Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 3 proposes: "In page 6, lines 10 and 11 to delete the words "within 100 metres of an entrance to either House of the Oireachtas"." Amendment No. 4 proposes: "In page 6, lines 12 and 13, to delete ", within that 100 metres"." That is obviously connected to amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 7, which is consequential on the acceptance of amendments Nos. 3 and 4, proposes the deletion of lines 20 to 23 on page 6.

Let us get into the detail of what we are talking about. We are talking about section 3(1), which states:

Nothing in section 2(2) shall prohibit a person from engaging in lawful protest, advocacy or dissent within 100 metres of an entrance to either House of the Oireachtas, provided such protest, advocacy or dissent is not directed at a specific relevant healthcare premise, or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises, within that 100 metres.

These amendments would basically extend the freedom of a person to engage in lawful protest. I stress the word "lawful" here. This is about encroaching on what otherwise would be considered lawful protest, not unlawful protest or protest that could cause a disturbance of the peace or that would harass or endanger a person, etc. This is about restricting protests, advocacy and dissent that would otherwise be lawful. It is clearly written here that this legislation aims at curbing dissent. In order to prevent such dissent from being unlawful within 100 m of the entrance to either House of the Oireachtas, the legislation seeks to say so. That word "dissent" is a big giveaway. That is why I invite the Minister to reflect on what he said in exchanges with me before the vote. He seems to take it very personally that I am going in so hard on him and his Department. I am not doing it in any personal way. I take no offence at anything he has said to me here today, except for one word. He upset me and cut me to the quick when he suggested that what I was saying was insipid. I would absolutely hate to ever have my speech described as insipid. Other than that, he is absolutely entitled to push back as strongly as he believes necessary. However, as I have already said, I need to push him hard on this because there is corruption in this process. This is corrupt thinking. It is not financially corrupt. I am not suggesting he is a dishonest person in his dealings, but his handling of his brief in this area speaks to corruption at the heart of Government, a corruption of the public good. He is restricting people's basic freedoms and trying to crush dissent. That is what is so unprecedented. I wish it to be said that I have no issue personally with the Minister or indeed with his officials, but everyone involved in this is colluding with something that is deeply wrong and harmful and in a way that is endangering life.

The crushing of dissent around abortion is about securing a public attitude that never suggests there is anything regrettable about abortion. Back in the 1990s, Mr. Bill Clinton and Ms Hillary Clinton were in the vanguard in the Clinton administration pushing abortion. Their way at the time of sanitising what they were doing was to say they wanted abortion to be safe, legal and rare. That kind of language is not used anymore by pro-abortion advocates or indeed their facilitators in government, which includes the Minister and his officials, who, I believe, are victimised by this process because people have jobs and have to do the bidding of their masters and mistresses in government. There is something deeply wrong going on here when all of our law and all of our public policy refuses to express it as desideratum. They refuse to express it even as a desideratum, not a legal necessity, that abortions should be rare.Nobody says that anymore, because the Government is on board with promoting the idea and with the agenda of people who want to crush any memory that there was ever public or personal disquiet about abortion.

There are many facilitators of that agenda. I recently had reason in this House to criticise the "RTÉ Investigates" documentary that completely ignored all the concerns about precautionary pain relief and the lack of it, the reality of what happens in a late-term abortion and the major moral and social question about what it is to destroy a human life, whether at an early or late stage, in the womb. On all of that, since the repeal of the eighth amendment and the introduction of legislation for abortion, the attitude of the Government has been to say this is a good thing and that it will not try to talk about trying to reduce the number of abortions. I have never heard the Minister talk about that. He will surprise and delight me today if he says he thinks it should be a policy objective to reduce the number of abortions, but I have never heard him say that. I have never heard Simon Harris or any of the people in the Government say it, because they are on board with the agenda of those who believe it is a good thing.

If that is not corruption, what is? It is a corruption of the good. Corruptio optimi pessima, the corruption of the best is the worst thing, and that is what we have seen in recent years. Those who previously had party platforms that defended the right of every human being to live have been corrupted and pursue a corrupt and evil policy that smiles on the destruction of innocent human life. That is why I have to challenge the Government when it has no evidence worth speaking of that suggests this legislation is in any way needed to protect people accessing services that are now legal. The constitutional and social justification for this legislation is absolutely threadbare. It is about crushing dissent, no more and no less.

That is why I have to challenge the Minister in the terms in which I do. I really wish he would rethink his position on abortion and stop with this harmful legislation. I had hoped the lesson imparted by voters to the Government on referendum day recently would have made it wonder whether it is losing touch with ordinary people, overcentralising, pushing an arrogant agenda, and listening only to the few and ignoring the concerns of the many.

Insofar as it should be possible for people to engage in lawful protest anywhere within 100 m of Leinster House, regardless of the proximity of a building or place where terminations of pregnancy are carried out, that same level of protection should apply to all lawful protest, advocacy or dissent. Likewise, our amendment promotes a saver, namely, it provides that such debate, protest, advocacy or dissent must not be directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises. Here we have an offer of a compromise, which the Minister and his team have completely ignored. This issue should unite not just people who have concerns about abortion although, obviously, they are very upset at the attempt in this legislation to crush their dissent. Rather, this legislation should be of concern to anybody who values and cherishes free speech and freedom of expression. I recall the famous words of the German pastor Martin Niemöller. It is from a different time and context but it was also a very dark time, when thousands of people were losing their lives. His words were formed into a poem:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

That was based on Pastor Niemöller’s words after the Second World War about his own early complicity with what the Nazi regime did and his eventual change of heart. These are powerful words about guilt and responsibility, which are frequently drawn on wherever such questions of guilt and responsibility arise and whenever the issue of failing to show solidarity with other people arises. I am not just talking about solidarity with the unborn here, although there is clearly a parallel. Abortion has been called the modern Holocaust. I think 100 million abortions have taken place in Britain since its legalisation in 1967, if memory serves. Abortion rates have shot up radically in Ireland since the introduction of the legislation following the repeal of the eighth amendment. I recall that at the time of the abortion referendum there was a great reluctance on the part of the media to consider whether the eighth amendment had saved lives, and data was produced to show it had actually saved thousands of lives. That data was challenged and an advertising agency upheld the right to present it, but it is clear that because the law protected life, lives would be saved. That is almost a truism.

Certainly, since the repeal of the eighth amendment, we have seen a tragic increase in the number of abortions year on year. I calculated at one stage that there had been an increase of between 40% and 75% on the previous rate of abortions, when it was mostly women travelling to Britain for abortions. If we add in the Government's estimates about the number of people importing abortion pills, take those figures and look at what has happened post repeal, we see a massive increase. That is an indictment of the media and all those who refused at the time to engage with the question as to whether a change in the law would lead to an increase in the loss of life. People who were very adept at claiming Ireland was exporting its problems by not having an abortion facility in Ireland while not preventing other people from travelling elsewhere to avail of one were never challenged, except to the extent that the prohibition of abortion meant that while it might have been regrettable that anybody was procuring an abortion, at least the rate of that was lower because it was not legal in Ireland.

When we think of the talent that has been lost to Irish society, the personal tragedies in each case and the women who, in some cases, perhaps in many cases, have been hurt by the experience of abortion and suffer from abortion regret - not everybody, of course, but some do - and when we think of the loss of life, the loss of opportunity, the miracle that life is and the chance each one of us, including the Minister and me, has had, it is a miracle we are here at all. It is great to have this chance to live. We rightly discourage suicide in our society because we rightly want to stress the message that however difficult or challenging life is, it is still a wonderful thing and it is still something we should always make the most of and be thankful for. The reason people protest against abortion is that that chance and opportunity is taken away from an innocent person.

The point I wanted to make in referring to Martin Niemöller is that he reflected on the fact he had not spoken out when he was not the one being targeted.If we do not show solidarity with each other, then sooner or later there will be nobody left to stand up for us.

One of the very problematic issues at the heart of this legislation is that it is classically woke in its approach. Recently, I heard the Taoiseach say he did not know what the word "woke" means, but everybody knows what it means. It relates to a certain set of grievances or arguments around perceived injustices. In the making of those arguments, those who claim that injustice brook no dissent and will restrict other people's right to even speak in opposition to their point of view. The woke agenda is characterised by absolute intolerance of the expression of another point of view. This is why this legislation is woke in the worst sense. It seeks to crush dissent. It seeks to prevent the expression of the opposing point of view.

The idea that the Government can do anything to restrict behaviour that was previously legitimate or restrict freedoms, including freedom of expression, has many people worried. This legislation is not supported by the Garda and cannot be said to be required in any way by the Garda. There is no basis for it in the context of the Government producing evidence of instances where people have done wrong. If the Government can propose the restriction of freedom in the absence of evidence in the way this is being done, then people are entitled to wonder whether it has any bottom line. Is there anybody's freedom that it would not be happy to restrict? At some future date, would it restrict legitimate protest outside the Dáil or try to do so? Would it restrict protests by trade unions? Would it move towards ever-more restriction of legitimate protest?

The attack on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly that is going on in the legislation cannot be divorced from the other concerns that people have to the effect that their right to express a point of view is being closed down or, at least, that we have a Government that is more than willing to close down their point of view. It makes me wonder whether the Minister would serve in any regime and crush freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the way he is doing here. This is why I say there is real corruption at the heart of this. The Minister is attacking something that is of fundamental importance in a democracy.