Seanad debates

Wednesday, 11 March 2009

Adoption Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Alex WhiteAlex White (Labour)

I, too, question why this section is in the Bill. Its inclusion must be justified, rather than arguing for its removal. Why is it here? Certainly, it seems to jar with the main substances of the legislation. Is it some type of postscript, a genuflection, as it were, in the direction of religion? Without having heard the Minister of State on this, there seems to be no real reason for its inclusion from the viewpoint of making legislation and dealing with the complex question of adoption. No doubt, religion, race, nationality, ethnicity and so on are questions which the authority, in making orders, will have to consider. These are areas that are worth considering in any event.

I find myself in full agreement with Senator Bacik's questioning the privileged position of religion. Why has religion its own section in the Bill? What about all the other characteristics that might well enter into the equation, given the differences or sensitivities that might arise between different groups? Why does religion have its own section in this way? What is the purpose that we are seeking to achieve? What are we seeking to protect by including it here in this essentially privileged manner? I support the arguments made and I oppose the section.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.