The sixth session of the Irish Constitutional Convention took place on November 2-3, 2013, and focused on the removal of the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution.
Background of the Convention
The Irish Constitutional Convention emerged in a unique political context following the 2011 general election, which was often described as an "electoral earthquake." The economic downturn of 2008 significantly reshaped voter preferences, leading to a coalition government between Fine Gael and Labour.
While not the first process of its kind globally, the Convention was heavily influenced by prior deliberative democratic initiatives, particularly the citizens' assemblies of British Columbia, Ontario, and the Netherlands (Farrell et al., 2020). It also built upon Ireland’s own experience with deliberative democracy, including the 2011 We the Citizens pilot assembly, which demonstrated the potential of direct citizen participation in constitutional reform.
In June 2012, both houses of the Oireachtas (Parliament) passed resolutions establishing the Convention. It was mandated to convene for at least eight Saturdays over a year, with its first working sessions beginning in early 2013. The Convention concluded its work in February 2014 (Farrell et al., 2018).
Despite some criticism (Carolan, 2015), academic assessments of the Convention have generally been positive (Flinders et al., 2016; Suteu, 2015; White, 2017). It was widely regarded as a successful deliberative process (Suiter et al., 2016), and many of its recommendations were implemented or considered in subsequent government initiatives (Farrell, 2018). It also paved the way for future experiments with citizens’ assemblies in Ireland.
Structure of the Convention
Membership selection
The Convention comprised 100 members:
- 66 randomly selected citizens,
- 33 politicians (selected by their parties from both Ireland and Northern Ireland),
- 1 independent Chairperson.
The random selection process was conducted by Behaviours and Attitudes (see more here).
Political parties and groups in Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann nominated representatives on the basis of their relative strengths in the Parliament. Political parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly were invited to nominate one representative each.
Governance
Chairperson
The Chairperson was responsible for running the Convention and engaging necessary support services for its effective administration. As the main moderator, the Chairperson was selected by the Prime Minister and was independent. They had direction and control over the staff of the secretariat and other resources available, subject to the wishes of the Convention. The Chairperson also made recommendations on the management of business as needed.
Secretary and Secretariat
The Secretary and Secretariat were responsible for handling the logistics of the assembly, ensuring the smooth operation of the Convention.
Advisory Panel
At the outset of the process, the Chair and Secretary appointed an advisory panel of experts. This panel advised on the selection of experts who would present information to the Convention members. The advisory panel consisted of political scientists with expertise in deliberative democracy and a legal scholar.
Steering Group
A Steering Group was established to support the Convention in efficiently and effectively discharging its role and functions. The group assisted with planning and operational issues related to the work program. It was composed of the Chairperson, representatives from political parties, public members, and any other representatives deemed necessary by the Convention.
Structure of plenary session
Proceedings
The meeting focused on the relationship between democracy and religion, beginning with expert presentations on the Irish context, potential options for change, and international comparisons. Discussions examined the implications of reform, followed by a Q&A session. The role of religion in democracy was further explored, with a dedicated discussion on legal and philosophical perspectives.
Participants engaged in roundtable discussions to deliberate on emerging themes before convening for a plenary session to share insights from their tables. The afternoon featured external perspectives from representatives of various organizations, including secular, humanist, civil liberties, and religious groups, offering a range of viewpoints on the topic.
Further roundtable discussions allowed for deeper engagement with the issues, followed by a final Q&A session. The session concluded with agreement on the ballot paper and the formal closure of proceedings.
The programme included:
- Expert presentations: Academic experts in law and social science (family therapy/psychology) provided insights on same-sex marriage and its legal and societal implications.
- Advocacy and civil society groups: Representatives from various advocacy organizations presented their perspectives.
- Small group deliberations: Members engaged in roundtable discussions to explore the issues in depth.
- Plenary sessions: The key themes emerging from the small group discussions were shared and debated.
- Q&A with advisory panel: Members had an opportunity to clarify outstanding questions before voting.
- Final deliberations and voting: Members voted on recommendations based on their deliberations.
A more detailed overview of the programme can be found in the Sixth Report here.
Voting and ballots
When a vote was required, it was conducted by secret ballot among the members present. The Chairperson, supported by at least two other members of the Convention, oversaw the voting process.
To facilitate structured decision-making, the voting process was divided into three stages. First, members determined whether to recommend reform on the issue at hand. If a majority supported reform, the second stage involved considering the specific details of the proposed changes. Finally, the third stage allowed members to vote on additional prominent themes that had arisen during deliberations.
The Convention voted against retaining the constitutional offence of blasphemy (61%). Among those favoring change, 38% supported its complete removal, while 53% preferred replacing it with a general provision addressing incitement to hatred.
On whether blasphemy should remain a legislative offence, opinions were split, with 50% opposing and 49% supporting its inclusion in law. Among those favoring a legislative provision, 82% supported replacing the existing law with a broader framework addressing incitement to religious hatred, while 11% favored retaining the current legislation.
The detailed results of the ballot results can be found in the Convention’s Sixth Report here.
Recommendations and Government response
The Convention made the following recommendations:
- The offence of blasphemy should be removed from the Constitution and replaced with an offence of incitement to religious hatred.
- A new set of detailed legislative provisions should be created to include incitement to religious hatred on a statutory footing.
These recommendations were compiled in the Sixth Report (here), published in January 2014, and are available on the Citizens’ Assembly website (here).
The Government was required to respond within four months. A parliamentary debate took place on October 2, 2014.
Government Response
A referendum on this proposal was passed on October 26, 2018, and the Constitution has been amended. More details about this referendum are available here.
A full overview of the Government's response is available here.
