Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Having said that this legislation in many ways flirts with fascism I found myself thinking, as I listened to Senator Keogan, that there is something of the radical Marxist revolutionary about it as well, to the extent that such is the zeal of the radical proponents of this Bill to place people under fear of prosecution they have no problem burning some of their own as well in an effort to root out all opposition. They are quite happy that the legislation would potentially subject those who would wish to express support for abortion to being caught, if only so they can be seen as being even-handed as they seek to terrorise those who would dare to express opposition to abortion, even in a peaceful way. It is also worth saying that the legislation already provides, in section 3(3), for offences in respect of the provisions of section 3 and any breaches under subsections (1) and (2) that there would be an offence and that a person would be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or imprisonment for up to a year, and on indictment to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or imprisonment for a term of up to five years.

However, the Jacobins behind this legislation were not happy with that. There must be more offences in the Bill and we find them in section 5, whereby gardaí have power to give a direction. They can give those directions where they suspect with reasonable cause that a person intends to breach any of the provisions of sections 3 or 4.It needs to be said that in respect of section 4 of this Bill, there is very little with which one could disagree. The only point I will make is that if this Bill was confined to section 4, the Garda Commissioner has said it is not necessary and that the legislation already exists. Senator Keogan has pointed to that. It is the radical intolerance of much of the content of section 3 that has taken up most of our time this afternoon. Of course, what is in section 3 is also dealt with in the section 5 power the legislation proposes to give to members of An Garda Síochána, because it is where the person intends to breach, is about to breach or is attempting to breach any of the provisions of sections 3 or 4.

We are back again to the three people having a conversation in the coffee shop, perhaps with somebody who is involved in the provision of abortion services, across the road, but within 100 m or indeed upstairs in the building, which would certainly be within 100 m. A person may disagree. There may be a lively discussion about abortion and a person may, in good faith, bring in information about the impact of the abortion law in this country since it was passed.

This impact includes the lack of precautionary pain relief; the increase in abortion statistics; the failure of the legislation to provide for significant notifications in terms of gathering information about what abortions are taking place or why; the one-sided nature of counselling on abortion brought out by a recent survey of students, which showed the Positive Options people are pretty much shuttling people in the direction of abortion, without giving any serious airtime to positive alternatives to abortion; the absence of any desire at the heart of public policy to reduce the numbers of abortions and the implications that has had for abortion, as it is now taking place in Ireland.

All these issues were to some degree, albeit in a limited way, ventilated. There was very little chance to ventilate them during the abortion referendum campaign and little enough opportunity to get any consideration of them during the subsequent legislation in 2018. Any discussion of these overheard by a Jacobin supporter of abortion rights could lead to a report to An Garda Síochána and a person being directed to leave immediately that place, get out of the coffee shop and being told one is not allowed discuss abortion or give information about abortion there.

As little as informing a person concerning issues related to termination of pregnancy services could lead to that. It is a very low threshold or rather, is it a high or low threshold of intolerance? What I am trying to say is that one would not need to say very much in order to put oneself the wrong side of the law.

I refer to the idea that we would give the Garda the power to direct people to leave the premises for having a respectful and reasonable conversation where they bring information into the conversation that is adverse to the provision of abortion services. Already this morning, I spoke up clearly for the rights of the Garda Síochána to do its job, when I deplored the recent European Court of Justice decision about the retention of phone records and the implications that might have for patriotic, painstaking and persistent investigation of crime. I stand with the right of members of the Garda to do whatever they have to do to keep the peace and to investigate wrongdoing. However, they have a hard enough job without putting them in the position of having to get involved with something such as this, where no person is being harmed and people are simply exercising their right to free speech. It is shameful to try to implicate the Garda Síochána into such activity. It is yet another disrespect in this legislation. In this case, it is disrespect for the good work that the Garda Síochána has to do and does in this country. Trying to set the Garda Síochána up in opposition, through this legislation and this section, to good people who are not harassing people under section 4 but simply are sharing information out of concern for human life and dignity and are doing so in a way that means ill or harm to no one and putting the Garda Síochána into a position where it would have to hustle or harass good people in that situation is nothing short of a disgrace.

I do not know whether this legislation will pass the Dáil or get the casual support that it had from most sides of this House. I hope that it will not be so easy when it goes to the Dáil because it will bring the whole Oireachtas into disrepute, not just the Seanad, which is being brought into disrepute today. However, if the legislation is passed by the Dáil, with or without serious discussion, this is yet another reason it will not last jig time before the Supreme Court. Were it to do so, should President Higgins refer legislation to the Supreme Court for a ruling on its constitutionality, which surely he would almost certainly have to do under Article 26, it would be a sad day for this country if something as intolerant, disrespectful of diversity and as fascistic as this were to be considered in keeping with the provisions of our Constitution.