Ireland votes: Article 40, blasphemy and free speech

Taking a break from the letter to the housing minister to take a sober, philosophical look at an important upcoming vote in Ireland. 

Ireland is now days away from voting to make another historic change to its constitution. Yet much of the talk about polling day revolves around who is going to win the presidential race – a race which, by all accounts, consists of one horse. Very little discussion is being given over to the newest proposed amendment to the constitution, to remove blasphemy as a criminal offense from the statute book. Compared to the national dialogue surrounding the 8th amendment – and even the chatter over the next planned referendum – the silence in the run-up to this referendum is positively deafening. Before the polls open, the country would do well to analyse what exactly it is voting on.

This silence is even more perplexing when set next to the uproar which erupted almost ten years ago with the Defamation Act. By criminalising anti-religious views, this act provoked one of the first secular protests which would ultimately lead to the constitution being pried from its Catholic roots. Back then, though, there was no notion of times a-changing: there was only indignation. As if the church’s litany of past abuses and present attacks on LGBT rights and unborn babies was not enough – now it was being insulated against any attack on its theological foundations.

Why, almost ten years later, has this indignation disappeared? Perhaps the repeal of Article 40.6.1 is a foregone conclusion. If so, are we certain this is a good idea?

The analogy which immediately springs to mind when we think of modern-day blasphemy is the Mohammed cartoons. The international wave of rage which rose as a result of these illustrations being published was undoubtedly out of proportion and contrary to any religion which preaches peace. Yet the cartoons themselves were intended to provoke, and masqueraded behind the concept of free speech.

via YouTube

All of us have our own sacred ideas. When the Catholic church covered up its abuses, and when it challenged the right of LGBTQ citizens to a normal life, it attacked thousands of people at their core. It dismissed the very grievances and decisions which defined its victim’s lives. To have its own tenets protected by law, then, is clearly unfair. And in an increasingly secular republic, free of its ties to religion, removing the word “blasphemy” from the constitution seems natural.

Yet, after a yes vote, the wording which would remain in article 40 holds little protection for anyone in the State, except the State itself. For people whose core values have been attacked, there is no apparent recourse (unless they have been publicly libelled). We are becoming a secular nation, yet we are also becoming multicultural; this means there are many other core values and opinions which define the millions of people who live under the constitution.

If the country votes to repeal this article, it will face a brand new challenge. The real issue which arises as a result of our silence over this amendment is the lack of specific legislation protecting the many core values which define modern Irish people. After the repeal of the 8th amendment was proposed, the Oireachtas committee made a decision, based on expert advice, about what exactly justified abortion in the aftermath of the vote. Yet there has been almost no discussion about what freedom of speech will look like if the referendum is passed. There is an inherent belief in this freedom, yet no discussion as to when it becomes abuse. In a healthy democracy, such silence is dangerous.

This amendment boils down to an “either/or” choice. Either the law protects the beliefs which are “sacred” to some or all of our citizens – religions included – or we remove this protection for all, creating something akin to a free-for-all society in which there are neither sacred cows nor respected beliefs.