Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

That is what I like to hear. I am delighted this Bill is before the House. I congratulate the campaigners in Together for Safety, who have relentlessly pursued this issue, driving us all to keep coming back to it. While repeal was not an easy win and was hard fought for before being won, you could sit back and say it is done and dusted and we no longer have to worry about it. However, we were recently reminded during questions with Ms Marie O'Shea and her team at the Joint Committee on Health that protests against abortion providers, whether at clinics, GPs' homes or hospitals, act as a chill factor with regard to the provision of a very essential service. As previous speakers have said, the people have spoken. They voted overwhelmingly to provide abortion services at home to women who seek them. That those services are then subject to protests, often involving strong, brutal, insulting and inaccurate imagery and very strong and aggressive language, is just not acceptable. I know from experience, as will many in the House, that when you are in that situation, you are vulnerable and you want to get your treatment as soon as possible. To have to face a gauntlet of anti-choicers, many of whom are engaging in activity straight out of the fascist handbook, is just not acceptable. I am delighted we are attempting to do something about it.

I have a couple of questions. One is on the original Seanad Private Member's Bill. This Bill included a section that banned the harassment of abortion providers outside of safe access zones. In other words, it was not permitted to go to their homes or to harass them on the street. Today, many of us had to run a gauntlet across the road of far-right protestors who want to undermine trans rights. That has to be put up with because it is a feature of modern life. However, for women seeking healthcare and for doctors and others who are willing to provide that healthcare to be subject to harassment and violent attack is just not acceptable. We know this has been a feature in other countries. It is very much part of today's far-right movement. Such groups copy each other's behaviour and learn from it. They move from theme to theme in tandem, telling lies that match each other's. The worst aspect of this has been seen in the United States where - we can be thankful it has not happened recently - medical providers have actually been murdered at abortion clinics because of the absolute hatred and bile spewed by those who do not want women to have a choice.

It is very good that the Bill is before us but it has taken some time. I believe it has taken time because this and previous governments have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to deal with questions of women's reproductive rights. We see the same now with the abortion review. The Government is very reluctant to act on the abortion review and Dr. Marie O'Shea's recommendations, although we in the House more generally are not so reluctant. The Government has used all sorts of excuses to delay and it has buried its head in the sand and said it cannot or will not do anything about it. The movement outside of this House for full reproductive rights is very important.

I will move on to some of the detail of the Bill. As has been mentioned, the lack of a clear system for gardaí to record warnings issued to people who move from protest to protest to avoid arrest is really not good enough. We need to find a system, perhaps a new system outside of PULSE, through which gardaí will be obliged to record details of those who breach the limits of protest outside an abortion clinic or another venue where abortion is provided. Such people currently have the freedom to move around and they do so. It has been noticed that some of the same characters seen outside the Dáil today and in the libraries in Cork last week were also at Inch the week before and burning refugees out of their tents in Sandwith Street. These guys move around, co-ordinate and avoid repeated arrest. Central to what this Bill can do is the ability of An Garda to track who has been given warnings so that they cannot freely move from one protest to another, pretending they are not committing an offence.

The other issue I will cover is the suggestion made by previous speakers, although not today, that this is somehow a great encroachment on the right to protest. I will point out the model we used to argue for restriction zones during pre-legislative scrutiny. There is a thing called the Electoral Act 1992.

5 o’clock

Under that Act, it is stated that no one shall interfere, obstruct or impede an elector, that is, anyone going to vote, coming to and leaving the vicinity of a polling station, including the curtilage. We should take note of the word "curtilage" because there has been quite a bit of argument about what it means. An Garda Síochána drilled down very carefully into the definition. There is a curtilage of 100 m around a polling station within which people cannot go to hand out leaflets or talk to constituents or voters who are going into that polling station. No doubt many people in this House have experienced the speed and the accuracy with which An Garda Síochána will move in and tell people who are distributing leaflets on behalf of a candidate to get outside that 100 m zone. This is the proactive measure we have to apply when dealing with those who want to spew their hate and bile against women and the providers of abortion outside clinics that are looking after women's reproductive rights.

For that reason, what constitutes the curtilage and the exclusion zone and the limitations of thereof needs to be clarified and emphasised and has to be enforced with vigour by An Garda Síochána. The argument was made here last week when what they call a pro-life protest took place recently in town. The protestors gathered near the Rotunda Hospital. The question was asked whether that protest would be illegal under the legislation. First of all, I want to reclaim that language. These people are not pro-life; they do not care if women die. That is why they opposed the repeal of the eighth amendment. They are anti-choice. When they attend rallies with banners and images that are offensive, untruthful and intimidating to women seeking abortion, they should not be allowed to do so under the provisions of that law and within the 100 m curtilage. Far-right protestors who gather at the Garden of Remembrance and target women and their right to choose. We have seen them alongside representatives of the Catholic Church. A number of Deputies have their photographs taken with leading fascist anti-choice individuals on those protests. Not long ago, these people were arrested for burning the tents in Sandwith Street. By their friends ye shall all know them. They like to portray these protests as religious events that involve people quietly praying. However, the reality is far from that. These protests are nasty, intimidating and often violent. I and others in this House who have been fighting on behalf of the pro-choice movement for years have been on the receiving end of violence. I have been punched in the face and threatened by those who do not want women to have a choice. It is no wonder that women find it intimidating when they are seeking healthcare or that abortion providers find it extremely intimidating. Hence, barrister Marie O'Shea answer to a question that these protests are effectively creating a chill factor in the context of the provision of abortion. This is happening right across the world but it is a new phenomenon in this country. Thankfully, because of the result in the referendum to repeal the eighth amendment, we have the option of receiving abortion care at home.

It must be especially intimidating for GPs and providers of the service in rural areas where the population is lower. There are fewer people to see or stand up to the kind of intimidation to which I refer. It is also difficult for GPs who provide a service from their homes when their children, going to and from school, have to pass these protests or have to deal with the abuse that ensues. It is really important that we deal with this matter in the correct way. We need everybody in the House to recognise that this is not an attempt to clamp down on the right to protest. It is an attempt to allow people to protest, if they must, against the provision of healthcare for women but to do so without intimidating or abusing women or those who are providing their care. We want to see this legislation move forward swiftly. We thank those who have been campaigning for a long time to see it come to fruition.

See this speech in context