Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire. This is the first time I have had the opportunity in the House to wish her well in her new duties. I would also like to wish the Human Rights and Equality Commission the best for its work. This is an important body and it has important and sensitive work. As the Minister has said, the commission will be Ireland's internationally recognised body with responsibility for human rights.

I wish to make some general points. The Minister has invoked important ideas and concepts. For example, she referred to best international practice, including the Paris Principles, underpinning our approach to human rights and the work of the commission. The new commission will nominate members to the fundamental rights agency of the European Union and so on. The describing and circumscribing of circumstances in which members can be removed seems appropriate also.

Looking to the future, we must continue to reflect carefully on human rights, what they are, how we identify human rights, how we define them and how we go about enforcing them or ensuring compliance with best international practice or authentic human rights standards as identified. On the issue of having regard to best international practice, the identification and promotion of human rights goals must never become the exclusive province of any closed or elite group, however well educated, academically qualified or connected with the Government, civil power or the public service. Human rights work must be done with passion, but also with humility and in a listening spirit. It must have particular regard to the people it must serve, particularly minorities or those who are vulnerable, because these are the groups who most depend on our spirited defence of human rights. Our identification and defence of human rights and equality must be done in the context of respect for the letter and spirit of Bunreacht na hÉireann. Our constitutional values might even be sometimes in tension with what might be regarded as best international practice and this is an area in which we need to tread very carefully and with great respect for our Constitution and its important role in the work we must do.

We must recognise that the idea of human rights in itself poses particular challenges. After the horrors of the Second World War, states rightly came together to establish international laws, treaties and conventions and to promote human rights standards. This has been a positive and progressive development for the human race. However, in the absence of recognised concepts of natural laws and rights, we will always remain vulnerable to the possibility that the most powerful elements in our world will redraw the human rights map from time to time.

For example, the right to life of the unborn is not well championed by what we might call the identifiable human rights fraternity, in the western world in particular, at this time. Various human rights committees repeatedly interrogate countries that have sought in their laws to protect the unborn. Some of these so-called human rights defenders seek to restrict freedom of conscience in the case of certain health care workers for example. I am not aware of any international human rights body that sought to challenge our, frankly, corrupt abortion legislation, which was passed here last year, with all of the dangers and contradictions it entailed.

Language is also frequently abused. Notions such as "reproductive rights" are used as a Trojan horse when what is really being referred to are rights to abortion. People even talk about a concept such as a safe abortion, which is a concept foreign to anybody who realises an abortion can never be a safe experience for the unborn child involved. I cite the example of the unborn, simply because the unborn is, perhaps, today's victim of what can often be the arbitrary and selective nature of human rights discourse.

Given the demographic changes that are occurring in our world and in Europe, if we think, for example, about the emerging strength of Islam and the existence of particular strains of Islam, these have very different ideas about human rights and human dignity to the ideas that would be shared by a majority of those in this Chamber. Think of the emergence of China and its enormous economic power. Only yesterday, we saw our British friends kowtowing to the Chinese authorities, because China must now be propitiated because of its huge economic strength. This has enormous implications for our attempts to continue to vindicate human rights and to raise important concerns about human rights in China. We must constantly reflect on these issues, instead of just looking at the mechanics of this legislation or the balancing of rights or the extent to which the legislation facilitates or spancels the members of the commission, although I do not deny these are important questions. We also need to think about the concepts we as legislators must struggle to address and the issues on which the members of the commission must continue to reflect.

I referred to the emerging strength of Islam and of China. We can ask, legitimately and with great concern - with burning anxiety one might say - what is the future for human rights when it comes to determining women's full participation in civil and political life, or people's right to full participation in a democratic system of decision making. I suggest we must move from seeing things in terms of what we decide is right or wrong at a given time, according to the current international consensus or current shared consensus of those within the human rights circle. We must struggle at least to try to establish clearly in our minds what we believe is objectively right and wrong.

In a world in which many believe in God but in which many others do not, we face an ongoing challenge of trying to locate an absolute source of authority for concepts we all wish to take for granted, such as respect, tolerance, inclusion, and the protection of the vulnerable and marginalised.
The Minister mentioned that Ireland’s active support for human rights in the wider world must be supported by the existence of a credible national human rights infrastructure and robust legislation in this field. She is absolutely right. However, it also works in reverse in that the existence of a credible national human rights infrastructure and robust legislation in the field of human rights protection in Ireland must be reflected in Ireland's active support for human rights in the wider world.
This morning I asked the Leader to report back to us on what the Government has said and done, or intends to do, about the very disturbing case of Dr. Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, the Sudanese woman who has been condemned to flogging and, eventually, hanging for the crime of apostasy. She was raised in her mother's faith, orthodox Christianity, because her father, apparently, was absent in the course of her upbringing. The Sudanese authorities regard as a crime her marriage to a South Sudanese Christian. This is not something that any civilised government can just let go by or just shake its head at. It needs to be raised. Ireland needs to raise issues such as this continuously at international fora. This particular issue raises complex enough issues about the role of religion within states but also raises more obvious questions about people's freedom to practice and manifest their religious belief or the fact that they have no particular religious belief. Ireland must not be shy about raising these issues and being awkward on the world stage, irrespective of what economic issues arise. We should enlist the support of Muslim groups in our country, just as we rightly have done in expressing concern about the fate of Irish citizens who have been caught up in the turmoil in Egypt. I have one case in particular in mind, namely, that of the student who, as of a number of weeks ago, had been in jail for seven months awaiting trial. We need to co-opt the support of Islamic groups in the State, for example, to help us to communicate that what is happening is no true reflection of Islam and that human dignity entails necessary respect for freedom of religious belief and conscience. Freedom of conscious is another vital concept.
The Minister said that as Ireland prepares for a constitutional referendum on marriage equality for same-sex couples in 2015, certain states, by contrast, are working hard to restrict the rights and fundamental freedoms of gay people. That is terrible. It is important that there be listening and humility in regard to identifying what human rights are in this case. There will be those who will oppose the referendum. The former editor of The Irish Timesand former Deputy, Geraldine Kennedy, says she expects the referendum not to succeed. If that is the case, it will be because a majority of people with total respect for human rights may regard human rights in terms other than those envisaged, and may not regard having our current definition of marriage redefined as a human right. Those affected must not be marginalised or stigmatised; they must be listened to. We must work out our understanding of what human rights entail, not by deciding what we must get the people to decide but by listening carefully to what the people actually decide. We must allow that to inform public thinking on this issue.
There is much more that I could say. I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. Difficult issues will arise and differences of opinion simply cannot be wished away. We must search for the truth together in a mutually respectful way and take their lead from, rather than dictate to, the considered, reflected position of the people, in whom all decision-making ultimately resides.