Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach and welcome the Minister back to the House. In drafting these amendments, we have been mindful that it is not always clear what is and is not caught by this or any Bill. I am open to the argument, though I do not think the Minister has made it, that the Bill does not explicitly criminalise silent prayer. However, given the breadth of section 2(2), considered in conjunction with section 1, subsections (2), (5), (6), and (7), it seems possible that silent prayer is criminalised if one can tell by looking at the person that he or she is praying, for example. The normal postures associated with prayer that come to mind are joined hands, closed eyes, a person standing still, perhaps holding rosary beads or lips moving without sound. The idea any of those could breach section 2(2) if the requisite intent or recklessness was deemed to be present is intolerable in any free society.

Whenever we have discussed this Bill, I feel it incumbent on me to remind people that when it comes to freedom of expression issues, the important thing is to stand up for the freedom of expression that is not your own. If we have any respect for freedom of expression in society, it is the exercise of freedom of expression that is not our own personal bag or of which we do not approve that we need to be careful to defend. It is easy to defend our own rights, privileges and preferences and campaign passionately for them but, if we are to be democrats, we have to try to put ourselves into the heads and hearts of other people and defend with equal fervour their rights, privileges and preferences, having regard to the common good and the need to always protect the vulnerable as a higher value.

I say that mindful there may be people, though hopefully not in this Chamber, who would take a bigoted view of the idea people might choose to pray in response to the legality of abortion in the country or the idea our hospitals are tragically tied up with the provision of abortion or other healthcare services. I need not rehearse at length the depth of feeling on all sides of this topic. For those who seek to be champions of authentic human rights, there can be no defence of human rights unless it is fully inclusive of everybody.

Many people come at this issue and prayer is not the first thing that comes to their minds. It would be the breach of human rights and the need to bear witness to that and provide positive and generous support to people in crisis pregnancy and considering abortion, in the hope they choose a better alternative that would protect life. There are those for whom this is an issue of profound spiritual significance because of the affront to human dignity involved in abortion, the taking of an innocent human life, sometimes in cruel ways, sometimes less cruel but always final. For many people, this is a civilisational fault-line, a chasm and a major step into the darkness for society. For some, that has a strong spiritual dimension and only a spiritual response can properly or fully address it, in terms of seeking divine intervention to assist people caught up in abortion. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that attitude, hates it or loathes it, one has to tolerate it because it is a time-honoured and essentially good expression of things.

One only has to look at the data in relation to religious practice and the many positive associations it has with mental well-being and the ability to cope with life's challenges. Last night there was a debate on Katie Hannon's programme about the role of faith in schools and the point was made, directly or indirectly, that faith can help you through the dark times. That may not be everybody's belief, but it is the belief of very many people, including people who do not necessarily think about faith much when things are going well.

People who present themselves to pray silently in the vicinity of an abortion facility are not praying against anybody. They are seeking to invoke the higher good into what they regard as a bad situation, for the benefit of everybody involved. It is an utterly altruistic thing, in my belief and experience. I say that as somebody who has always confined my advocacy on this issue to terms people of all faiths and none can understand and appreciate. I am not speaking for any privilege I want to assert for my own benefit; I am speaking to the positivity and positive intent of those who seek to invoke God's help on what they regard as a dark situation and one that is harmful for mothers and babies involved, not to mention those complicit in carrying out abortions.

One does not have to spend any great amount of time thinking through the rights and wrongs of abortion to see it should be a no-brainer in our democracy to err on the side of facilitating such freedom of expression. I have never seen aggressive prayer. It is, by contrast, only properly approached in a spirit of humility and respect for others. If you are praying to defend God's creation, you have to realise those with whom you disagree are part of that creation. That is my understanding of it and that is why I defend passionately the right of people of faith to bear witness to the sanctity of all human life. It is not my public practice, but I speak as somebody fortunate enough to have a mandate to represent in this parliamentary Chamber the opposition of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in this country to abortion.

The amendment takes into account and did consider a proposed Britain amendment. While this amendment copied the reference to "silent prayer in a public place" from that British amendment, it otherwise takes a more minimalist approach and is more consistent with the general approach in section 3 in that it just seeks to limit the application of section 2(2). The core problem is not the provision of the Bill relating to conduct "likely to obstruct or impede another person from accessing a relevant healthcare premises"; rather it is the hugely broad, sweeping nature of the prohibition on communicating "material to the public or a section of the public in a manner that is likely to influence the decision of another person in relation to availing of, or providing, termination of pregnancy services". That is the particularly sweeping and dangerous part of the Bill and of that section on conduct prohibited and safe access zones.It is that particular section that this amendment seeks to amend, to provide that nothing in it "shall prohibit a person from engaging in silent prayer in a public place". I ask the Minister again for consideration to be given to these proposed amendments. They are carefully tailored and seem to take a minimalist approach so as to give people every reason to support them without accepting the overall thrust of the Bill. They are seeking, as I would see it, to make a worse situation merely bad. On that basis, having moved the amendment, I will not call a vote on it at this point. I hope that the Government will consider all these matters very carefully before Report Stage when I propose to table these amendments again. I hope that the Government will give more favourable consideration to them that has been the case to date.