Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

There is a scene in the movie “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” when, and I forget the name of the characters involved, the maid in the house is so exasperated that she says to the lead character, played by Katharine Hepburn, that she knows nothing no more, to which, Katharine Hepburn, says that nobody knows nothing no more. That is how I feel when I contemplate the many appalling casual and damaging provisions of this legislation. I do not know what I should think about the provision of the Bill that states that somebody who is "the victim of the course of conduct in question" may bring a civil claim for any breach under sections 3 or 4 of the Bill.First, we are given no guidance. We are being told, basically, that an area of statutory liability is being established here, a statutory wrong, a tort. We are not being given any guidance as to what amount of damages might be payable in the event of a breach of this provision, how the damages might be calculated or what evidentiary tests might be necessary in order to establish, presumably on the balance of probabilities, that the tort had been committed. To realise just how ludicrous, to the point of being very offensive indeed this latest provision is, we only have to consider yet again what an actual or apprehended breach under sections 3 or 4 might be. The casual conversation whereby a person might offer advice or seek to inform any person concerning any issues related in whatever way to the termination of pregnancy services is a tort. Of course, our courts are not very busy. They do not have anything to be doing. We might as well create another statutory wrong on which the courts can be invited by a claimant to adjudicate. It is a tort if that mother sitting with her teenager or that pensioner having her cup of coffee, on learning that abortions are taking place upstairs, expresses her sadness at the defeat for humanity that abortion is, and hopes for a better way of dealing with the challenges of a crisis pregnancy, a way that is generous to mothers and their unborn babies, who brings information to people's attention, advising about how wherever abortion has been legalised it has led to a diminished respect for human life and an increase in abortion rates, and increasing demands as well for further ease of access to the procedure and a disregard for questions about the possible cruelties involved in certain abortion procedures. None of that could ever be discussed, not the mildest, most meek or diffident expression of dissent or any information touching on that dissent could be expressed. I might attribute it to Senator Seery Kearney because she was the one who expressed doubt that anybody would ever report such a person, but not only can the officious bystander, if we can call them that, to use another legal term, who overhears that report it and ask for the Garda to move the person on but presumably the abortion provider upstairs, when they hear that such a conversation was taking place in breach of this Sinn Féin and Labour Party-led legislation, could in theory bring an action, hold themselves out as a service provider, as being the victim of this illegal course of conduct. All that is possible.

There is possibly some kind of an unintended compliment to the legislators of Texas, and perhaps Idaho, in recent times who have managed to vindicate the life of the unborn by establishing that it can be a civil wrong to provide abortions but that any person might bring such an action. We all know that it has succeeded at least for the moment, where others have failed, in enacting protections for unborn babies. There is perhaps some kind of unintended compliment to that approach to law by establishing certain civil wrongs associated with the conduct that the Bill seeks to prohibit. Perhaps there is an unintentional compliment to all of that in the addition of an extra section here on damages, as broad in its sweep as it is. Let us be clear: this is not the person who is being harassed under section 4, with whom we would all sympathise; this is anybody who is a service provider or who holds themselves out as a victim, even of casual or intended, respected, accurate speech.

This is what our democrats here today want to enact in the law of Ireland. It is probably not as bad as the criminal provisions set out here, because criminal offences are damaging to people's reputations and, where successfully prosecuted, lead to the restriction of their freedom. We could say when it comes to bringing an action for damages that it is only money, but Senator Keogan has pointed out that it could be the livelihood of a very vulnerable person. It could be a very impecunious person who could be targeted by this provision. It is yet another casual cruelty of this legislation that it sets out in its sweep and its scope to oppress anybody who dissents in any way with abortion and who would dare to do so within the prescribed proximity to the facilities, as this legislation sets out.