Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Let us take Senator Keogan's amendment, which provides that:

The indoor area of a building within the safe access zone, other than a building described in subsection (1)#(a) or (b), is not considered to be part of the safe access zone for the purposes of this Act.

I want to make it clear that in seconding this amendment I am not in any way saying that were it to be accepted, everything would be alright. This point came up between Senator Pauline O'Reilly and I the last day. Sometimes amendments are proposed to try to make an egregious situation somewhat less harmful and toxic.

On the last day we debated this Bill, in February, I pointed out that this legislation was so restrictive of free speech that there could be a situation where people could be sitting down in a coffee shop in a hospital, the subject of abortion might come up and a person might mention that he or she was involved in providing terminations of pregnancy upstairs and a person might say he or she is upset about the fact that the change in our abortion law has led to a major increase in the incidence of abortion in Ireland, which it has. That would fall under the definition of what this Bill attempts to prohibit; an innocent conversation, even if it is overheard, where one person would express a sincere opinion. Even if one said innocently and respectfully that one wishes abortions were not being carried out in a hospital because innocent lives are being lost, and even if that was only overheard, that could be a criminal act as this Bill is worded. It is remarkable that since this was pointed out on Committee Stage, no attempt has been made to rectify such a draconian provision. In some kind of a limited way, this amendment seeks to at least provide that a conversation that might take place inside a building that might fall within the 100 m defined safe access zone would not be criminalised. One could just as easily argue that no conversation should be criminalised, even if it took place in the coffee shop of the hospital where the procedures were taking place. Our amendment does not address this. This is a limited amendment that intends and seeks to point out just how draconian, intolerant and radical the provisions of this Bill set out to be.

There is a massive disrespect for civil liberties, the right to free expression and the right to dissent at work in this Bill. I say this with a heavy heart because at an individual level I am delighted to call every Member my colleague and we all get on well. I do not stand in moral judgment of anybody; I have no right to judge anybody and none of us has a right to judge any other person. However, we have a right to try to assess and judge each other's actions and I have to say that this Bill flirts with fascism because it seeks to criminalise respectful free speech-----