Legal experts call for blasphemy to be redefined
The Bar Council, which represents barristers, says the offence is “legally a mess” and should be abolished altogether or given a proper definition as there is no explanation in Irish law as to what exactly it means.
The legal oddity, contained in article 40.6.1 of the constitution, is generally understood to mean offending against a religion or religious beliefs, but it has only resulted in one court case and the Supreme Court ruled then it could not authorise a prosecution because the state had not defined what it meant.
Bar Council representative and Trinity law lecturer Dr Neville Cox told the Oireachtas committee on the constitution the fact that nobody had been prosecuted for blasphemy, and that changes in Irish society meant a more liberal approach to religion, did not necessarily mean that the offence should be scrapped.
“For many people within the Islamic faith, to insult God is about as heinous a crime as there is and, to such people it is frankly incomprehensible that the blasphemy laws should remain dormant,” he said.
He also cited the 1997 appearance by Tommy Tiernan on the Late Late Show when the comedian had to be protected from outraged viewers gathered outside the station after he joked about mass and the crucifixion.
“Religious offence is still something which can cause genuine distress and may indeed amount to a legitimate reason for restricting the right to free speech.”
Dr Cox noted, however, that the Law Reform Commission in 1991 and the Constitution Review Group in 1996, had both called for taking blasphemy out of the constitution.
RTÉ, which addressed the committee, opposed amending the constitution, arguing it would be a costly move that would make no practical difference.
The committee also examined the general protections for freedom of expression contained in article 40.6.1, which covers the right to free speech, peaceful protest and trade union membership.
RTÉ said the protections were strong enough, but the Bar Council said the article was “ineffective as a mechanism for ensuring a robust freedom of speech”.
“It is little wonder that the massive censorship regime that existed in Ireland until comparatively recently was allowed to flourish,” said Dr Cox, adding the protections should be remodelled along the lines of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The committee is to report back with recommendations for changes to the constitution at a later date.
