4 MURPHY v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 14. The Supreme Court considered that religion was a private and a public affair and that the impugned provision was a restriction of the applicant's right freely to communicate and of his right to freedom of expression (Articles 40(3) and 40(6)(1) of the Constitution, respectively) which rights could be limited in the interests of the common good. The court cited with approval previous case-law which considered that the balance found by parliament between the individual rights and the common good should prevail: “... unless it was oppressive to all or some of the citizens or unless there is no reasonable proportion between the benefit which the legislation will confer on the citizens or a substantial body of them and the interference with the personal rights of the citizen.” 15. The court went on to point out that the real question was whether the limitation imposed upon the various constitutional rights was proportionate to the purpose which parliament wished to achieve. Again quoting with approval previous case-law, it described the principle of proportionality as follows: “In considering whether a restriction on the exercise of rights is permitted by the Constitution the courts in this country and elsewhere have found it helpful to apply the test of proportionality, a test which contains the notions of minimal restraints on the exercise of protected rights and the exigencies of the common good in a democratic society. This is a test frequently adopted by the European Court of Human Rights and by the Supreme Court of Canada in the following terms. 'The objective of the impugned provision must be of sufficient importance to warrant over-riding a constitutionally protected right. It must relate to concerns pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society. The means chosen must pass a proportionality test. They must (a) be rationally connected to the objective and not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations; (b) impair the right as little as possible; and (c) be such that the effects on the rights are proportional to the objective.” 16. The Supreme Court found that section 10(3) of the 1988 Act complied with this test - the restriction was “minimalist”, the applicant had the right to advance his views in speech or writing or by holding assemblies or associating with persons of like mind as himself; he had no lesser right than any other citizen to appear on radio or television; and the only restriction placed upon his activities was that he could not advance his views by a paid advertisement on radio or television. As regards the blanket nature of the ban and the applicant's argument that it would have been possible to introduce a more selective administrative system whereby inoffensive religious advertisements would be permitted, the Supreme Court noted: “No doubt this is true. But [parliament] may well have decided that it would be inappropriate to involve agents of the State in deciding which advertisements, in this sensitive area, would be likely to cause offence and which not.” 17. The Supreme Court went on to conclude that: