Pragmatism, however, suggests Mr Higgins’ publisher will have to be patient.

On Friday, we will also be asked to relax blasphemy laws. In a country that endorsed marriage equality and accepted abortion, it is unlikely that the Clinton Landmine will come into play — especially as it’s more than 160 years since a blasphemy prosecution has been taken.

It is likely though that the process of separating church and state will continue. After all, laws on blasphemy means our Constitution recognises the idea of a deity, or even a particular deity, in a way no longer supported by an ever-increasing number of citizens.

However, the fact that notorious hate preacher Anjem Choudary, who was jailed for inviting support for Islamic State, was released from a British prison just days ago shows the issue has a real relevance. Choudary was jailed for five-and-half years in 2016 but was released “for good behaviour”.

Though his poisonous tirades did not reflect the precise issue we are asked to vote on they sprang from the same well of contempt and hatred for beliefs cherished by others.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has argued that speech “that ridicules ideas or institutions is not the same as speech which is aimed at individuals or at groups or communities”. The ICCL say outbursts like Choudary’s should be dealt with through hate speech or defamation legislation.

It also seems a tad after-the-horse-has-bolted to vote on blasphemy when social media allows almost anyone to say almost anything — and say it anonymously.

Why would anyone who wishes to attack a religion, a set of long-held beliefs or venerable institution do so from a soapbox on a city street when they can do so free of consequence in one of those online echo chambers so undermining to the important idea of rational, transformative debate?

Equally, it is not as if the idea of blasphemy as a practice no longer exists. It, if refocussed, does in some minds, as presidential candidate (still) Peter Casey discovered last week when he offended the brook-no-opposition authoritarianism of political correctness.

Our new blasphemy police reacted vehemently and almost reset the parameters of our democracy. We may want to allow criticism of old, organised religion but we are outraged if new secular orthodoxies, at least as questionable, are challenged.

Some people see blasphemy laws as state-endorsed censorship; others see them as essential shields protecting the right to religious freedom. Our Constitution can accommodate only one of those polarised views.

It is time to change our laws but it is also time to underline the difference between licence and latitude. It would be an appalling abuse of any new freedoms to spew hatred like Anjem Choudary. If the Constitution is amended on Friday this would be an advance best celebrated in respectful silence.