Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Cuirim fáilte roimh Dr. Manning go dtí an Teach inniu. I served with Dr. Manning in the House previously and he was one of the most articulate and finest minds with whom it was my privilege to serve in this House. He has obviously brought that great capacity to the current important position he holds. As one who was criticised for claiming that many branches of the NGOs had hitched their wagons to the human rights and equality wagon, sometimes, perhaps, without a great foundation of reason, I thought I should start by going back to the foundation of our modern human rights, to which Dr. Manning referred, that is, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. It set up a commission, one of the first acts of the UN, to draft this document. Article 16 acknowledges the equality between women and men and also the duties of society and the State to protect family, the natural and fundamental group unit of society, based on marriage between men and women. It goes on to say that it founds human rights in an anthropology of the human person. Dr. Manning quoted the first part which states "All human beings are born free and equally in dignity and rights". They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Key drafters sought to recognise an objective foundation for human rights based on the universality of human nature. It is interesting that they also say the rights are correlative with duties. We often hear reports about our rights and campaigning for rights but which place insufficient emphasis on our correlative obligations and responsibilities. Duties to others and the community as a whole are recognised implicitly in Article 1 and explicitly in the preamble to paragraph 5 and Article 29. These were not originally intended to be binding, but they have become so.

Article 23 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states the natural family based on marriage shall be protected by society and the state. As far as I am aware, none of the NGOs made reference to this protection in their submissions to the United Nations, although I stand to be corrected. Yesterday evening I watched a BBC television programme on which a Jewish rabbi interviewed Dr. Robert D. Putnam from Harvard University about the values embodied in faith and religion and increasing the connection between family and community. Dr. Putnam argued that strong families and communities were important components of our human rights fabric. Maurice Glasman from London Metropolitan University spoke about how the breakdown of traditional families was leading to dysfunction in society, alienation, loneliness and a particular emphasis on the elderly.

Recently I attended a conference at which a paper was read by Matthew Fforde, a Welshman who had conducted a case study of post-modernity in Britain and the changes that had taken place since the war, which he classified as de-culturalisation, de-Christianisation and de-socialisation. I recommend the book he has written on de-socialisation. Although it is a heavy tome to read, it contains a significant amount of challenging and thought provoking material. He referred to isolation and alienation and noted that 7 million people, or every man, woman and child on the island of Ireland plus 1 million, lived alone in Britain. He spoke about the effect this had had on mental health and in other areas. It is important that we reflect on this issue. I will raise a number of questions pertaining to it.

There are certain fundamental rights, including the right to life, freedom and education. I have always believed people have the right to employment because it is part of the dignity of the human person to use one's own talents and energy to provide for oneself and one's family. The right to shelter is also well recognised in these Houses. The most fundamental right of all is the right to life because without it all other rights are immaterial. It is interesting that Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:

Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction for a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

I am of the school of thought that regards life as inviolate. In this regard, I commend to Dr. Manning a short article by Professor William Reville of UCC which deals with the continuum of life from conception to natural death. Any interruption along the path obliterates the remainder of that life.

I come to the questions I wish to put to Dr. Manning. What is the process of embracing ideas that purport to develop human rights and what research or qualitative study does it involve? I ask this question because when I took a particular stand on the issue of civil partnership, I felt obliged to conduct research into its effects on the family. Hundreds of reports have been produced on this subject, particularly on the position in the United States. To what extent have the common good and the societal impact or likely consequences been balanced against individual rights in reaching conclusions? Should all human life be inviolate?