Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am trying to address the issue of what matters in our society in terms of respecting people's freedoms. The irony in this case was that the garda was completely polite but in the wrong on the law and not acting in the best interests of a free and open democracy. Billboard Chris, a Canadian guy, was completely in the right in terms of asserting his right to say something that was truthful and was not threatening, abusive, indecent or obscene. Again, I am constantly referring back to the wording in the public order legislation. I would say he was in the wrong in that he could have been much more diplomatic but I suppose he felt he had to make his point. Of course, as an activist, he probably would have benefited from being arrested in that the video of the encounter might have gone viral. I am not making any comment on that. My point is that I want to live in a society in which we err on the side of letting people be awkward, short of intimidating, harassing or abusing other people.That is the balance we strike as a society and the rights I am seeking to defend here. I have a forum. I have several fora in which I can communicate my distress that we have a law in this country that allows the killing of innocent children. As long as I live, I will not let that issue go un-discussed and I will challenge the media, people in power and so on. There are many more people who feel as I do. We will always do so in a way that tries to respect the people involved because we know they are very often suffering in their situation and we do not ever want to target them. We want to target the wrongdoers who carry out these dreadful procedures. I have a forum to talk about this issue but lots of ordinary people do not. They may not be as literate as they would like to be or they might lack the confidence to write a letter to the editor or to ring the Joe Duffy programme. There might be people who are not schooled in logic and debate but they have their beliefs and are decent people. They are sincere and may be people of faith from which they draw inspiration where faith is relevant. It is not always relevant to people's pro-life witness. Those people are also deserving of respect in our society.

I would say that we should put the issue beyond doubt that if it is simply a matter of silent prayer, such people will not be criminalised. This is one situation where we could say that a person could be on his or her knees outside Croke Park and nobody would know why he or she was on his or her knees. Such people might be praying for their team to win. A person who might want to engage in silent witness might want to be seen to be doing so or maybe does not want to be seen to do anything but may feel in his or her heart that the power of what he or she is doing, spiritual or otherwise, finds its expression in that he or she is going to the place or the vicinity of a place and silently witnessing or praying. If that is their bag, such people should be protected in our society. We cannot make such people the prisoners or victims of the Minister's feelings or the feelings of an abortion advocacy group that wants to crush all dissent. Certainly, in the absence of any reports from direct healthcare providers - not the sham stuff from the HSE that gets cooked up to feed into debates around here - but real evidence from the people involved, whether I like what they are doing or not, we should not be curtailing people's freedom of expression.

I am saying that the argument could be made that the Bill does not explicitly criminalise silent prayer. I will hear what the Minister has to say, respectfully, on that. Given the breadth of section 2(2) considered in conjunction with sections 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 under the Bill as it is currently worded, it is quite possible that even silent prayer - if one can tell by looking at the person if he or she is praying, for example, joined hands, closed eyes, standing still in the relevant spot, holding rosary beads or whatever or lips moving without sound - could be conduct that may consist of a single act or course of conduct? I do not think that should be left to the court. The Minister and the Government want everything to go to court these days including the meaning of "durable relationship". They are storing up a bright, prosperous new future for lawyers and this will be one more possible example of where we will be putting doubt. The point is that even if the thing never went to court, this has the potential to intimidate ordinary and powerless people. Either that person is praying-----