because it took on the appearance, in their eyes, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, could be open to a charge of blasphemy because he said one cannot worship a tree. He was very critical – and perhaps insulting – of those who believe one could worship a tree. I urge the Minister at this late stage to accept Senator Regan’s amendment and to delete these provisions which are silly and dangerous.

Senator Dan Boyle:      Apparently I come from a party of tree worshippers.

Senator Ivana Bacik:    I believe “tree huggers” is the usual phrase.

Erm… yes…well…
Perhaps it’s time to close that curtain once more, but not before noting as regards the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill…

Senator John Hanafin:      In calling for a debate on gangland crime, today we got the best example in our newspapers of the need for the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill.

Senator Mary M. White:     Hear, hear.

Senator John Hanafin:      If this Bill had been enacted some years ago more lives might have been saved. I understand that those who defend civil liberties would have anxieties and there are questions, but in extraordinary times one must take extraordinary measures. The introduction of this Bill has terrorised those criminal gangs. It is hard to credit how they perceive themselves. Perhaps they see themselves as some modern day OK Corrall-type, Wyatt Earp or Doc Holliday figures, but they are despised by the people, they are feared by their neighbours and they are company with which no decent people would want to be seen. What we are doing will serve the State well.