While I would disagree with him on a number of issues, I cannot ask but express today my appreciation to him as a citizen and as a Member of the Oireachtas for taking on the difficult task of going into politics, standing up for ideas he believes in and giving leadership to his party and to the country. I think particularly of the very difficult time of the pandemic and, again, not everybody was happy with Government decisions, but I think we can all acknowledge that was a very difficult time to be in leadership. I wish him well on this day.
It is not really the day to get into the reasons he has chosen to make his decision at this time. Obviously, however, I am aware of what my friend and colleague, Senator McDowell, said about the Seanad and its role. I think people will be reflecting on the role of the Seanad in the recent referendum and the contributions made by many Members of the Seanad to bring the issues that were involved to light. I take this opportunity before the Easter break to ask that we have a debate. I support everything Senator McDowell said about question of the Whip in the Seanad, but I ask for a debate on those referendum results. I raised issues about the role of NGOs and their funding and how they have operated. There are issues about the role of Government and how it manages the flow of information to the public. Therefore, I ask that we have a reflective retrospective debate on the referendums and their outcomes at the earliest opportunity.
]]>I thank Senator McGreehan for her relevant and helpful intervention because it reminds me these people could have a story themselves. They may have an abortion story. There are women who deeply regret their abortions and who regret that the State and the apparatus of State did nothing to point them in the direction of more positive alternatives. There are some - not all - who have had adverse mental health sequelae. There are some who are spiritual or some who are maybe not but have found counselling and support, including from pro-life people, that has helped them to get over their sorrow. I suggest to my friend, Senator McGreehan, that some of those people might be among those people who want to silently witness in this way. I would not be at all surprised. I do not know if that is what Senator McGreehan was saying but I think she is a fair person and we have agreed on things the same way we have disagreed on things. There are people on both sides here. If we could only let people show a bit of love to one another, we could maybe understand that the witnessing that can go on quite far from being adversarial can be something that is intended in a spirit of deep friendship and concern for the other. My concern is that unless it is made clear, there will be a question in people's minds that even if they are standing still in the same spot they could be in breach of section 2(2) of the Bill if the requisite intent or recklessness is deemed to be present.
That is the position as far as I can put it. Again, I indicate that I will not be pressing the amendment at this point because I am really keen to see the Minister and the apparatus of State engage with these concerns, particularly as I fear that they have not engaged with, sought to engage with or responded positively to any requests they might have received from people representing the broader pro-life concern in our society. This is a substantial number of people, as we know, in the Minister's constituency as well as anywhere else. I fear and I know that this is one of these pieces of legislation that has really only heard from one side up to this point. That is why this is such a critical moment. The Bill has been through the Dail and yet again we find ourselves in the Seanad giving greater scrutiny as we did with the hate speech legislation, and the referendum Bills even though we were guillotined We still put it out clearly and cogently and are still doing so and doing a job that was not adequately done in the Dáil. We are doing it here again on this safe access legislation with due respect, by the way, to colleagues in the Dáil who have done their very best. This is our last chance now because the Bill has been through the Dáil and we need to consider the constitutional implications. We need to consider the question of whether there is a via media possible here. This would be an honourable compromise that could turn this legislation from being something that seeks to crush dissent ruthlessly into something that articulates a concern that some people may have, reasonably or unreasonably, but which seeks also to recognise there are other people who are deserving of respect in our society who might respectfully want to contribute their deep values to this very troubling situation.
]]>I would say that we should put the issue beyond doubt that if it is simply a matter of silent prayer, such people will not be criminalised. This is one situation where we could say that a person could be on his or her knees outside Croke Park and nobody would know why he or she was on his or her knees. Such people might be praying for their team to win. A person who might want to engage in silent witness might want to be seen to be doing so or maybe does not want to be seen to do anything but may feel in his or her heart that the power of what he or she is doing, spiritual or otherwise, finds its expression in that he or she is going to the place or the vicinity of a place and silently witnessing or praying. If that is their bag, such people should be protected in our society. We cannot make such people the prisoners or victims of the Minister's feelings or the feelings of an abortion advocacy group that wants to crush all dissent. Certainly, in the absence of any reports from direct healthcare providers - not the sham stuff from the HSE that gets cooked up to feed into debates around here - but real evidence from the people involved, whether I like what they are doing or not, we should not be curtailing people's freedom of expression.
I am saying that the argument could be made that the Bill does not explicitly criminalise silent prayer. I will hear what the Minister has to say, respectfully, on that. Given the breadth of section 2(2) considered in conjunction with sections 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 under the Bill as it is currently worded, it is quite possible that even silent prayer - if one can tell by looking at the person if he or she is praying, for example, joined hands, closed eyes, standing still in the relevant spot, holding rosary beads or whatever or lips moving without sound - could be conduct that may consist of a single act or course of conduct? I do not think that should be left to the court. The Minister and the Government want everything to go to court these days including the meaning of "durable relationship". They are storing up a bright, prosperous new future for lawyers and this will be one more possible example of where we will be putting doubt. The point is that even if the thing never went to court, this has the potential to intimidate ordinary and powerless people. Either that person is praying-----
]]>In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(4) Nothing in section 2(2) shall prohibit a person from engaging in silent prayer in a public place.”.
The amendment will come in under the section that provides for exceptions to the requirements set out in section 2. Not every part of what the legislation proposes is problematic. Section 2(1) states:
A person shall not, without lawful authority, in a safe access zone, engage in conduct— (a) that is likely to obstruct or impede another person from accessing a relevant healthcare premises, and
(b) with intent to obstruct or impede that person from availing of, or providing, termination of pregnancy services, or being reckless as to whether such person is thereby so obstructed or impeded.
I have no problem following the logic that if a service is legal in the country, however much I might regret it, a person should not be obstructed or impeded from accessing it. The problematic part is the much more intolerant, much less democratic and much more constitutionally subject provision in section 2(2), which states:
Subject to [the exceptions we are looking at], a person shall not, in a safe access zone— (a) communicate 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, or
(b) otherwise engage in conduct directed at the public or a section of the public in a manner that is likely to influence the decision of a person in relation to availing of, or providing, termination of pregnancy services, with intent to influence the decision of such a person in relation to availing of, or providing, termination of pregnancy services, or being reckless as to whether such a decision is thereby so influenced.
Clearly, what we are talking about here is just communicating material to the public in general, and it does not matter whether that material is intended to promote the idea of having an abortion or discourage it. That information may not be communicated to a section of the public in a safe access zone. Section 2(3), with which, again, I have no problem, states, "A person shall not ... engage in conduct that is likely to threaten or intimidate a person who is accessing or attempting to access a relevant healthcare premises". In fact, a person should not anywhere engage in conduct that is likely to threaten or intimidate a person who is accessing or attempting to access a relevant healthcare premises.
How strange to confine that requirement like that. I am sure it would be unlawful in any event under other laws, but the idea it would be specified that this should not happen in a safe access zone almost seems to condone the idea that threatening and intimidating could go on legally somewhere else. Likewise, the subsection goes on to state that a person shall not "accompany, follow or repeatedly approach, a person who is accessing or attempting to access a relevant healthcare premises, with intent to influence the decision" regarding abortion and so on. That stuff would all be covered under other law in any event. Needless to say, nobody can have a problem with that, except to the extent that I wonder whether it is, by implication, condoning such unacceptable behaviour outside of a safe access zone.
In any case, the problematic subsection is the one relating to communicating material to the public, and it is to that subsection that exceptions were considered necessary by the Government. The problem, of course, is that the exceptions do not go far enough. We have dealt with, on Committee Stage at least, my proposal that seeks to exclude the Houses of the Oireachtas from coming within the curtilage of a healthcare facility for safe access zone purposes and I have made my point in that regard about the via media that applies.It is not getting rid of the 100 m zone. It is providing that material may be communicated to the public, "provided such protest, advocacy or dissent is not directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises". The second exception is that "nothing shall prohibit a person from engaging in lawful conduct that occurs inside a place of religious worship". That may need to be extended to mean the entire premises of a place of religious worship. The third exception is that nothing shall prohibit anything done by a relevant healthcare provider or any person employed by that provider, including the provision of information. That is about protecting the healthcare institution.
It is at this point that I am proposing the insertion of the additional provision: "Nothing in section 2(2)shall prohibit a person from engaging in silent prayer in a public place." It might seem strange in this day and age, when people appear still, for the most part, to believe in constitutional rights and freedoms, that it would be necessary to put it beyond doubt that a person should be entitled to engage in silent prayer. However, we saw an incident in the United Kingdom not too long ago where, in effect, a policeman harassed a person and asked her if she was engaging in prayer. The answer the person gave was that she might be doing so. I forget precisely how it went from there but I think it ended up with the person not being prosecuted.
As we have said so often in the context of the hate speech legislation, the process sometimes becomes the punishment. Even if there was never a question of a person being brought before the courts, there is the very fact that he or she may be approached by the forces of law and order. I am not the best driver in the world and I try to obey the law but there have been occasions when I have heard that noise behind me and seen the blue light in the rear-view mirror. My heart gives a little lurch and I think to myself, "Oh, God, have I done something wrong?" Of course, one either has or has not done something wrong, so there should not be that heart lurch. However, most of us try to be solid citizens. It is anathema to most decent people to think they would ever do something that might bring about a situation where they are approached by a garda and told to move on, that they are doing something that is not really considered socially acceptable, that they could be on the threshold of breaching public order or that they could be breaking the law on safe access zones and so on.
It is not something I have ever done but we should explicitly provide for the possibility that if a person is so concerned by the injustice of abortion and feels the need to be within 100 m of the location where that is happening to express prayer silently, he or she should be able to do so. Given the way our western societies seem to be going in terms of cutting back on civil freedoms, including freedom of expression, there should be provision for a particular defence in this regard. I do not say the issue is beyond dispute; the argument could be made that the Bill does not explicitly criminalise silent prayer. However, we must take into account the breadth of subsection 2(2), which relates to communicating material to the public or otherwise engaging in conduct directed at the public, and consider it in conjunction with section 1 and subsections (5), (6) and (7) of section 2.
I remind colleagues that section 1 is the interpretation section and subsections (2), (5), (6) and (7) of section 2 give the definitions effect. Subsection 2(5) states:
For the purposes of this section, a person shall be regarded as communicating material to the public or a section of the public if the person—
(a) displays, publishes, distributes or disseminates the material,
(b) shows or plays the material, or
(c) makes the material available in any other way including through the use of an information system,
to the public or a section of the public.
Subsection (6) states:
For the purposes of this section, a person’s conduct shall include conduct of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does and such conduct may consist of a single act or a course of conduct.
Again, that invites doubt. Could standing silently, head bowed, come within the meaning of "conduct of any kind"? The reference to "in particular, things that the person says or otherwise communicates" is not a problem. The provision goes on to refer to "as well as things that the person does and such conduct may consist of a single act or a course of conduct".
In a free society, the rights we seek to protect in a democracy are not just the rights to which we ourselves can relate. I do not see myself ever getting down on my knees within 60 yd of Holles Street hospital, or any other abortion-providing healthcare facility, to lament what is going on. That is not my bag, so to speak. However, as a democrat and a legislator, I must defend the right of somebody who might want to go on his or her knees and silently witness to the injustice of what is going on. I think of the Falun Gong protestors, for example, we sometimes see on Grafton Street and in other places. I have often engaged with them. I think of how they are wronged, as are so many other groups, by the Chinese authorities. I think of their very simple, nonaggressive witness to the personal distinctiveness of what they do and stand for. I think to myself when I meet those people that at least in Ireland, for all our problems, they can stand on Grafton Street unmolested.
That is why I was concerned when I saw, a number of months ago, what happened here in Dublin to a man called Billboard Chris. He goes around the world protesting against the giving of puberty blockers to children in the context of a transgender ideology based on self-identification that encourages giving children such blockers and then moving them on to cross-sex hormones and, eventually, mutilating and life-damaging surgeries. At his protests, he displays a simple message such as "It is wrong to give puberty blockers to kids". He was on Grafton Street with his sandwich board a few months ago - I wrote an article about it in the Irish Examiner- when he was approached by a garda who was extremely polite to him. Billboard Chris, being an activist, was, I would say, somewhat rude to the garda, more rude than I would have been. He was dismissive. The irony was that the garda was completely polite but completely in the wrong. There was no legal basis-----
In page 6, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(3) Nothing in section 2(2) shall prohibit a person from engaging in debate or lawful protest, advocacy or dissent on premises occupied by a designated institution of higher education, provided such debate, protest, advocacy or dissent is not directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises.”.]]>
In page 6, lines 12 and 13, to delete “, within that 100 metres”.]]>
Senator Clonan referred to protestors he described as performative. He then talked about such protestors outside what he called the provision of healthcare. What I invite him to understand more clearly is that for those witnesses, abortion is not bona fide healthcare. It is a profoundly unjust elective procedure. I am not talking about the necessary medical procedures that can result in the loss of an unborn child. I am talking about elective, voluntary abortion, which is now provided in GP surgeries and hospitals. If people do not see that as healthcare, are they entitled in a democracy to be on the street and in the vicinity of such places, provided they are not targeting the individual or institution, to put a counter-message that is positive? The messages I want to see are those that offer a better solution than abortion. If there is a hope that somebody going into a facility, whom you do not know, might see those messages and might be encouraged to have a conversation with somebody else in their family or otherwise, or to have second thoughts, it would be a good thing if a life were saved. It is all about the how of this.
That is why I again say that the amendment I proposed protects. There is an honourable compromise in that amendment. I am sorry the Minister did not have the generosity to acknowledge that there is an attempt through that amendment to find some sort of via media but, as I said, Borg-like, it is a case of "Computer says no", we will keep going, and we will not open our hearts to the possibility that you might have a heart. That is the problem. I will correct my friend and colleague Senator Conway. There is no question of leaving 100 m. The law, as the Minister has drafted it, would make sure that there is not a 100 m bar. People who protest in the vicinity of Leinster House would not fall foul of any 100 m rule. That is what the Minister is proposing. The amendment I am proposing is to get rid of the 100 m bar but maintain the standard for protest outside. It would apply the Dáil standard everywhere. People would be completely free to protest outside the Dáil, even if it is within 100 m of an abortion facility, provided the protest advocacy or dissent is not directed at a specific, relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing such premises. Let us make the Dáil standard the universal standard. That is the via media that the Minister did not even address his mind to because he was too busy trying to ballyrag, discredit and insult me. I do not mind somebody personally having a go at me. Every word I have said today is truthful. That I can take the book on.
I invite the Minister to retreat from his hardline position and to at least engage in conversation with people he does not like. It does not have to be me. It can be anybody he wants, provided it is somebody who would at least invite him to consider whether the Dáil or Oireachtas standard could be the useful standard to apply across the board, which is to say that a person would be free to engage in lawful protest, advocacy or dissent, provided it is not directed at a specific, relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing such premises. In addition to the public order legislation, which prevents threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene behaviour, that is a formula that could work without attacking freedom of expression, without turning against people who have concerns about abortion and want to witness to them in a public place, notwithstanding that it may be in some way in the zone of a healthcare facility or, as I said, against people on a witness march who might be passing within 100 m. The Minister has a clear formula to work on between now and Report Stage.
I will make a second last point. We should think for a moment about a protest outside a migrant reception facility, as that was mentioned, where asylum seekers might be getting direct provision. We can all see clearly how such a protest should not be allowed once it is in any way directed at a person. That is why I do not like and do not support the idea of protests at people going in and out of a facility in the context of our evolving migration debate. The old laws of Christian charity can apply in a secular society very effectively. Not much of the language needs to be changed to see what human decency requires. Let us say, however, that people were protesting outside an asylum facility or reception centre against the injustice of the way migrants were being treated. Should that not be allowed? In many ways, that is the much more valid comparison. The witness that might take place within 100 m of an abortion-providing facility is effectively a witness against injustice and a call to a better way of doing medicine. It is not about the Government. According to Cork University Hospital, it is about a small number of very powerless people in society, who just seek to witness. Sometimes, it might be prayer. That is not my personal style, but it is that of others in our democracy.
I will speak to what my friend and colleague, Senator Gavan, said about the last thing a woman needs are protestors of any kind. I invite him to think about the possibility that people in this context are not protesting but witnessing. Again, I ask that we apply the standards of what is done and address our minds to the standards of how people witness and make their point, as opposed to the blanket ban, which captures the courteous as well as the aggressive. I am interested in targeting the aggressive. I defend the rights of the courteous. I invite the Senator to do that. He talked about privacy, but there is clearly no invasion of privacy in circumstances where no person standing in the street, 50 yards from Holles Street hospital, knows anything about why a person is walking past him or her on that street, whether or not that person enters the doors of the hospital. There is no attack on privacy. There is no attack on dignity provided nothing in what is being said or displayed offends public order legislation. Respect for the unborn and for the unborn's mother has to be the hallmark of any witnessing outside a facility or within 100 m of a facility that I would support.
I have put it as well as I can. The Minister's only response today has been to attack those of us who are concerned about this legislation and try to portray us as heartless, and wanting to be in people's faces and so on.Caricaturing your opponent, however, is no way to govern responsibly. We have tabled amendments that seek to strike an honourable middle ground. To my mind, they are more constitutionally focused in that they protect freedom of expression, are better proofed against eventual challenge to the legislation and seek to create that balance whereby the same standard can be applied to a protest regardless of whether it is outside Leinster House or anywhere else, that is, that there is no distinction or cordon sanitairebut that the standard is that protest advocacy or dissent can be not directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing one. That is an honourable compromise and I ask the Minister and his officials to think about it between now and Report Stage.
]]>I have two other points. My friend and colleague Senator Clonan referred to laïcité. He turned to me as he made his remark-----
]]>Regarding those who want to witness to human dignity in a way that has not caused a problem in the eyes of the Limerick or Cork hospitals, the only people the Minister has been able to draw on are those referred to in the highly questionable document of the HSE – it is highly questionable because the HSE is hand in glove with the Government – and what I would regard as a discredited abortion advocacy group. Let us be in no doubt that the impetus for this legislation is not coming from ordinary people who have felt intimidated and therefore got in touch; it is coming from ideological groups who got in touch with Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party and whose opinions are in vogue and who do not have to try very hard at all to gain access. We have seen this insiderism, including in recent days.
I add my welcome to those for the representative from the National Women’s Council of Ireland. That is an organisation that has completely failed to represent the diversity of women’s views across the country.
]]>