Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is also for human rights in Ireland. That is going to be considered a charitable purpose under legislation coming from the Government. It does not have to be outside of Ireland and it can be anywhere.

The point I am making is that if a society is, for instance, supporting gay rights or LGBTQI+ rights, is that political or not political? Is an address to a society by any member of the Permanent Defence Force to be prohibited? I do not consider that it should be or that it is necessary to do so.When I say that, I am looking at subsection (1A), which is proposed to be inserted. The prohibition on various activities set out in paragraph (a) "states while in uniform or otherwise making himself or herself identifiable as a member of the Permanent Defence Force, doing the two things in subparagraphs (i) and (ii)i but the prohibition on addressing a meeting of a political organisation or society is much wider than that. It is not caught by being in uniform or identifying oneself. If gay liberation or something like that is to be seen as political in its purposes, is it to be said that no member of the Defence Forces, even not referring to his or her status a member of the Defence Forces, cannot address a meeting of such a society? It is a very radical and far-reaching proposition that a gay soldier cannot go to a meeting of a gay liberation society and address it because undoubtedly its purposes may be political. I really worry about the width and the generality of what we are prohibiting here. This is a prohibition on any member of the Permanent Defence Force addressing any meeting, public or private, of a society that is political in nature. Are we talking about party political or political in terms of claims of civil rights, rights for minorities such as sexual minorities and the like? This is too broadly drafted. A member of the Defence Forces should be entitled to address a meeting of an LGBTQ society pursuing political aims, especially in private. I really do believe that.

If we want to say that "political" in this sense means party political, that is fine. Looking around the world at all the NGOs and at the recent referendum where organisations were trying to amend the Constitution, could a member of the Defence Forces not attend a private meeting of such a body and address it? That is wrong. It is excessive and it has not been thought through. I know there is a certain urgency claimed on behalf of this Bill and I can see some reasons for that, but there is no urgent reason to make a mistake. There is also no urgent reason to provide that just because a society is political in nature, for instance, a homosexual soldier, male or female, could not address a society aimed at political reform on sexual or transsexual matters without committing an offence under military law. That is not right. These sections have not been parsed and analysed carefully enough. I ask that the House considers very carefully whether that is our intention that whether or not they are in uniform or identifiable as a soldier, it is an offence for a soldier to address a meeting of a society that is political in nature, even in private. That is a gross overexpansion of the totally legitimate purpose of keeping the Defence Forces in general neutral on matters of politics as they are understood to be party politics and the like.The terms of paragraph (a) of the new subsection (1A) make it clear that two activities are prohibited, that is, making public statements or comments on public matters or matters of Government policy and attending a protest, march or other gathering relating to a political matter. It is clear that this prohibition only applies to members of the Defence Forces in uniform or otherwise making themselves identifiable as members. However, paragraph (c) provides that members shall not "address a meeting of a political organisation or society". This refers to addressing a meeting of a society in private where the subject matter of that organisation is political in nature in that it is seeking to change the law on whatever matter it might be. To say that is now a crime is of very doubtful constitutionality.

I will not get into the minutiae of the reasoning Mr. Justice Sanfey gave in his ruling in the Bright case. What is set out here is a different proposition. This is not merely using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is using a sledgehammer to quash the civil and political liberty of an ordinary private in the Defence Forces to become involved in a political activity that is nothing to do with election to this House or whatever but has a lot to do with expressing his or her genuinely held convictions, which are, to an extent, protected by the Constitution, in such a manner that this new section proposes not to protect that right under the Constitution but to criminally prohibit it. Why is it not specified that this prohibition applies to a public meeting of a society? Can it be that a gay soldier cannot attend a gay liberation meeting in private and address that meeting, for instance, about the culture of the Defence Forces in regard to gay matters? Can that be the intention here? On the face of it, doing so seems to be prohibited. That is wrong. It is an excessive prohibition. I believe it is unconstitutional and that if it came before the likes of Mr. Justice Sanfey on a constitutional challenge, it would be defeated.