Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach for giving us the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I also welcome his apology. However, it is important to remember that we were brought down this road reluctantly by the courts. Tá ardmholadh tuillte ag mo chomhghleacaí as Gaillimh Máire Geoghegan Quinn agus ag an Rialtas ag an am a thug isteach an reachtaíocht nua. However, it was the end of a very long and painful process. Very few voices were raised in the Dáil on the rights of gay people. It is important to remember that silence and learn from it. Silence and collusion can be as destructive as deliberate acts. When I think about silence and collusion, I think of the 10,000 people who are homeless, including over 3,500 children. I think of the 120,000 nationally who are waiting on housing lists. I think of those in direct provision accommodation. We seem to be going backwards. There has been an increase in the number who have status, which is to be welcomed, but who cannot get out of direct provision centres. The length of time it takes to process applications has increased from 11 weeks in 2015 to 20 months in 2018. I could go on. There is lack of access to basic records such as birth and death certificates. We collude through silence. This is a day on which to celebrate and remember and to ask ourselves in what are we now colluding.

We need to look at the journeys Senator David Norris took on our behalf to make us a better society and, before him, Jeffrey Dudgeon in Northern Ireland. I also acknowledge and recognise the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Katherine Zappone, who courageously took a case with her partner to the High Court and the Supreme Court. Those cases tell us a lot about Ireland and us. In 1975 Mr. Dudgeon very bravely filed his first complaint with the European Court of Human Rights. He had to go through such a painful process which Senator David Norris also had to go through over a period of 16 years on our behalf. In a hearing in 1979 Mr. Dudgeon's complaint was declared admissible to be heard in the European Court of Human Rights. That hearing was held in 1981 before 19 judges. It was the first successful case before the European Court of Human Rights on the decriminalisation of male homosexuality. It set the legal precedent that ultimately resulted in the Council of Europe requiring that no member state criminalise male or female homosexual behaviour. I am sure Senator David Norris will acknowledge that the Dudgeon case served as a key precedent in the case of Norris v. Ireland which challenged the continued application of the same legislation in this jurisdiction.

What strikes me is that, moving forward from 1975 to 1981, this country and the judges knew that the situation was wrong. They saw the result at the European Court of Human Rights, yet Senator David Norris had to start all over again, almost in parallel with the case taken in Northern Ireland. In 1977 he instituted proceedings in the High Court seeking a declaration that sections 61 and 62 of the Acts of 1861 and 1885 should be repealed. We had a High Court case first. In his judgment in 1980 Mr. Justice McWilliam set out that "one of the effects of criminal sanctions against homosexual acts is to reinforce the misapprehension and general prejudice of the public and increase the anxiety and guilt feelings of homosexuals leading, on occasions, to depression and the serious consequences which can follow from" what he called "that unfortunate disease." He dismissed the case of Senator David Norris who was Mr. Norris at the time on legal grounds. On 22 April 1983 the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. The various judgments have been referred to.

I want to put the date of 22 April 1983 in perspective. It was just a few weeks after the death of Sheila Hodgers and prior to the insertion of the eighth amendment into the Constitution. She had died in March that year because she had been refused medical treatment for cancer because she was pregnant and there was a foetal heartbeat. In April the Supreme Court gave its judgment by majority decision. It talked about the preamble to the Constitution, Christianity and so on. It used the terms "Christianity" and "Christian principles" to back up a most unchristian attitude to the way people were treated. Later that year the eighth amendment was inserted into the Constitution and a few months afterwards there was the death of Ann Lovett at a grotto in Granard. I am only mentioning some of the things that happened around that time.

Senator David Norris had to continue to fight, although there were two beacons of light at the time, namely, the dissenting judgments of Mr. Justice Henchy and Mr. Justice McCarthy who, unfortunately, died prematurely.

Mr. Justice McCarthy stated that the Legislature is not free to encroach unjustifiably upon the fundamental rights of individuals or the family in the name of the common good. Notwithstanding that, Senator Norris had to go forward to the court, to which he applied in October 1983. We should remember that the eighth amendment had just been passed because that gives us an idea of the context and environment in which the case was taken. Senator Norris complained about the contravention of his rights under Article 8. It took until 26 October 1988 - 11 years after the proceedings were instituted in the national courts - for the decision to be made and it was a further five years before the law was changed in 1993. The various cases lasted for 16 years, during which time the country struggled with a black and white view of the foetus and the foetal heartbeat that did not reflect reality.

It is important to remember today the pain and loss of life, including the murder of Declan Flynn in September 1982, a year when so much happened in Irish society. If this Dáil had asked questions and demanded accountability at that time, many lives could have been saved, whether those lost through suicide or otherwise, and much pain and suffering avoided.

If there is something to learn tonight, it is that we need to look at ourselves in this Dáil and what is happening in our name. How many other cases exist? We see the case taken regarding the right to work for people living in direct provision. We see a man who was in the mother and baby home in Tuam state on record that basic records relating to a family member are being refused. As the Taoiseach sits here, and I appreciate he is listening, this is happening in our name. The man to whom I refer has been in the High Court many times seeking basic information.

We need to reflect and take different actions as we move forward. I certainly cannot stand here and watch the mother and baby homes debacle and language being used over and over again to obfuscate, hide and confuse when we know exactly what happened. If we are to learn anything, let us learn to use language honestly and in a straightforward fashion and to empower people to take part in a democracy. We do not need to keep responding to court cases one after the other, as happened with the eighth amendment. With the exception of the Circuit Court, women were brought before or had to go before every single court in the land and then to Europe and a United Nations committee. That is what led to the changes relating to the eighth amendment and changes in the legislation on homosexuality. It was not the Dáil acting in a proactive manner. That is the lesson for us tonight.

See this speech in context