Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is very welcome. We are now resuming the Health (Termination of Pregnancy Services) (Safe Access Zones) Bill 2023. Senator Mullen was in possession when we previously adjourned.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Acting Chairperson might remind us of what amendment we are on.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are resuming on section 3, amendment No. 3. Before Senator Mullen takes the floor, I would like to welcome the pupils of Pope John Paul II National School, Malahide, who are guests of Deputy Farrell. They are very welcome, as is the Deputy.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would also like to add my voice of welcome to my Oireachtas colleague, Deputy Farrell, and all the great guests. I see at least two teachers with the students from Pope John Paul II National School, Malahide. I had the great good fortune to meet Pope John Paul, now St. John Paul, who was a tremendously charismatic figure. He was a great champion of human dignity and respect for every person, however vulnerable or weak. Of course, he was influential in bringing down the Iron Curtain and ending the harsh communist Government in Russia and so on. He created a space in which people could talk about human freedom and the honour that is due to every single human person.

He would have been delighted to know there is a school named after him and that we have this wonderful bunch of students in our national Parliament today. They are the leaders of the future. They are the people who will be voting to decide who makes the laws that will organise our country and society. It is very important that we get good people into politics who think not just of themselves and what they need but of the people they love, the community in which they live and the world around them to try to make it a better place. We started a competition in recent years and, hopefully, in a few years, these students will be taking part, in which we get students to write essays about the importance of getting involved in politics. The Ceann Comhairle, who is the head of our Houses, said it is important that we get people more interested in politics. He was thinking of people like these students, the next generation of leaders. I encourage them to enjoy their day here with us. We are honoured to have them here. I encourage them to pay attention. I know they have busy lives and there is much going on between sport, friends, school and all of that, but I hope they will take time to think about how we make the rules in our country. When they see the politicians on television, they are not all bad. In fact, most of them are trying to do their best. Our guests might think about how they might be involved in the future in helping to make decisions for everybody's benefit. I extend a sincere and warm welcome to them today. We are all delighted to see them here among us.

I will resume on the amendment I tabled on this legislation.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I should have said that amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will start with amendment No. 3, which proposes, "In page 6, lines 10 and 11, to delete “within 100 metres of an entrance to either House of the Oireachtas”." I will resume from where we were on page 6. The clause as it currently stands states:

Nothing in section 2(2) shall prohibit a person from engaging in lawful protest, advocacy or dissent within 100 metres of an entrance to either House of the Oireachtas, provided such protest, advocacy or dissent is not directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises, or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises, within that 100 metres.

Clearly, section 3(1), as it stands, is designed to establish a principle regardless of whether there is such a healthcare premises within 100 m of the entrance to either House of the Oireachtas. It is so important that people in a democracy are able to express their legitimate political views, in this case, about the injustice of abortion and to invite those who might be contemplating abortion generally to consider that there is always help available to help them make a better life-giving choice for themselves and their babies. Therefore, it is seen clearly by the drafters of this legislation that there is something so important about freedom of expression in the context of democratic participation that there should be no limits on a person's ability to communicate outside of either house of the Oireachtas.

Members will recall that during the previous session when we were discussing a previous amendment, I made the point that this free speech principle is so important that we should be at pains to protect it in universities and institutes of higher education, and that anything that would interfere with a person's ability to communicate important ideas on this very life-and-death topic is a problem in our democracy. That is why I have questions and concerns about the constitutionality of this legislation and that principle that free speech should be protected. Of course, there are no absolutes when it comes to people's rights, even their constitutional rights. It is certainly the case that where a person's free speech, or use of their free speech privilege, if you like, could impact on another person's welfare or safety, then there can be legitimate legal limits. As I pointed out last week, those limits are there if we look at our public order legislation, which makes it an offence to engage in threatening, abusive, intimidating or, indeed, in some cases, obscene communication. Clearly, therefore, there are limits to free speech.

What we have seen so far in our attempts to legislate around this issue is the need for a very careful balance to be drawn so that my right to express my ideas and views, especially on important topics but not just on important topics, is only limited to the extent necessary to protect the individual. Perhaps I can speak more freely now that our younger people have gone. I did not want to discuss the obscenity of abortion or the Government's proposal in their presence. What is really disgraceful about this legislation, however, is that it tears up the rule book about freedom of expression and tries to create a unique category of human behaviour, namely, the carrying out of abortions. It tries to basically say that shall be above scrutiny to a literally unprecedented degree. There is no parallel I can think of when we have ever legislated before and, as I said, to do that in circumstances where no problem has been disclosed. I will give more specific details on the fact that the case simply has not been made successfully that there are any breaches of public order or any intimidation of people going on. I challenged the Minister, and I challenge him here again, to give us chapter and verse on who he has been consulting with, who said what and what evidence he has received. The world and its mother know the two things about the provision of abortion in this country. It has been very damagingly stitched into the medical and healthcare system to such a degree that it would be impossible to know at any point who was entering what premises for what reason.That is doing an awful lot of damage to the practice of medicine in our country. Yet, at least it gives comfort to those who do not like to hear any criticism of abortion and who say there can be no direct protesting of abortion, such as that which goes on in countries where they have specific abortion clinics. I do not say that there should be no standards about what conduct should be permissible outside such abortion clinics. I am strict about that; anything threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene should be prevented.

This particular amendment is supported by Senator Keogan. I will speak to amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together. Amendment No. 3 proposes to remove the clause “within 100 metres of an entrance to either House of the Oireachtas”. Amendment No. 4 proposes to remove the clause “, within that 100 metres”. That would mean that section would then read:

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 invite my friends and colleagues who are present on the Seanad benches to try to think about this as objectively as they can. I know there is pressure on people who are in political parties but is that not the honourable compromise? It does not create some kind of a cordon sanitairefor allegedly dirty people who have conscience concerns about abortion and who want to discourage it generally in our society. Instead of creating this unprecedented cordon sanitaire, it simply says that if a person protests, advocates or dissents, they should not direct it at a specific relevant healthcare premises or persons who are accessing it. We could have a law that is backed up by regulations regarding a person who holds a poster outside the Rotunda Hospital or the new national maternity hospital.

Tragically, one of the situations that has resulted from the political about-face of recent years is that we have gone from a situation where a healthcare premises, in the context of the delivery of maternity care, could not end the life of an unborn child. Obviously, necessary healthcare procedures were always allowed, even if that resulted in the loss of the life of a child, but there could not be the deliberate targeting of an unborn child in any maternity healthcare setting. That was something I thought was good and a credit to our country but the exact opposite is now the case. It is now not possible to have a maternity healthcare facility that is ethically and professionally driven to protect both mothers and their unborn babies. We have now gone from one model that completely excluded one area of activity to another model that completely excludes the kind of healthcare that many doctors and specialists wish for and which many ordinary people, including those who voted “No” in the 2018 referendum. I daresay this includes many of those who voted “Yes”, because there are people who voted “Yes” in the 2018 referendum who wanted abortion to be a possibility in certain cases but they did not necessarily want it to be mandatory on every single maternity healthcare premises. They did not necessarily want to exclude the possibility of a different ethical and professional approach being allowed to breathe, consistent with top medical standards. We have a disastrous new intolerance of an alternative model of maternal healthcare delivery. I do not think that most of the people of Ireland wanted such intolerance.

This was always presented as an issue of choice. If it is an issue of choice-----

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It still is.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not an issue of choice if you are a young medical student who wants to specialise in obstetrics. I can say that to Senator McGreehan, who is my friend and colleague. They will be a second-class citizen if they believe that an unborn baby deserves to be protected, if they want to be the top obstetrician in their field but if they do not want to kill an unborn child. How much space will be made for them in the medical profession? They will not be required-----

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Speak to the amendment.

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Stick to the amendment.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullen, can I remind you to stick to the amendments?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I note that the Minister is uncomfortable with some of the ground that is being covered here but he and his predecessor, Deputy Harris, bear huge responsibility for the injustice that is now ongoing. It does a disservice to both mothers and their unborn children in this country, because of the vacuousness of their political approach and the completely unprincipled attitudes they now have to the protection of human life.

My point is relevant to the amendment because we are speaking here about whether there is to be space for dissent in Irish society on the issue of abortion. I think the answer to that from this Minister is “No”. He will pretend that people can somehow gather wherever they like. Yet, if you look at what is happening here, this Government is in the pockets of special interest groups who do not want to hear any suggestion that abortion is not healthcare, that abortion is not ethical or that abortion is not professionally good. For that reason, their attitude to abortion advocates is that when they say “Jump”, this Government asks, “How high?” This is even to the extent of bringing in legislation that the Garda Commissioner has effectively said is not necessary, because we have laws to deal with any problems that could arise. No medical institution of which I am aware has reported any problems that call for a legislative response. What does that tell you? It tells you that the Minister and the Government are in somebody's pocket. I do not mean this financially-----

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are you speaking to the amendment, Senator?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but ideologically, they are on the hook.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are we speaking to the amendment, Chair?

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Senator to stick to the amendment.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am speaking to the amendment.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call the next speaker, I welcome the students from RehabCare in Kilkenny, who are the guests of the Minister of State, Deputy Malcolm Noonan, and the students from Kells Community School, who are the guests of Deputy Damien English. I understand Senator Mullen also has two guests in the Visitors Gallery. They are all very welcome.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fáilte roimh an Aire. I want to speak in general to the amendments set out here but in particular to amendment No. 6.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are on amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. With regard to the issue of safety zones, I want to speak briefly about my lived experience in this regard. I have five children and I have attended the births of all of my children. Unfortunately, as I set out here yesterday and before, in the case of one of my children, she did not survive in the delivery suite, and my little daughter died by way of a cord accident at full term during delivery. Unlike all of the other deliveries, this was a completely silent event. I cannot speak highly enough of the midwives and the medical staff in the Coombe Hospital. My daughter, Liadain, would have been 21 years old this week had she survived.

As a little family, we found ourselves in that situation. What happens is that the midwives bring you to a side room with your little baby to give you some time to spend with her. Another thing was that they had a little Polaroid Instamatic camera so we could take a photograph of our little baby before she was taken away to the mortuary for whatever procedures they undertake there. I had brought a babygrow for my daughter. I remember it was white and it had little red hearts on it; I still have it. She was so tiny and so small that she could not fit in it, so the midwives had a little piece of curtain material and they made a little dress for her and we dressed her in it, with a little safety pin, and we took pictures with the Polaroid camera. These are things you would not think of in a situation like that. After a period of time had elapsed, the midwives told me to take my time with my daughter, Liadain, the grey lady. They had a little wicker basket and they said, “When you are ready, put her into the little wicker basket and you can put a towel on top and bring her to the nurses’ station.” That is what we did. Eventually, I put my little daughter into this wicker basket, put the towel on and then walked to the nurses’ station. You are passing by expectant mums and families in the corridor, and they are walking up and down and breathing, and you are walking past with all your hopes and dreams in a little basket. When you get to the nurses station, they know this situation because they have seen it. Actually, I think they see it every day because one in four pregnancies end in stillbirth.

My point here is that for people who seek the services of obstetricians, gynaecologists, midwives and so on, it is not as it is presented in popular culture, in Hollywood or by people who perhaps have not been in that space. It is not an environment where you want to encounter any kind of protest or any kind of intervention, whether that be silent prayer or any of the other means that are set out in the Act. I accept that Senator Mullen has an ideological perspective, a deeply felt religious, philosophical and moral position on the protection of the unborn, and I understand that argument and accept it.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would see it as a human rights position.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I completely accept the position that he is coming from. I recognise it and I respect it.I am coming from a different philosophical perspective, so we differ on that, but I respect the place Senator Mullen is coming from. Speaking as a person who has experienced these life events, though, and notwithstanding any human rights or philosophical concern the Senator has, this is not the place, the space or the environment. No woman or man should be confronted with this situation. I think of the French laws around laïcitéand having a laicised space in civil society. There should be places in our public space that are free of religious iconography and rules, be those belonging to Islam, Judaism or Christianity. The civil space would be a laicised space under laïcité. I agree with that in principle, specifically as it applies to this matter. In the same way we would ask people not to protest at accommodation that has been designated for people seeking international protection, people with protests and concerns should bring them to Leinster House. This is the appropriate place. Safe spaces and safe zones are essential. I just wanted to put my concerns and how they flowed from lived or personal experience on the record.

Many of the people in question who are seeking the services of medical practitioners, including GPs in their local communities, are in extremisand at a particularly vulnerable point in their lives. This can be the case for many reasons. Healthcare is messy and not easy. In particular, gynaecological-obstetric maternity healthcare is a very dynamic area and people attend it for all sorts of reason. My fear is that someone who is at that point of vulnerability might not seek the necessary medical attention if confronted by whoever it might be. In my local area, I regularly see a group standing outside a GP’s practice and being very performative, clearly signalling their displeasure with and objection to what is happening, which is the provision of healthcare. How are they to know what the situation is of any woman visiting that GP? I wish to put on the record my issue with this type of behaviour.

Rather than stating the matter in the negative, though, I will state it in the positive and say that we need safe zones, particularly as applied to this specific set of circumstances, notwithstanding all of the concerns Senator Mullen raised about freedom of expression and freedom of speech. I understand his arguments and accept where he is coming from. I just do not agree with him.

I thank the Chair for allowing me to speak.

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is my first time speaking on the Bill. I welcome the Minister. I am covering for my colleague, Senator Clifford-Lee, who cannot be present.

It is important to discuss the reason for the Bill and why the amendments should not be accepted. As Senator Clonan stated, when people are going into a facility for gynaecological or obstetrical care, others have no idea what is going on. I, too, was a parent who left empty-handed from the Coombe. It is the most desperate walk of your life, walking through those corridors with beautiful, pregnant women all around you, and all you want to do is hold your own baby, only to be accosted outside. Senator Mullen might not think it is accosting, but it is to be accosted to be reminded of what you have left behind or what you did not get a chance to have. I am someone who has had babies and has lost babies. The Senator spoke about care for the mother and voting "No" in the referendum because of his respect for the mother and his view that the mother should not be taken out of the Constitution, but if he cares so much for the mother, what about the vulnerable mother who is just after losing her baby or having an abortion for whatever reason she chooses or needs to have it? An abortion is not a happy thing. No one is happy about having an abortion. No one is happy about losing a baby. If Senator Mullen is actually serious about caring for a mammy, he would allow a safe space around a healthcare building. Can we not do that for a mammy? People have everywhere else to protest. I accept and understand that, due to his beliefs and wants, the Senator is not for abortion. Personally, I would never want to have an abortion, but I am for choice. We have to have some care and understanding for what goes on inside these buildings, what heartache and agony there is. If we do not allow space in modern Ireland for someone to grieve, for someone to breathe, for someone to leave a healthcare provider in peace, then, God, where are we going? The Senator speaks about care for the mother and not wanting to delete the mother from the Constitution, yet we do not want to have respect for a caring mother, we do not want to give that mother and father breathing space. I can tell you, Senator Mullen, if I had to be confronted by someone outside reminding me about the loss of my baby, it would have thrown me over the edge. I was in and out of the Coombe four times because of it. It was desperate. To be confronted by that – by protestors or by peaceful whatever you want to describe it as – would really have thrown me over the edge. I was at rock bottom. I did not want to live. It was only my family and my children that brought me out of that. We need to have an understanding of that. It is not about denying people their free speech. It is not about that. It is about allowing people a free space to breathe, to grieve and just to live.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. The interventions from Senators Clonan and McGreehan were powerful and explained clearly that, as Senator McGreehan rightly said, we needed to create this safe space in order for people to breathe, clear their heads and come to terms with things. People go in and out of these facilities for many reasons – some of them joyous, some of them not so joyous, some of them tragic – but whatever the reason, people need to be able to breathe.

I will make an observation about our previous debate on this. I felt the use of language on both sides was over the top, not necessary and ill tempered. So far, that has not happened today. I call on all sides to ensure it does not. We are mature enough and respectful enough to be able to have engagements in the House respecting people’s viewpoints and without using ill-tempered and offensive language. That is important.

Senator Mullen raised an important point about the precincts of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is a tricky one.We are in a democracy, thank God. When we see what is going on in other parts of the world, we have to value being in a democracy. That brings with it the right to protest, including at the national Parliament. It is a tricky one. Let us consider the scenario in which there was a healthcare facility within 100 m of Leinster House where people generally assemble to protest, usually on Molesworth Street. The Minister needs to take a look at that and respond appropriately. It is dangerous territory if people cannot protest around the precincts of Leinster House, or if a housing protest is allowed and suddenly a protest on issues to do with abortion is not allowed. I may not agree with the people protesting, as I often do not, whatever the issue is, although sometimes I do agree with them, but I respect the right to peaceful protest at the Houses of the Oireachtas.

That aside, I believe the legislation is necessary for the reasons eloquently articulated by my colleague, Senator Clonan, who has left, and other speakers. It is not appropriate to hassle people, even if only covertly, when they are accessing medical facilities that are legal in this country. People might not like the fact they are legal or agree with it, but the reality is they are legal. People access such facilities for a myriad of reasons, sometimes involving miscarriages, stillbirths and other difficult and tragic outcomes. They should be able to leave the facility and go to their car in comfort to deal with their grief without being prompted or seeing prompts. Whether people are praying privately, quietly, covertly or overtly, I do not believe that is appropriate. We need to create space. In France and other countries, there are parts of the civic space that are free from all religious activities, protests and so on, where people can go for tranquility and peace. That idea is worth looking at as part of a wider debate beyond this specific area of discussion.

This debate is not being guillotined. I welcome that and hope it continues to be the case. Each amendment deserves to be debated at length. You never know, an understanding might evolve and float to the top as to why the Government cannot accept amendments. At the same time, the amendment related to Leinster House needs to be addressed. I would be interested in hearing the Minister's observations on that matter because of its importance. Protest is important in this country. We are a democracy. It is essential and appropriate that people can voice concerns, articulate their views and make their feelings heard. That is the essence of democracy. Look at what is happening in Russia and the way the people who came out for the opposition leader's funeral were treated. It is a fine line. I value what we have. Our democracy might be one of the oldest in Europe but in the overall context of humanity it is not that old. It is just over 100 years old, which, viewed in the context of time immemorial, is not long at all. We see what is happening with Ukraine and Russia and the threat of what could happen in the United States. The next eight months will be critical. In my-----

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind the Senator he is speaking to amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am speaking in the context of the amendment regarding protesting at Leinster House. I am drawing comparisons with the concerning developments in the United States. We saw what happened on 6 January 2020 and the challenges and concerns there. We have to be careful.

I urge the Minister to reflect and take on board the concerns about the need to be able to protest in the vicinity of Leinster House. That is important from a democratic perspective.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend Senators Clonan and McGreehan for sharing their personal stories this afternoon. I also want to share mine because I have lost two children through miscarriage. I have two but I also lost two. It is difficult. I recognise that, but people are calling the people who stand outside centres and hospitals protestors. I would not call them that. To me, they are not protestors. They are engaged in quiet prayer for the unborn and for the mother. Not that I witnessed these outside the places I had my children in the UK, but I would have felt comfort knowing there was somebody outside that door praying for me and for what I was going through in those times of loss, or even praying that the births of my children would go well. One went well and one did not go so well.They do not intimidate me in any way, and I am sure they do not intimidate many mothers in this country, because they are engaged in quiet prayer - praying for the unborn, praying for the mothers and praying for the mothers who are about to give birth. Prayer has many forms.

Our amendments would ensure that legitimate protests or pro-life activities, which unwittingly pass by a designated premises, would not be criminalised. Each year there is a march for life in Dublin, which attracts approximately 1,000 participants, who pass peacefully through the city centre. If this Bill were enacted as is, there is a concern that events like march for life would be proscribed on a purely ideological basis. The area around St. Stephen's Green for example has several GPs in buildings that would be regarded as designated premises and thereby have 100 m zones around them in which any activity likely to influence someone's decision to have an abortion would be impacted. This would inevitably pose difficulties to the organisers of perfectly legitimate public events. The right of citizens to freely organise legitimate protests, gatherings and rallies that stand for the pro-life message must be protected. No evidence has been produced by the Minister that any public order offences were ever recorded - not one piece of evidence. I am shocked that a Government is so afraid of the people of faith of this country who gather quietly outside the hospitals and centres. To bring this draconian legislation in is a sad day for free speech in this country, and a sad day for the unborn.

People say to come to the Dáil and come to Leinster House to protest peacefully here. You cannot even do that anymore. There are barricades 100 m around it. We are isolated from what people on the ground are thinking and feeling. Tomorrow will be International Women's Day. I have no doubt the women of Ireland will stand up to say, "No, No", to this Government. They will not want to have their words, "woman" and "mothers", taken out of the Constitution. They will not want that done by this Government. I have a feeling that this country and this Government will wake up on Saturday morning to a resounding "No, No" vote. That might wake the Government parties up to listen to what is happening on the ground. With these 100 m zones, and these barricades around this ivory tower they all live in, they might get a real feel about what the public is thinking out there, not just on this issue but on all the issues like the housing crisis, or the health crisis the Minister is in charge of. Tomorrow will be a day of reckoning for this Government, and I hope the people of Ireland speak up.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a lot to respond to in what my friend Senator Gavan-----

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before Senator Mullen continues, I welcome the students from St. Kieran's College in Kilkenny.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to respond before Senator Mullen comes in.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy to let the Minister respond, but while I am on my feet I welcome the students from St. Kieran's College in Kilkenny, and their teachers if they are there. I had the pleasure of visiting that fine establishment in the past year when I presented one of the "highly commended" awards to one of the students. Is Paul there? I cannot recall his surname. He got his award from me. I say well done. He wrote an essay that was highly commended in our inaugural Oireachtas essay competition. I got a wonderful welcome in St. Kieran's College. It is a great place to visit. I am delighted that student is here today. I know I am not the only politician he knows in here. I welcome them and let the students know that we are discussing a human rights issue today, which is abortion, and whether it should be okay for people who believe abortion is unjust to witness to that outside healthcare facilities.

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, that is actually not what we are discussing.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are here for a dramatic discussion. There is a difference of opinion.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind the Senator to speak through the Chair.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We now have the honour of having our session chaired by the Cathaoirleach of Seanad Éireann, my friend and colleague, Senator Buttimer. People often come in and out quickly as guests and this is a very important issue we are discussing today because it touches on human rights and our respect for human dignity. I am delighted to have the students here. I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wishes to speak.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the contribution from my friend and colleague, Senator McGreehan. I have never heard more powerful testimony and a more obvious reason for this Bill. Put simply, what she said is this is about creating a safe space for women and their partners in sometimes very difficult circumstances. Unfortunately, people are opposing this and saying they will not create a safe space or respect any distance. They will not respect any privacy or dignity. When women are in the kind of situation that Senators McGreehan and Clonan have talked about, the opponents of this Bill would say, "We want to be right up in their face, we do not care what they are going through-----

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is misinformation.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----it is important that we have all of our posters and our protests. We do not care what they say. We will not respect what they say. We will drive on". I commend Senator Clonan on what he has said as well.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind all Members, of whatever political hue or view, that this is the Chamber. They are entitled to come in and speak. Many of them have spoken passionately. I watched the debate on my monitor between different meetings. As we have done it in the past, can we be sensitive to each other and cognisant of the views without interrupting any other speakers or the Minister? The Minister, without interruption, please.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullen has again today made many false statements-----

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Low standards in high places.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----shared much false information and made many insidious claims. The most insidious claim he has made is to allege that what women, their partners and our healthcare workers are telling us about these protests happening is not true. Senator Clonan just told us about his personal experience where he lives and he sees it day to day. Senator Mullen's view is that Senator Clonan just made that up.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, not true. The Minister is lying. That is a lie.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullen has challenged me and the Government-----

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullen-----

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Chathaoirligh,, he is trying-----

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is provoking comment as well, to be fair, and that is allowed in this Chamber. Senator Mullen cannot use the word lie in the Chamber.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is disinformation.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will chair the House. When Senator Keogan gets the pleasure and privilege of being elected Chair then she can do so as well. Senator Mullen is a good friend of mine, and I do not want to have a row with anyone on this matter. It is a sensitive and considered matter with strongly held views. I appreciate where the Senator is coming from. I am not trying to be unfair to anybody. Will he let the Minister reply and I will let him back in again?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will do my best, but if it is claimed that Senator Clonan said people were intimidating, when he did not say that-----

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is about respecting the Chair and the Seanad.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is about doing three things-----

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Or respecting the truth as well.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is about respecting the House. I will be fair in the Chair, and the Senator knows I respect the Senator hugely. The Minister will be given the opportunity to speak. If the Senator wishes to reply or rebut if he thinks he needs to do so, I will call him again. Name calling by anybody on any side does not serve anybody's cause. Let us have a sensible and sensitive debate, cognisant of the deeply held views on each side. I respect that completely. I call for the Minister to reply without interruption, and I will call any Member who wishes to come back in again.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullen has made many false claims in the Chamber.He has made many insidious claims in the Chamber this morning. The most insidious claim the Senator continues to make is his repeated suggestion that the statements by women, their partners and healthcare workers who tell us there are protests outside healthcare centres and they feel intimidated and threatened by those protests are false. He has asked for documented evidence. Last week, he challenged me and the Government to name a single healthcare provider who would state that these protests are real. We just heard a powerful personal contribution from Senator Clonan who clearly stated these protests are happening close to where he lives. Presumably, Senator Mullen does not believe Senator Clonan either.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Therefore, I will respond directly to the false claims and challenge that Senator Mullen put forward. He asked for me to refer to one registered healthcare provider. I refer to the HSE, which I hope Senator Mullen will accept is a registered bona fide healthcare provider in the State. I will read the submission made by the HSE to the joint committee during pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill:

Maternity sites in Dublin have had some form of anti-abortion protests/activity on a weekly, if not daily basis since the commencement of the service in 2019. This is a practice that we have seen replicated in other regions at various intervals. This activity includes the display of religious images and messaging, graphic images of foetuses and in some instances physical and verbal aggression. There have also been targeted protests outside GP surgeries.

The detrimental impact of this behaviour cannot be overstated.

[...]

These anti-abortion protests, whether passive or active have a significant psychological impact and extend to those availing of services other than abortion services, including but not limited to, instances of pregnancy loss, stillbirth and early neonatal death.

In addition to service users, [the women and their partners, two of whom we heard powerful testimony from this morning] staff within primary and secondary care services have reported occasions where they have felt fearful on entering or exiting their work places directly related to the proximity and intensity of some anti-abortion protests.

[...]

It is hugely distressing for these staff and personnel, who have committed to providing a safe, high quality termination of pregnancy service to be exposed to intimidation whilst going about their work. Access to abortion care will remain vulnerable in an environment where providers are threatened, harassed or subjected to intimidating behaviours.

That is the testimony of the HSE.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who trusts the HSE?

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what the HSE has said. Senator Mullen would clearly have us say the women are lying-----

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will deal with you.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

----and that Senator Clonan, the HSE and everyone else is lying. They are all making this up. It is utterly disingenuous.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will deal with your-----

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullen, please.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He should retract his insidious, nasty little comments from the record.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will put your arguments in their place in a moment.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is insulting every single person who tries to provide these services and access them.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will expose your dishonesty in a moment.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are insulting the testimony by such people-----

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind all Members to speak on the amendment and through the Chair.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----as Senators McGreehan and Clonan. The Senator's testimony and approach to this are absolutely despicable and disgraceful.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Your approach is vacuous and unprincipled.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what I think.

Specifically, on the amendments-----

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, please speak on the amendments.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendments seek to remove a safe zone for protest from within 100 m of the Oireachtas. Those who say we should not have this Bill at all are now saying we should not have the 100 m zone around the Oireachtas. Of course we should. We are cognisant that the Oireachtas is very close to existing healthcare providers and we want to make absolutely sure that although there are healthcare providers in close proximity to the Oireachtas, there could be no doubt whatsoever that anyone who wants to come to the Oireachtas to protest can do so without any thought about a safe access zone because a buffer zone is provided for within this. I will not be accepting these amendments.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Members to be temperate in the language, words and phraseology they use in the Chamber of this august body.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be temperate and I certainly will not mind if the Minister interrupts me or wants to offer a point of information at any point.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not a question of whether the Senator minds. It is a question of the rules of the House and the etiquette.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I regard the Minister's approach to be completely dishonest. He represents a Government that is completely dishonest, that corrals power and listens only to certain insiders. This Minister has an appalling record of not engaging in any way with pro-life people, respectful people who have a case to make. We saw the completely corrupt way in which he drove the three-year review of the abortion legislation.

Does the Minister want to offer a point of information?

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am addressing the Chair.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will chair the session. Senator Mullen, please continue. Again, in terms of the language used, the Senator used the word "corrupt", which the Minister is not, so I would appreciate if he could be judicious in his language.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will. The Minister presided over a completely corrupt process, whereby the three-year review on abortion was supposed to be carried out by an independent person. He gave that commitment at a certain point. He said there would be public recruitment of the person. In the end the Government chose a person who was not independent and who had expressed views in favour of changes to our abortion law. The later attempt to shore up that inadequacy and corruption in the process was to say that it meant the person had to be independent from politicians, which is a laughably thin argument. That is why I say that there is no other word for the Government's approach to this.

The Government is unprincipled, dishonest and reckless about the protection of human life. This is coming out in the referendums and other campaigns. The Government is more interested in getting its way than in consulting ordinary people. The Government and the Minister are more interested in talking to insiders than, for example, hearing from, even as a democratic obligation or courtesy, the many representatives of the pro-life perspective in society which says that both mothers and their unborn babies should be protected. There is something Borg-like - that is for fans of "Star Trek" - in the way the Minister and the Government plough on mechanically as though there were no ethical or professional concerns, as though there were not countless good people in our society who want to pay witness respectfully to the dignity of both unborn babies and their mothers and who deserve, at the very least, courtesy.

I remember engaging with the Minister a few years ago on this issue. I asked him whether he would consider meeting people and he said he would meet anyone. That is what was said to me off camera, so to speak. However, when it came to requests to get a hearing from the Department of Health, I am afraid it was "computer says no", so I do not have any respect for the way the Minister carries out his responsibilities as the Minister for Health. I do not have anything against the Minister personally, but I utterly deplore how he has carried out his duties as Minister for Health. The Government he represents has been utterly unprincipled and utterly disrespectful of human life and, in recent times, utterly disrespectful of dissent. The arrogance of power is clearly on display.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind Senators we are debating amendments to a particular Bill, not the Government and governance.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In response to what has been said, I will take the Minister's points first, but more important were the contributions made by my friends in the Seanad, Senators Clonan, McGreehan and Gavan. I am also grateful to Senator Keogan for her courageous intervention.

The Minister made a big play of the fact that I put it to him fair and square last week that he had not managed to give us any chapter and verse, in the way one would expect in a democracy in advance of a big change to the law, on something quite unprecedented that curbs free expression in an unprecedented way. I would expect there to be a good and exceptional reason for it and a considerable body of visible evidence making a case for a problem that cannot otherwise be solved. I brought to the Minister's attention what the Garda Commissioner had to say a couple of years ago. He has not contradicted it, nor has he dared to refer to it. To paraphrase the Garda Commissioner, he said that we had laws adequate to deal with any problems. I also said to him that no healthcare provider had given any evidence of complaint that he was able to draw our attention to. Today, he brandished with pride a statement, not from a healthcare provider that is involved in the day-to-day dealings with healthcare on the ground, but with the Borg-like bureaucracy that is the HSE. He very conveniently has a submission from the HSE that says all the things that the Government would like it to say. It alleges some instance of physical and verbal aggression. I would certainly deplore that and I would suggest to the Minister that there is law on the Statute Book to deal with that. Of course, we do not know, whether this was just cooked up by somebody in the HSE as a convenient note to pass to the Minister through the Department of Health in due course, because we do not know if they are telling the truth or not. I have no doubt that it could happen, but I would like if some independent body - not what the Minister means by independent but someone really independent - that would scrutinise what complaints were actually received by the HSE. If they were, that is fine. The HSE is entitled to brief the Minister but it does not make out the case that I was calling for, which is that we would hear from healthcare organisations on the ground about complaints being made to them. I will be delighted to take a point of information from the Minister.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not talking to the Senator; I am talking through the Chair.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister can only offer in a point of information to me.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Keogan, your interventions will not help the situation either. You are gesticulating to the Chair. The Chair has been asked if there is a point of information to be made.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it a point of order or a point of information?

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullen, I hope it is a point of order that is going to be made

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it is a point of order it is to the Cathaoirleach and if it is a point of information it is to me.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking through the Chair.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a point of order, so.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, it is a point of order.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of clarity on the submission, the Senator appears to be suggesting that the HSE is lying. It was-----

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a point of information.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullen, let the Minister finish and then you can come back in.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is an official document. It is not a note to me. It is an official presentation to the Oireachtas committee.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was a point of information to me. I am very glad to take it. It does not in any way advance the Minister's case, needless to say. The Minister has very little to advance his case, except Government bluff and bluster. What bothers me most about the Minister's bluff and bluster is that it trivialises the life and death nature of this issue. I have absolutely no problem with the HSE putting on the record its wish to back up the Minister's case. I would be very surprised if the Minister brought forward legislation that did not have the support of the HSE because the organisation is, as we put it as Gaeilge, fite fuaite.

This is the same HSE that is, worryingly, either in the pockets of politicians or activists, as we heard in the context of the area of transgender and the treatment of children and adults with gender dysphoria.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is straying from the Bill.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am simply making the point. The endocrinologist, Professor Donal O'Shea said - again I am paraphrasing from memory - that the HSE and the politicians were in the grip of the activists. The idea that when we are dealing with the HSE we are dealing with some kind of honourable neutral, incapable of being corrupted by ideology, has long since lost its credibility. However, I reiterate that the Minister has signally failed to bring forward evidence from a single healthcare facility. Let us be clear that we are talking about people who I would not want to call protesters. The people I would want to defend today are the witnesses, and I will say a little bit more about them in a moment.

Years in to this debate, nobody has managed to draw our attention to a single healthcare providing institution that says there is a problem on the ground. I want to put on the record something the Minister cited in support of his position. In a funny kind of way it might illustrate what I am trying to talk about. In July 2022, the Minister issued a statement that included the following: "I wish to acknowledge the helpful public discussion on safe access zones over recent months, and in particular the work of the Together for Safety group in informing the development of legislative proposals." This is the only organisation apart from the HSE that I have heard the Minister quote. Regarding the organisation, the University of Limerick Hospitals Group was forced to take the extraordinary step of issuing a statement challenging claims that there had been "intimidatory" anti-abortion protests outside its facilities. Last year, a spokesperson for Cork University Maternity Hospital, CUMH, told the Irish Examiner newspaper that, "To date, CUMH has not received any complaints from patients regarding the protests". The spokesperson also explained that alleged protests are very infrequent and typically consist of between two and four people.

Let us reflect on that for a moment. We have two university hospitals setting the record straight, one of them following claims from an abortion activist advocacy group, Together for Safety. These two hospitals groups not only put the record straight, but in the case of Cork, did not receive any complaints from patients regarding the protests. The spokesperson explained that alleged protests are very infrequent and typically consist of between two and four people. When the public listening in want to adjudicate on who is being dishonest they must decide whether it is the Minister when he is talking and having a go and spewing venom against people who are, as he puts it, "in people's faces" or the reputable institutions that make it clear that there has not been a problem.

By way of a coda to this, I will reference one thing that is relevant. I was born in Portiuncula Hospital in Ballinasloe. My mother was a nurse there. We have a long knowledge of and acquaintance with the hospital and we are very grateful for the healthcare that we as a family have received there over the years. Last December, when I heard the sad news that the service of abortion provision would be extended to Portiuncula in Ballinasloe I made some comments to the effect that I was very sad about this. I thought about the tradition of St. Francis of Assisi that led to the establishment of the hospital and hence the name, Portiuncula. I said that I encouraged people in Ballinasloe and the surrounding area to take every opportunity to engage with the medical and other staff at the hospital, courteously and constructively, to discourage the practice of abortion and to never let up until human life is fully respected again in Portiuncula and in all other healthcare facilities in Ireland.

People say we have privilege in this House but we have to, rightly, be held to account for any statements we make in press releases or elsewhere. I have no problem with that at all. Can the Members believe that this statement of courteous and constructive engagement led to a complaint about me to the Committee on Members Interests of Seanad Éireann? It was claimed that I had not upheld my duty. It is relevant that yesterday it landed on my desk and that the Oireachtas committee met on 17 January and decided that this complaint was frivolous and vexatious. Why is that relevant? It is relevant because this frivolous and vexatious complaint came from the Together for Safety group, or a member thereof, to whom I will give the charity of anonymity in the Chamber.

I merely make the point that these are the people on whom the Minister relies. These are the ideologues. Why is that significant? It is significant because we heard today from friends of mine, Erin and Tom, in the Chamber. I do not make light of their personal experience. The truth of the matter is that we are all of us flesh and blood.We all have a mixture of emotion and intellect and we all bring our life experience and reflections on that experience to the consideration of these issues, and none of us has a monopoly on compassion. In this regard, consider my concern for the protection of unborn children, for the protection of excellent standards of healthcare and for witnessing to the dignity of every human life, which concern I express while hoping and working for a day when our hospitals will not be places where the intentional termination of innocent life is characterised as abortion care, healthcare or care of any kind. People who share this concern also bring their emotions and life experience to the situation and therefore it is wrong to posit a difference between ordinary people who are suffering and people who witness to the dignity of human life, characterising the latter as mere protesters.

I suspect that if I were to try, I would have no difficulty introducing Senators to people who have, outside hospitals or on the street, witnessed to the injustice of abortion, who themselves may have suffered miscarriages or had abortions but who know the value of a child and the importance of honouring authentic healthcare for the protection of mother and child, and who are not into judging any person but simply trying to hold up a candle in the darkness that is Ireland’s abortion law, with our massive increase in the number of abortions in recent years and our laws that do not provide for any precautionary pain relief where late-term abortions take place. We have heard reports of the trauma some healthcare staff experienced on seeing late-term abortions where the infants emerged alive, giving rise to the question of whether there should be palliative care in the circumstances. Considering the barbarism that has descended on us in some cases, we seem to be rapidly catching up with Britain in our unthinking cruelty. All this feeds into a consciousness among many in our society that there must be a better way than abortion.

When my friend and colleague Tom Clonan spoke, I was unaware of his personal story and, indeed, the loss of his daughter Liadain. I deeply sympathise with him on what he and his family have suffered. I deeply sympathise with Senator McGreehan too, just as I sympathise with Senator Keogan on her experiences. I sympathise with members of my own family. Senator Clonan, as he was leaving the Chamber, said he understood my position but I said that, while I did not understand his, I deeply sympathised with him on what he has gone through. The reason I do not understand his position is that I believe that when a person suffers a trauma like the one under discussion, it is not necessarily at the point of leaving the hospital that upsetting things and realities are encountered. Many have encountered, within hospitals, the unwitting cruelties of healthcare staff under pressure in a system that can sometimes be quite cruel. We are all aware of the experiences people have. There is cruelty that can happen by accident and there is intentional cruelty. The distinction we should draw is between the intentional cruelty that might be inflicted by some in the way they communicate on these issues and the decent witnessing to the respect that is due to human life in which people in a democracy should be able to engage.

I noticed that my colleague Senator McGreehan referred to the referendum and more or less threw it in my face that since I oppose what I regard to be the disrespecting of mothers by taking the reference to them out of the Constitution, if that happens – I hope it will not-----

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, the referendum is not part of the amendment.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just responding to the point.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be fair, I have given extraordinary latitude. The Senator is straying well beyond the amendments now.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All I will say is this: there is no contradiction between honouring mothers by recognising their particular role in the Constitution-----

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the Senator’s opinion.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator McGreehan should let the Senator-----

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the Chair, I-----

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullen should be allowed to reply. If Senator McGreehan wishes to come back in, she may do so.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and witnessing to the respect due to mothers and unborn babies. I remind my colleagues Senators Clonan, McGreehan and Gavan and the Minister that there are people who witness against abortion, who believe in the value of respecting human life, who support the idea of peaceful and honourable witnessing to this in public and who do not believe dissent should be curtailed. Among them are people who have also suffered. It is important that everyone here accept intellectually and internally that nobody has a monopoly on compassion here. This is not a debate between unthinking, unfeeling protest-minded people who are not in touch with one side of their brain or another; this is about all of us – struggling, suffering humanity – trying to figure out the best way to order our society. There are people who have suffered themselves who believe they should be able to witness to the dignity of human life. There are people who have suffered themselves as a result of abortion and who have hopes regarding the effect of their peaceful and respectful presence within the vicinity of a healthcare facility, without knowing who is going in for what. As I have reminded people already, we do not have a system in which there is any possibility of a person feeling personally targeted. That is the one saving grace of a very bad system whereby we have corrupted healthcare through the provision of abortion. At least it does not arise that a person could feel personally targeted. That is why I disagree with those who allege those who want to witness against abortion are out to be in people’s faces, to use the Minister’s iniquitous phrase. Nobody is in anybody’s face here, and nobody wants to be on anybody’s face here. Let those who do want to be in somebody’s face be targeted by the public order legislation. Let us have no more of this dishonesty from the Government. There is law on the Statute Book, as the Garda Commissioner said.

Regarding those who want to witness to human dignity in a way that has not caused a problem in the eyes of the Limerick or Cork hospitals, the only people the Minister has been able to draw on are those referred to in the highly questionable document of the HSE – it is highly questionable because the HSE is hand in glove with the Government – and what I would regard as a discredited abortion advocacy group. Let us be in no doubt that the impetus for this legislation is not coming from ordinary people who have felt intimidated and therefore got in touch; it is coming from ideological groups who got in touch with Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party and whose opinions are in vogue and who do not have to try very hard at all to gain access. We have seen this insiderism, including in recent days.

I add my welcome to those for the representative from the National Women’s Council of Ireland. That is an organisation that has completely failed to represent the diversity of women’s views across the country.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is digressing from the Bill in a considerable way.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that but it does indicate the insiderism going on. The council, an organisation that gets funded for 95% or 96% of its staffing costs, is out canvassing for one side in a referendum campaign without having consulted ordinary people and, as far as I know, without even having consulted its member organisations.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hate to interrupt the Senator but he has really gone beyond-----

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Notwithstanding the McKenna principles stipulating public money should not be used-----

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I genuinely respect the Senator’s position, as he knows well, but he is really meandering across the Bill with many-----

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Understood.

I have two other points. My friend and colleague Senator Clonan referred to laïcité. He turned to me as he made his remark-----

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the amendment, please, if the Senator does not mind.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am, but obviously, I have to try to challenge the arguments being advanced against the amendment.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hate interrupting the Senator but he is-----

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am trying not to say anything twice.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am afraid the Senator has not succeeded in that.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are many good examples here because the Minister’s case is so weak.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has not succeeded in that anyway.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are a lot of good examples because the Minister's case is so weak.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has not succeeded in that anyway.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the laïcité point, I am not sure it is the definition of laïcité that there is civil space from which faith voices have to be completely excluded. As I explained, this is not about a religious view necessarily. Many people who have no religious faith see this issue exclusively through a human rights lens. It was Senator Clonan's first misunderstanding that this was about religious people. He then said ideological. He appeared to accept that this is philosophical. It is about the value we place on human life and to what extent we should protect people's right to communicate freely in our society, especially around life and death issues. Those are the values that are in play. As far as I know, laïcité relates to the institutions of state that should not show favouritism to one faith or another. An ideology of laïcité is built into the French system but I do not think it involves kicking religious voices or faith representatives out of any portion of civil space. It certainly is not about excluding people from public ground and public streets the way the Minister's proposed legislation would do. It is to miscue to try to evoke laïcité.

Senator Clonan referred to protestors he described as performative. He then talked about such protestors outside what he called the provision of healthcare. What I invite him to understand more clearly is that for those witnesses, abortion is not bona fide healthcare. It is a profoundly unjust elective procedure. I am not talking about the necessary medical procedures that can result in the loss of an unborn child. I am talking about elective, voluntary abortion, which is now provided in GP surgeries and hospitals. If people do not see that as healthcare, are they entitled in a democracy to be on the street and in the vicinity of such places, provided they are not targeting the individual or institution, to put a counter-message that is positive? The messages I want to see are those that offer a better solution than abortion. If there is a hope that somebody going into a facility, whom you do not know, might see those messages and might be encouraged to have a conversation with somebody else in their family or otherwise, or to have second thoughts, it would be a good thing if a life were saved. It is all about the how of this.

That is why I again say that the amendment I proposed protects. There is an honourable compromise in that amendment. I am sorry the Minister did not have the generosity to acknowledge that there is an attempt through that amendment to find some sort of via media but, as I said, Borg-like, it is a case of "Computer says no", we will keep going, and we will not open our hearts to the possibility that you might have a heart. That is the problem. I will correct my friend and colleague Senator Conway. There is no question of leaving 100 m. The law, as the Minister has drafted it, would make sure that there is not a 100 m bar. People who protest in the vicinity of Leinster House would not fall foul of any 100 m rule. That is what the Minister is proposing. The amendment I am proposing is to get rid of the 100 m bar but maintain the standard for protest outside. It would apply the Dáil standard everywhere. People would be completely free to protest outside the Dáil, even if it is within 100 m of an abortion facility, provided the protest advocacy or dissent is not directed at a specific, relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing such premises. Let us make the Dáil standard the universal standard. That is the via media that the Minister did not even address his mind to because he was too busy trying to ballyrag, discredit and insult me. I do not mind somebody personally having a go at me. Every word I have said today is truthful. That I can take the book on.

I invite the Minister to retreat from his hardline position and to at least engage in conversation with people he does not like. It does not have to be me. It can be anybody he wants, provided it is somebody who would at least invite him to consider whether the Dáil or Oireachtas standard could be the useful standard to apply across the board, which is to say that a person would be free to engage in lawful protest, advocacy or dissent, provided it is not directed at a specific, relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing such premises. In addition to the public order legislation, which prevents threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene behaviour, that is a formula that could work without attacking freedom of expression, without turning against people who have concerns about abortion and want to witness to them in a public place, notwithstanding that it may be in some way in the zone of a healthcare facility or, as I said, against people on a witness march who might be passing within 100 m. The Minister has a clear formula to work on between now and Report Stage.

I will make a second last point. We should think for a moment about a protest outside a migrant reception facility, as that was mentioned, where asylum seekers might be getting direct provision. We can all see clearly how such a protest should not be allowed once it is in any way directed at a person. That is why I do not like and do not support the idea of protests at people going in and out of a facility in the context of our evolving migration debate. The old laws of Christian charity can apply in a secular society very effectively. Not much of the language needs to be changed to see what human decency requires. Let us say, however, that people were protesting outside an asylum facility or reception centre against the injustice of the way migrants were being treated. Should that not be allowed? In many ways, that is the much more valid comparison. The witness that might take place within 100 m of an abortion-providing facility is effectively a witness against injustice and a call to a better way of doing medicine. It is not about the Government. According to Cork University Hospital, it is about a small number of very powerless people in society, who just seek to witness. Sometimes, it might be prayer. That is not my personal style, but it is that of others in our democracy.

I will speak to what my friend and colleague, Senator Gavan, said about the last thing a woman needs are protestors of any kind. I invite him to think about the possibility that people in this context are not protesting but witnessing. Again, I ask that we apply the standards of what is done and address our minds to the standards of how people witness and make their point, as opposed to the blanket ban, which captures the courteous as well as the aggressive. I am interested in targeting the aggressive. I defend the rights of the courteous. I invite the Senator to do that. He talked about privacy, but there is clearly no invasion of privacy in circumstances where no person standing in the street, 50 yards from Holles Street hospital, knows anything about why a person is walking past him or her on that street, whether or not that person enters the doors of the hospital. There is no attack on privacy. There is no attack on dignity provided nothing in what is being said or displayed offends public order legislation. Respect for the unborn and for the unborn's mother has to be the hallmark of any witnessing outside a facility or within 100 m of a facility that I would support.

I have put it as well as I can. The Minister's only response today has been to attack those of us who are concerned about this legislation and try to portray us as heartless, and wanting to be in people's faces and so on.Caricaturing your opponent, however, is no way to govern responsibly. We have tabled amendments that seek to strike an honourable middle ground. To my mind, they are more constitutionally focused in that they protect freedom of expression, are better proofed against eventual challenge to the legislation and seek to create that balance whereby the same standard can be applied to a protest regardless of whether it is outside Leinster House or anywhere else, that is, that there is no distinction or cordon sanitairebut that the standard is that protest advocacy or dissent can be not directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing one. That is an honourable compromise and I ask the Minister and his officials to think about it between now and Report Stage.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the issue of the 100 m limit, Senator Mullen is saying, on the one hand, that there is no problem or issue here, and if that is the case, he should not have an objection to this legislation at all. He is saying there are no protests outside any of these facilities and, therefore, we should have no issue with passing the legislation. That aside, the idea that women who go in to access healthcare need people in their faces to remind them to think about something is highly patronising. Everybody thinks before they access this form of healthcare. It is also not about giving information to women, because we all know where to access information, thank you very much. It is about the future and ensuring people will not be intimidated in their daily lives as they go to work or as they access healthcare.

For all those reasons, we need to press on to make sure that people will not be prevented from accessing healthcare. I say that because I am from the west and I know how few doctors are providing abortions there. I fundamentally believe that is partly because of the fear of these kinds of protests and that is deeply unfair. The people have spoken. We listened and we will listen again when they speak this Friday. That is what we are here to do.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Senator Mullen pushing the amendment?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I will withdraw it with a view to reintroducing it on Report Stage.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, lines 12 and 13, to delete “, within that 100 metres”.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(3) Nothing in section 2(2) shall prohibit a person from engaging in debate or lawful protest, advocacy or dissent on premises occupied by a designated institution of higher education, provided such debate, protest, advocacy or dissent is not directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises.”.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(4) Nothing in section 2(2) shall prohibit a person from engaging in silent prayer in a public place.”.

The amendment will come in under the section that provides for exceptions to the requirements set out in section 2. Not every part of what the legislation proposes is problematic. Section 2(1) states:

A person shall not, without lawful authority, in a safe access zone, engage in conduct— (a) that is likely to obstruct or impede another person from accessing a relevant healthcare premises, and

(b) with intent to obstruct or impede that person from availing of, or providing, termination of pregnancy services, or being reckless as to whether such person is thereby so obstructed or impeded.

I have no problem following the logic that if a service is legal in the country, however much I might regret it, a person should not be obstructed or impeded from accessing it. The problematic part is the much more intolerant, much less democratic and much more constitutionally subject provision in section 2(2), which states:

Subject to [the exceptions we are looking at], a person shall not, in a safe access zone— (a) communicate material to the public or a section of the public in a manner that is likely to influence the decision of another person in relation to availing of, or providing, termination of pregnancy services, or

(b) otherwise engage in conduct directed at the public or a section of the public in a manner that is likely to influence the decision of a person in relation to availing of, or providing, termination of pregnancy services, with intent to influence the decision of such a person in relation to availing of, or providing, termination of pregnancy services, or being reckless as to whether such a decision is thereby so influenced.

Clearly, what we are talking about here is just communicating material to the public in general, and it does not matter whether that material is intended to promote the idea of having an abortion or discourage it. That information may not be communicated to a section of the public in a safe access zone. Section 2(3), with which, again, I have no problem, states, "A person shall not ... engage in conduct that is likely to threaten or intimidate a person who is accessing or attempting to access a relevant healthcare premises". In fact, a person should not anywhere engage in conduct that is likely to threaten or intimidate a person who is accessing or attempting to access a relevant healthcare premises.

How strange to confine that requirement like that. I am sure it would be unlawful in any event under other laws, but the idea it would be specified that this should not happen in a safe access zone almost seems to condone the idea that threatening and intimidating could go on legally somewhere else. Likewise, the subsection goes on to state that a person shall not "accompany, follow or repeatedly approach, a person who is accessing or attempting to access a relevant healthcare premises, with intent to influence the decision" regarding abortion and so on. That stuff would all be covered under other law in any event. Needless to say, nobody can have a problem with that, except to the extent that I wonder whether it is, by implication, condoning such unacceptable behaviour outside of a safe access zone.

In any case, the problematic subsection is the one relating to communicating material to the public, and it is to that subsection that exceptions were considered necessary by the Government. The problem, of course, is that the exceptions do not go far enough. We have dealt with, on Committee Stage at least, my proposal that seeks to exclude the Houses of the Oireachtas from coming within the curtilage of a healthcare facility for safe access zone purposes and I have made my point in that regard about the via media that applies.It is not getting rid of the 100 m zone. It is providing that material may be communicated to the public, "provided such protest, advocacy or dissent is not directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises". The second exception is that "nothing shall prohibit a person from engaging in lawful conduct that occurs inside a place of religious worship". That may need to be extended to mean the entire premises of a place of religious worship. The third exception is that nothing shall prohibit anything done by a relevant healthcare provider or any person employed by that provider, including the provision of information. That is about protecting the healthcare institution.

It is at this point that I am proposing the insertion of the additional provision: "Nothing in section 2(2)shall prohibit a person from engaging in silent prayer in a public place." It might seem strange in this day and age, when people appear still, for the most part, to believe in constitutional rights and freedoms, that it would be necessary to put it beyond doubt that a person should be entitled to engage in silent prayer. However, we saw an incident in the United Kingdom not too long ago where, in effect, a policeman harassed a person and asked her if she was engaging in prayer. The answer the person gave was that she might be doing so. I forget precisely how it went from there but I think it ended up with the person not being prosecuted.

As we have said so often in the context of the hate speech legislation, the process sometimes becomes the punishment. Even if there was never a question of a person being brought before the courts, there is the very fact that he or she may be approached by the forces of law and order. I am not the best driver in the world and I try to obey the law but there have been occasions when I have heard that noise behind me and seen the blue light in the rear-view mirror. My heart gives a little lurch and I think to myself, "Oh, God, have I done something wrong?" Of course, one either has or has not done something wrong, so there should not be that heart lurch. However, most of us try to be solid citizens. It is anathema to most decent people to think they would ever do something that might bring about a situation where they are approached by a garda and told to move on, that they are doing something that is not really considered socially acceptable, that they could be on the threshold of breaching public order or that they could be breaking the law on safe access zones and so on.

It is not something I have ever done but we should explicitly provide for the possibility that if a person is so concerned by the injustice of abortion and feels the need to be within 100 m of the location where that is happening to express prayer silently, he or she should be able to do so. Given the way our western societies seem to be going in terms of cutting back on civil freedoms, including freedom of expression, there should be provision for a particular defence in this regard. I do not say the issue is beyond dispute; the argument could be made that the Bill does not explicitly criminalise silent prayer. However, we must take into account the breadth of subsection 2(2), which relates to communicating material to the public or otherwise engaging in conduct directed at the public, and consider it in conjunction with section 1 and subsections (5), (6) and (7) of section 2.

I remind colleagues that section 1 is the interpretation section and subsections (2), (5), (6) and (7) of section 2 give the definitions effect. Subsection 2(5) states:

For the purposes of this section, a person shall be regarded as communicating material to the public or a section of the public if the person—

(a) displays, publishes, distributes or disseminates the material,

(b) shows or plays the material, or

(c) makes the material available in any other way including through the use of an information system,

to the public or a section of the public.

Subsection (6) states:

For the purposes of this section, a person’s conduct shall include conduct of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does and such conduct may consist of a single act or a course of conduct.

Again, that invites doubt. Could standing silently, head bowed, come within the meaning of "conduct of any kind"? The reference to "in particular, things that the person says or otherwise communicates" is not a problem. The provision goes on to refer to "as well as things that the person does and such conduct may consist of a single act or a course of conduct".

In a free society, the rights we seek to protect in a democracy are not just the rights to which we ourselves can relate. I do not see myself ever getting down on my knees within 60 yd of Holles Street hospital, or any other abortion-providing healthcare facility, to lament what is going on. That is not my bag, so to speak. However, as a democrat and a legislator, I must defend the right of somebody who might want to go on his or her knees and silently witness to the injustice of what is going on. I think of the Falun Gong protestors, for example, we sometimes see on Grafton Street and in other places. I have often engaged with them. I think of how they are wronged, as are so many other groups, by the Chinese authorities. I think of their very simple, nonaggressive witness to the personal distinctiveness of what they do and stand for. I think to myself when I meet those people that at least in Ireland, for all our problems, they can stand on Grafton Street unmolested.

That is why I was concerned when I saw, a number of months ago, what happened here in Dublin to a man called Billboard Chris. He goes around the world protesting against the giving of puberty blockers to children in the context of a transgender ideology based on self-identification that encourages giving children such blockers and then moving them on to cross-sex hormones and, eventually, mutilating and life-damaging surgeries. At his protests, he displays a simple message such as "It is wrong to give puberty blockers to kids". He was on Grafton Street with his sandwich board a few months ago - I wrote an article about it in the Irish Examiner- when he was approached by a garda who was extremely polite to him. Billboard Chris, being an activist, was, I would say, somewhat rude to the garda, more rude than I would have been. He was dismissive. The irony was that the garda was completely polite but completely in the wrong. There was no legal basis-----

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Senator to stick to the Bill and the amendments.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I am saying is not irrelevant.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is straying a bit off course.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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-----

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some of the women are getting healthcare.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please, Senator.

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some of the women are getting healthcare and are vulnerable.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some of them may be-----

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senators, please, we do not have the time.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----standing still in the relevant spot, as I have said.

I thank Senator McGreehan for her relevant and helpful intervention because it reminds me these people could have a story themselves. They may have an abortion story. There are women who deeply regret their abortions and who regret that the State and the apparatus of State did nothing to point them in the direction of more positive alternatives. There are some - not all - who have had adverse mental health sequelae. There are some who are spiritual or some who are maybe not but have found counselling and support, including from pro-life people, that has helped them to get over their sorrow. I suggest to my friend, Senator McGreehan, that some of those people might be among those people who want to silently witness in this way. I would not be at all surprised. I do not know if that is what Senator McGreehan was saying but I think she is a fair person and we have agreed on things the same way we have disagreed on things. There are people on both sides here. If we could only let people show a bit of love to one another, we could maybe understand that the witnessing that can go on quite far from being adversarial can be something that is intended in a spirit of deep friendship and concern for the other. My concern is that unless it is made clear, there will be a question in people's minds that even if they are standing still in the same spot they could be in breach of section 2(2) of the Bill if the requisite intent or recklessness is deemed to be present.

That is the position as far as I can put it. Again, I indicate that I will not be pressing the amendment at this point because I am really keen to see the Minister and the apparatus of State engage with these concerns, particularly as I fear that they have not engaged with, sought to engage with or responded positively to any requests they might have received from people representing the broader pro-life concern in our society. This is a substantial number of people, as we know, in the Minister's constituency as well as anywhere else. I fear and I know that this is one of these pieces of legislation that has really only heard from one side up to this point. That is why this is such a critical moment. The Bill has been through the Dail and yet again we find ourselves in the Seanad giving greater scrutiny as we did with the hate speech legislation, and the referendum Bills even though we were guillotined We still put it out clearly and cogently and are still doing so and doing a job that was not adequately done in the Dáil. We are doing it here again on this safe access legislation with due respect, by the way, to colleagues in the Dáil who have done their very best. This is our last chance now because the Bill has been through the Dáil and we need to consider the constitutional implications. We need to consider the question of whether there is a via media possible here. This would be an honourable compromise that could turn this legislation from being something that seeks to crush dissent ruthlessly into something that articulates a concern that some people may have, reasonably or unreasonably, but which seeks also to recognise there are other people who are deserving of respect in our society who might respectfully want to contribute their deep values to this very troubling situation.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Any other Senator? Senator Keogan?

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Mullen for his in-depth contribution on this particular amendment. This amendment would ensure that silent prayer would be protected. Already in England, we saw a case of several people who have been interrogated, arrested and fined for simply standing in the vicinity of abortion providers and silently praying without holding any signs or making any statements. One man, Adam Smith-Connor, was asked by a police officer, "What is the nature of your prayer?". When he said he was praying for the unborn child and in memory of his son who was aborted, he was arrested.

This is Orwellian and breaches Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The Bill as it currently stands makes it quite possible that we would see similar situations where people could be arrested for silently engaging in private prayer if they happened to be within one of these sprawling 100 m zones. What about our protections for prayer, which are the ordinary customary practice that is inherently public in nature and unrelated to protest or advocacy, such as, for example, the Corpus Christi processions? Graveyards near a hospital may have a funeral where a rosary is being said during a public procession, a wedding or indeed in an outdoor place. This amendment would prevent that possibility.I refer to any religious activity; it does not matter what it is. Those holy days are very important.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As it is now 2 p.m., the debate stands adjourned in accordance with the order of the House.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On Wednesday, 20 March 2024 at 12 noon.