Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This amendment is about creating the space for free speech. I am demonstrating that the Government is on board with an agenda to curtail free speech in Irish society. I am thinking of the difficulty faced by an idealistic young medical student or a nurse who is coming up through the system, who wants to be the best he or she can be in helping to provide care for other human beings but who does not want to be involved in the killing of an innocent child. Such people are second-class citizens under the health system that this Minister is driving. That is why we have to look with great caution at what is being proposed in relation to safe access zones.

There are people who strongly believe that abortion is a civil right and that it should be legal in this country, but who do not agree with this legislation. This is because they are democrats, because they believe in free speech and because they insist that if somebody says that there is a problem of intimidation in our society, a proper test should be satisfied before we legislate to curtail people's freedom.

If amended, the section would read that:

Nothing in section 2(2) shall prohibit a person from engaging in lawful protest, advocacy or dissent, provided such a protest, advocacy or dissent is not directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises.

I put it to the Minister that if he has any honour, this is the honourable compromise. This refers to a person who protests about the injustice of abortion, who holds up a placard that offers assistance in general to people who might be contemplating an abortion, or who wants to offer them support so that they do not make a decision that they may end up regretting and that will certainly end the life of an innocent child. For a person who wants to get that message out there to society and who believes it to be true, it is an important message.There should be minimal restrictions preventing people from doing it. If the Minister is genuinely worried that could result in an incident or a moment where a person is harassed or intimidated, I would be completely shoulder to shoulder with him in making sure that such intimidation or harassment would be against the law, but I remind him that the Garda Commissioner said the Garda had the laws to deal with any problems that could arise in this area.

I hope the amendment put forward by Senator Keogan and myself will be accepted. If so, it would put into law the principle that any protest, advocacy or dissent is not directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises. Let us imagine a poster outside the new national maternity hospital, although this led to my earlier aside about the corruption of medicine and the lack of diversity, which I will not go into again. In any case, if there is a poster outside the national maternity hospital - wherever it is located in the future and whether it is at St. Vincent's or whatever it is going to be called - which says “Shame on the people carrying out abortions here”, and it might well be a matter of shame that there would be abortions carried out in the national maternity hospital, but this clause, as amended by Senator Keogan and myself, would say that type of poster would not be allowed because it would be directed at a specific healthcare premises. It would certainly not be allowed if it said, “Dr. so-and-so is carrying out abortions here and that is not medicine.” If it said “You should not have an abortion here”, it probably would not be allowed because it is directed at a person. However, if it is more general and is getting out the message about abortion, it is as much directed at the public and reminding them that this is an ongoing issue in our society.

I ask my colleagues on the benches of the House to consider this. They do not have to vote for the amendment today. I am not going to push this to a vote today because I am going to think about it, and I hope the Minister will think about it and that we can look at it on Report Stage. I take it that Report Stage will not be taken today and that this will not be rammed through. Thank God for small mercies. We could at least think about this and say that we will look at it in time for Report Stage. It gets rid of this insulting cordon sanitaireidea but it protects the principle that protest, advocacy or dissent is not directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises or a person accessing any relevant healthcare premises.

An important point, by the way, is that this would also help to prevent the Bill from criminalising protest or pro-life activity unwittingly carried out within the vicinity of zones. Let us say, for example, there is a person who is standing by, maybe having a conversation about abortion with somebody that is overheard, or a person who might be silently praying, which is what some people do and in a democracy they are entitled to do it, and we can talk about that, or a person engaging in the one-to-one advocacy that is freely chosen by people, or, indeed, ambulatory events where people might be taking part in a dignified witness walk or march, and that this were to take them within the 100 m zone. All of those potential problems would be obviated by the acceptance of amendments Nos. 3 and 4.