Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests. Having read all of their presentations, I found it stimulating that there was such well-reasoned argumentation in all cases but, significantly, going in different directions. Having read them, I did not spot any language that raised my eyebrows. Though I greatly esteem my friends, Senator Seery-Kearney and Deputy Gino Kenny, the one thing I am devoted to is the concept of academic freedom. One thing I am allergic to, and I am talking about it a lot at the moment, is cancel culture. I will not stand for unnecessary marking of people's language where they are seeking to make explicit their sincerely held analyses on these issues. I have already been criticised for even using the term "assisted suicide" on occasion. Let there be no cancel culture at this committee. I make that appeal to people. Let us offer each other the presumption of good faith as we engage with these ideas.

Having said that, I want discuss with Dr. Hickey the question of deference. Perhaps because I am a university Senator, with another one beside me, I was struck in the recent case of Heneghan v. The Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government and others that there was not a whole lot of deference. It might have been the case, to refer to The Merchant of Venice, that to do a great right, the court did a little wrong by interpreting a constitutional provision that stated provision may be made by law nonetheless to find a constitutional obligation to change the current arrangements. I do not disagree with the outcome but I do wonder about judicial activism.

In that context, whereas I was surprised that Dr. Casey, in his submission, seemed to close the door completely on the Legislature having any leeway in this area, I was surprised that it was only in the past few minutes that Dr. Hickey has suggested there might be any constraints. There was a strong litany of concern in the High Court in respect of the Fleming case. I could not think of a comparable situation. The court went through all the things that could go wrong. It referred to the change in culture and talked about the language of the shifting of the paradigm. In the Supreme Court judgment, the word "necessarily" was included. The judgment stated: "nothing in this judgment should be taken as necessarily implying". Dr. Hickey quoted from the judgment, stating "in the event that the Oireachtas were satisfied that measures with appropriate safeguards could be introduced", but the court went on immediately to state, "If such legislation was introduced it would be for the courts to determine whether the balancing by the Oireachtas of any legitimate concerns was within the boundaries of what was constitutionally permissible."

They are not talking about whether there are any abuses here that we should condemn; they seem to be reserving for themselves the right to have the final say on this. Was Dr. Hickey sufficiently cognisant of that line in giving the bright green light he has given us today?