Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This amendment brings out an issue that highlights yet again the at-best sloppy and at-worst malicious nature of the sheer scope, width, breadth and reach of the draconian measures set out in this Bill. With regard to the right to assemble — it is a constitutional right — and then to go in company with others of like mind to make a political point or several and seek to influence those who govern us and legislate for us, most people instinctively know that the curtailment of any such right should take place only in circumstances of extreme necessity.

We had debates about this recently in this country in the context of Covid and the restrictions on people gathering. We saw how many people chafed under those restrictions, rightly or wrongly, and did not feel it was the business of the Government to tell them when and where they could assemble and how far from their homes they could do so. Of course, the Government had a very statable argument: it was about public health, public safety and saving lives. Most of us sympathised with that and understood it. Even though there was a conflict of loyalty and many of us intensely disliked the restrictions on our freedom, we knew at the same time that somebody had to legislate for the common good and take decisions, including unpopular ones, to protect us all.

To use a phrase I used before, it is part of the democratic contract that we accept the limitations that policies, laws and other measures impose on us, but we do so on the understanding that they are the minimum necessary and do not seek to go further than they need to go. We do so on the understanding that restrictions are imposed in a transparent way and that, where the approach is concerned, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We do so in the knowledge that if my rights are being restricted in the circumstances, so too are the other person's rights. It is important not to have laws that casually, or otherwise, restrict some people's freedoms more than others. All these considerations are important in a democracy. They promote maximum public buy-in to the democracy and maximum public support for the institutions of the State and laws that bind us.

I have often said, occasionally when giving talks to schools, that one of the reasons we have two Houses of the Oireachtas is that legislation is a serious business. It limits our lives, be it criminal justice, environmental protections or the legislation we enact to put the budgetary measures through. The point is that law governs our life and limits our choices. We have a Dáil and Seanad to ensure laws are thoroughly considered and that we do not have unforeseen consequences and excessive interference with people's rights and freedoms. In fact, the balance that law seeks to strike involves being the minimum necessary to promote the good and protect the vulnerable while never going so far as to interfere unnecessarily with people's freedom. Laws restricting freedom should always be considered with great care, and measures to enact such laws should always be introduced only with great consideration and respect for the public they seek to serve. The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach will not be surprised to hear me say this legislation disrespects all those finer points, delicate balances and important considerations.

I do not tend to march myself. I have the privilege of being an elected representative. I have often thought that one of the things I am really grateful for is the chance I get to say things in the Oireachtas and speak not only about my own deepest concerns but also on behalf of the many who often thank me for representing their point of view. That is a great privilege. It is probably the case that those of us who have this privilege, unless we are seeking to curry electoral favour, do not necessarily have the same urge to get out onto the streets. This is because we have a chance to speak when the laws come to be made.Many people do not have that chance and they feel disempowered by that sometimes. They especially feel disempowered if they feel that they matter less in the democracy than other people.

I first started thinking about marching in earlier decades when terrible things were taking place in the North. I think back to the events at the Garvaghy Road and we all remember the competing arguments in that context, with people declaring their right to use the public highway. Of course, we also knew those marches could be extremely intimidating for and disrespectful of people in their home areas. Those marches were sometimes taking place in areas where most people were opposed to them. Add in to that experience as well the banging drums, the sectarian slogans and the disrespect for people that some of that marching entailed. We knew, though, that there was a balance to be struck and that the freedom to use the public highway was not an absolute right. Even if it was a legal right, then there had to be some kind of negotiated solution to ensure more aspects were considered than just people's legal rights. I refer to the need to do the work of reconciliation, of encouraging people to accept and understand one another's differing perspectives and preferences and to find some way to adjudicate between those aspirations. That is why we had the Parades Commission in the North.

There is no parades commission here. What we have here is a law that would single out, exclusively, concern about abortion, that concern which many hundreds of thousands of people in our society continue to have. This proposal says that people could be on the wrong side of the law and caught by the provisions of this legislation if their demonstration, if we want to call it that, march, walk or ambulatory public witness, because people are walking, passes in the vicinity of any kind of facility providing any of these services. As I asked already, is this sloppy or is it malicious? Whatever it is, it is fundamentally disrespectful of people's freedom. Nobody should come in here with proposed legislation that could even accidentally be as draconian as this. Nobody should do that who cares about democracy, the importance of our hard-won freedoms and people's right to go out and express ideas with which other people disagree. Those are the only ideas which need to be defended, because there is never a problem with those we all agree on. Therefore, nobody should come in here with legislation like this and as badly drafted as it is, for whatever reason. I do not know whether it is deliberate or accidental.

What I do know is that it will pass, because the powers that be in this country are here to make a point today. This is yet another example of the draconian sweep of this ill-composed, unfair, mean-minded and disrespectful legislation. Our amendment attempts to address one aspect of it which concerns people going on a walk. As I said, even if the amendment were to be successful, there is still much that is harmful and disrespectful of democracy and of people in this legislation.