Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will, and I do not intend to take longer than is necessary. My colleague, Senator McDowell, had to take considerably longer recently on the referendum legislation, which was also rushed through. I will do my best to keep to the point.

My point is that we do not have abortion clinics in Ireland. Therefore, if a person in any given situation wants to promote or get out a pro-life message or encourage or offer help to somebody, and we are told, and we all agree, that abortion is never an easy decision, the logic being that anybody who has a bit of compassion or practical support to offer would want to give a person contemplating an abortion every chance to think this through carefully - of course, we have a Government that is not interested in helping people think things through carefully on this issue - and help that person not make a decision that is very often associated with negative mental health consequences in some cases and for certain categories of women, and that is evidenced because there is enough information out there about the possibility of abortion regret, if such a person wants to promote that message, the fact is we do not have direct and precise knowledge of where abortions are taking place. We may know that certain hospitals are doing it, but a person who holds up a placard in a street and there is a GP surgery down the road does not know whether that person is a conscientious objector or whether abortions are being facilitated in that clinic. As far as I can see, they are caught by the law if they are unlucky enough that that premises does. That is why this legislation is so intolerant. It is not about stopping people from upsetting particular people. It is about crushing dissent and stopping people from expressing reasonable messages under pain of the possibility that there may be an abortion provided within 100 m of them which they may not even know and they are on the wrong side of the law. That is just one of the reasons I think this legislation is probably not in harmony with our Constitution. In effect, it puts the onus of proof, as I see it, and the Minister may correct me if I am wrong, on the person communicating the message. That is one problem.

This has all been presented with great gratitude to a lobby group. The Minister talked about reports of people being harassed. Is he willing to read those into the record here today? I would be delighted if he could. He talks about attempts to coerce. Is he willing to read that into the record here today?Is the Minister willing to prove it with information we can rely on as coming from a reputable and unbiased source? I see the Minister’s official very helpfully handing him a note on that, but it better be something more than the mere claims of a lobby group. As far as I am aware, and the Minister might correct me if I am if I am wrong, we have not yet to my knowledge heard the Garda Commissioner resile from his earlier statement. I see the officials are consulting carefully on this because I suspect this is one of those bits of legislation that is more driven by lobby groups than by the careful neutral scrutiny one expects from the permanent Government. We have not yet heard the Garda Commissioner resile from the earlier statement that the laws in place - public order laws, etc. - were adequate to deal with any problems. As I recall, the Garda Commissioner's communication on this issue was one of reassurance there was not a problem arising with regard to this issue.

As far as I am aware, we have not heard from any hospital authority. I am open to being corrected and I will happily correct my argument any day of the week. There are many arguments against this legislation and I want to be 100% accurate in what I say, so the Minister might please help me. This is a Government that is short on specifics when it comes to pushing ideology, but I am open to hearing some specifics. Has any public health provider or any hospital called for this legislation as a matter of urgency or at all? If they did, I missed it. Everything I have heard so far has been to the effect there is not actually a problem arising. I think every decent, honourable citizen in this country knows this. They know it is probably a very small number of people who feel motivated to witness to the rights of the unborn by going out, perhaps in bad weather or otherwise, with a placard. If it is anything that would impede or obstruct, I will accept any law that prevents that. If it is anything that could be in breach of public order legislation, let us remember what public order legislation says. It uses words like "threatening", "abusive", "indecent" or "obscene" and phrases such as likely to or intending to cause a breach of the peace, if memory serves. There is good law in place for the type of people who deserve a kick up the behind from the forces of law and order.

This is about something totally different, however. This is about something quite unprecedented, which is the crushing of dissent, even on university campuses. The Minister spoke about what he expects of higher education institutions. He might please correct me again if I am wrong. We are all across so many different issues these days it is hard to stay up to date, but I do not see any reference to any particular acknowledgement of the needs or specific circumstances of higher education institutions in this Bill. Am I wrong? What I do see in section 3(1) is that nothing "shall prohibit a person from engaging in lawful protest ... within 100 metres of an entrance to either House of the Oireachtas". Therefore, it can be done here, provided it is not directed at a specific person or specific healthcare premises or person accessing it. There we see the compromise. There we see the recognition of the social good of free speech in our society, and that it would be unthinkable to prevent a person from protesting outside of the Houses of the Oireachtas, even if there is an abortion provider within 100 m of it. We accept the principle that there is a vital importance to free speech and the free communication of ideas in our society.

The Minister gave us this lame comment then that there may be an issue because of the layout of the particular university campus. I do not want to mention specific universities or institutes of higher education because I do not know whether they will be providing abortion services. I would hope they would not. I repeat what I said before, that every decent citizen in this country should respectfully, cogently, courteously and repeatedly encourage anybody involved in healthcare to see that abortion is not healthcare. It kills a little emerging human being. That reality is never going to change, however much this Government and its NGO supporters and insiders try to deny it. That is the reality. It is vital that people feel free to say that in our society, and never coercively or insultingly. You are never going to win an argument by being insulting anyway. It should not be done judgmentally. However, every citizen is entitled to judge that abortion is not bona fide healthcare because it kills a little child in the womb.That is a fact that will never change as long as abortion remains legal. It is a violation of human rights of the most fundamental kind. It makes a nonsense of any person's, political party's or institution's claim to support human rights if it tolerates the killing of the most innocent in our society. There is always a better way.

That is the principle that motivates some brave souls to go out sometimes with a placard to offer help. Have I ever done it myself? No, because I have a public role as a politician and can make my views known in other ways. Do I favour high drama, offensive and upsetting stuff? No. It is not my style and I do not think it is the style of most people. Everybody, however courteous, thoughtful, or evidence-based their message may be, is caught by this unique and unprecedented piece of legislation. It is as though the Government and its NGO supporters of sorts would not like it to ever happen that a person might have second thoughts before going in and organising an abortion for themselves. That there would be even a smile, a gesture or an offer of another way or possibility. Think of the countless people who are alive today because there was somebody to support them, that there was somebody who said there was a better way, and that there was somebody who said, "We can help you and your child." There are people, musical artists and so on and great stuff online and elsewhere about people who are alive today because somebody offered support to their vulnerable parent. That is the type of messaging the Minister and his Government want to abolish, whether it happens to be accidentally or otherwise - correct me if I am wrong about the accidentally or otherwise bit - within 100 m of an abortion facility.

If there were abortion clinics in this country where one knew that a person going in was accessing an abortion, one could make a case that freedom of speech could stop short of directly targeting that person with a message. Even that would be suspect as regards silent messaging - for example, abortion is not the solution and we can offer better help. However, that is not what is going on here. People may very well hold a placard outside a hospital, that I grant you, and they may know it is a hospital where abortions are being provided. However, countless people are going into that hospital by the minute and, therefore, nobody needs to feel targeted by anybody's message because they are not being. Nobody knows who the other person is or what situation they are in. All of that reality, which is the reality not the pretend stuff we get from the Government and the people pushing this, points that we err on the side of freedom of speech because the likelihood is that nobody knows who anybody else is in this situation. Nobody knows when they see somebody going into a hospital whether they are going in for an abortion or to have something done with their varicose veins or whatever it is. That is the reality. There is not this vulnerability of individuals to other's messaging. The unpleasant messaging can be caught with the public order legislation - threatening, abusive, indecent, obscene. What is wrong with helpful? What is wrong with a helpful message? What is wrong with a message that is well-intended, even if it is not welcome - for example, there is a better solution, we can offer you counselling or we can offer you practical support - or factual messaging?

Ireland's abortion rates have skyrocketed since it was legislated for in 2018. All of that kind of messaging should be perfectly legitimate and it should be especially legitimate in a third level institution.

I do not recall whether in my own alma mater, University College Galway, which has gone through two name changes since I was there, whether the health centre was within 100 m of the O' Flaherty Theatre where we debated abortion and a million other things in the Lit and Deb of a Thursday night. What if it were or what if it was in some other college? Why is there an allergy on the part of the Government to engage in any way with the third of the people who voted to protect the lives of unborn children in the 2018 referendum? Why is there an allergy to any toleration of the idea that even if abortion is to be legal we should still try to discourage it because it kills an innocent human being in their early stage of life? Why is there not some kind of openness? Who is it that has the Government by the short and curlies to such an extent that it dares not even suggest that abortion can every be regrettable? What is happening is disgusting. This groupthink imposed from the top is disgusting.It is the same as the groupthink we are seeing on many other issues, from hate speech legislation to the rushing of the referendum proposals and so on. I will not continue on that topic; to do so would definitely be off the point.