I have a headache. I’m pretty pissed off. I’ve been reading about the amendment to the Defamation Bill (2006). I’ll make this short, ’cause if I ramble I’ll just get more annoyed.

The background: According to the Constitution, it is illegal to blaspheme. Article 40

6. 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:
i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

However, there is no definition of the term “blasphemous”. This was realised by the Supreme Court in 1999, where it was recommended that this be removed from the Constitution. However, Dermot Ahern has proposed that instead we amend the Defamation Bill to include a definition of blasphemy, as well as a fine punishable by €100,000 (so as to have the case  automatically seen by the Supreme Court). Now, a spokesperson says that:

“The Minister has been told by the Attorney General that he has to have a law in relation to blasphemous libel, so he is amending the existing law to remove the jail term,” he said. “The alternative in not having the law is for the country to hold a referendum removing that article from the Constitution.”

Hang on, hang on, hang on. So instead of getting rid of a pathetic part of the Constitution, we’re gonna keep this awful idea?

However, I do appreciate the Minister’s position to a certain extent. A referendum on blasphemy? How silly.

I would suggest, instead,that we have a referendum to modernise the document that forms the basis for our State.

We could change such gems as (Article 41):

1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

We could create a secular state, where religion does not interfere with the government and the government does not interfere with religion. There are hundreds of reasons why this should be, but I don’t want to get into that tonight. We could do any number of wonderfully progressive things, such as removing the mention of gods from the Constitution. 

Anyway, look, maybe you think the blasphemy definition should be there. Maybe you are a hardcore anti-secularist Catholic who feels massively offended whenever your faith is questioned. The best advice I have for you is to go and read this article by Michael Nugent (that’s not entirely true, I have more advice). Don’t skim through it, read the entire thing. Me, I’m gonna go watch The Life of Brian and try and calm down. Bah.