Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

-----in a way that no legislation that has ever come before these House has attempted to do to my knowledge. We are not talking about somebody who would shout: "Fire" in a theatre. There are situations where we have to curtail free speech where somebody is immediately put in danger but the idea that two people cannot have a conversation about abortion within 100 m of where an abortion is taking place lest they be under the definition of this Bill is wrong.

Let us be clear about this. I am not exaggerating the position; I wish I were. We are trying to amend the section that states that what is restricted is the expression or demonstration of "support for or opposition to a person’s decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision" of abortion. If I express opposition to a person's decision to provide abortion, I might be criminalised for doing so. We have to go to section 3(2) to see what is meant by that. It includes "advising, persuading or informing... any person concerning issues related to termination of pregnancy services". The Minister of State is an intelligent person and she can read writing the same way I can. This is not about harassment or observing and besetting. There are other sections of the Bill that are perfectly reasonable in plenty of contexts.

It is worth noting the Garda Commissioner's remarks on this, as we did on Committee Stage.The Garda Commissioner said there is no need for such legislation. The law is there to deal with any of the activity that we would all object to. Not only that, he pointed out that there were not reports of any objectionable activity that would require amending legislation. Therefore, this legislation proceeds from a desire to crush dissent; nothing else. It proceeds from a desire to erase any memory that a third of the people voted against the provision of abortion services, presumably because they regarded it as a violation of the right to life of vulnerable children. However, whatever their reason for opposing it, they did and still do. This legislation is not about addressing any cruel or reckless behaviour of the kind that we should all unite in opposing. It is about silencing dissent. That is why I say it flirts with fascism.

I will return to the provision in the Bill we are trying to amend, which relates to expressing opposition to the decision to provide abortion and doing so by informing any person about issues relating to the termination of pregnancy. If it comes up, however casually, in a conversation in a hospital that somebody is involved in providing abortions in whatever way upstairs, and I am there in good faith and say, “Well, I really wish this was not happening at all; did you know that our law does not provide for any precautionary pain relief where abortions take place late-term under our new law?", that could be seen as informing people on abortion services.

This goes much further than addressing the person who is contemplating abortion and trying to change their mind. The people who proposed this Bill want to go much further than that in the way they attempt the criminalise the free and respectful exchange of information. Can it really be the case, at a time when all of us know the threat to democracy that is going on in our world, and when we know the horrors associated with that, that responsible legislators want to criminalise free speech to the extent that this legislation does? Of course, the reality is we do not really know what they want because they have the luxury of proposing this legislation knowing that the Government does not want to be seen to be against anything that the abortion lobby wants. Therefore, this will go through with minimum opposition. The Government has the luxury of saying that it is only the Seanad; and there will be a more serious discussion in the Dáil when various voices are heard. That is no way, I submit, to go about legislating. It is no way to treat the national Parliament. It is no way to treat the electorate.