Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Thank you. It was you who pointed this out to me. I did not need to be reminded that this was procedurally in order. I never claimed otherwise. What I am saying is that it is undemocratic to pursue this and all the more ironic when what we are talking about here is crushing dissent against legislation and policy which involve the destruction of innocent life. That was my only point.

The Minister also saw fit earlier to suggest there was some kind of a dark irony because some people who were against freedoms were now seeking to protect freedoms. The only freedom the Minister is talking about here is the freedom to destroy innocent life. Those who oppose that particular freedom see themselves as defending a much more fundamental freedom, which is the freedom to have the same opportunity the Minister himself had when he was given birth and allowed to live. I think it was the late Ronald Reagan who said he had noticed that all the people who described themselves as being pro-choice had already been born. It was a typical Reagan observation and one that the Minister would perhaps do well to recall.

Let us focus, as the Acting Chairperson says, on the proposed amendment. It simply seeks to insulate, at a time when we see so much cancel culture and so much unfortunate dispute on third level campuses, mainly abroad, but it could happen here too. It is not that long since Mary Kenny, the distinguished journalist, found herself cancelled when she had been invited to speak at an event to mark International Women's Day. Those who opposed her gender-critical views managed to secure her cancellation as a speaker at an event in the University of Limerick. Sadly, there is cancel culture out there and what we should protect always is the dispute between ideas and the ability of that dispute to go on.

What my amendment, seconded by my friend and colleague, Senator Keogan, seeks to provide is that in third level institutions, the places where people develop their ideas, sharpen their wits and test their ideas against one other's support and objections, and consider and reconsider their position, classically, there should be absolute freedom or as near as possible to absolute freedom to exchange ideas. I call on the Minister one more time to recognise that at least in this respect, there should be a carve-out in order to protect the free exchange of ideas in our third level institutions.