Yesterday we saw a murderous attack in Paris because Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine, engaged in their right of self-expression. This is a fundamental human right, derived from the right each of us has to our own thoughts and mind, which is toothless without the ability to express this. This principle is meaningless if it defends and safeguards only various shades of grey. Oliver Wendell Holmes saw the value “freedom for the thought we hate” in 1929 (then in the minority, now an accepted part of US Supreme Court jurisprudence). The European Court of Human Rights described this in 1976 as “one of the basic conditions for the progress of a democratic society and for the development of every man”. They went on to find that it “is applicable not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population”.
Satire has a long and venerable tradition in Europe, with its heyday in the political cartoons of the eighteenth century. Satire is not something designed or set out to be responsible or respectful.
But a liberal society is not devoid of the notion of personal responsibility. We are each responsible for our own actions and reactions. Outside of the specific and restricted partial legal defence of provocation from a temporary loss of control, we may not claim the behaviour of another to justify our own actions. Those who murdered journalists and the protection did so in full control of their senses, and must be held accountable for these actions.
It also means we hold them responsible, and not their own community and culture. We captured, they should be tried as any murderer would be, to the full rigours and with full due course of law.
And in standing by an open society, we should do more than defend full freedom of speech. We should also affirm the value of a liberal, tolerant society. Yes, we will permit satirists to mock religious beliefs. We will also allow religious communities to organise without discrimination. We should not question without good cause the differences of different customs. We must respect the individual rights of all; this means those who wish to wear a veil should be allowed to do so, whether or not we agree with the custom. One religion or another, or having none like myself, should neither confer advantage nor cause an obstacle.
This is not a time to divide one against the other, separate those living in countries based on the length of time of their various ancestry.
Without seeing any duty on those within particular communities to condemn or not to condemn actions of others no reasonable could endorse, we can also take time to recognise and value those within the Muslim community who are speaking against the barbarism committed in the name of their faith:
If someone asks "Why don't more Muslims condemn terrorism?" just link them this animated GIF: http://t.co/KhDVxWMqNo
— Iyad El-Baghdadi (@iyad_elbaghdadi) January 7, 2015
If we believe in the liberal values which were highlighted in our culture in the Enlightenment, but which have existed to varying degrees in nearly all cultures, and I certainly do, the attacks yesterday should not be seen as a test of them, but a reason to reaffirm them. We should aim towards an open society, where all are free to speak their mind, whether different cultures can mix, and learn from each other. A society where it is expected that we will not share in our sensibilities, that eschews uniformity and cultural stagnation. A society that strives to treat all truly equally before the law, not just in the court system, but in the administration of the state. This can be a society where each individual can thrive in the way they define for themselves, to make our choices in life. And this resilient observance of individual freedom could well be the only way our society will survive.
The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill is within the constraints of Article 40.3.3° and it is right that thirty years after its insertion into the Constitution, there will be legal clarity for women and for doctors. It was not good enough that this was simply regulated by Medical Council guideline. As Justice McCarthy wrote in 1992 in a concurring judgment to Attorney General v. X,
I think it reasonable, however, to hold that the People when enacting the Amendment were entitled to believe that legislation would be introduced so as to regulate the manner in which the right to life of the unborn and the right to life of the mother could be reconciled. In the context of the eight years that have passed since the Amendment was adopted and the two years since Grogan’s case the failure by the legislature to enact the appropriate legislation is no longer just unfortunate; it is inexcusable. What are pregnant women to do? What are the parents of a pregnant girl under age to do? What are the medical profession to do? They have no guidelines save what may be gleaned from the judgments in this case. What additional considerations are there? Is the victim of rape, statutory or otherwise, or the victim of incest, finding herself pregnant, to be assessed in a manner different from others? The Amendment, born of public disquiet, historically divisive of our people, guaranteeing in its laws to respect and by its laws to defend the right to life of the unborn, remains bare of legislative direction.
I do have a concern about the effect of the provisions for suicide. I do think that a woman whose pregnancy is contributing to her suicidal ideation should be allowed to have an abortion. But it is also possible that someone could overcome their feelings of suicide while still being in a condition of severe mental or physical distress. Both she and her doctor might still believe it the best thing for her well-being that she receive an abortion, but it would no longer be an option.
The provision of abortion in the case of suicide ideation means that a woman would end up confirming to herself, to her own GP, to two consultant and to an obstetrician that she may her take her life. This burden means that in most instances, a woman would most likely still feel it preferable to travel obtain an abortion. What has not received enough focus is the mental effect it would have to confirm this feeling again and again, that it could worsen the impact, and knowing that if she were to find that she was no longer suicidal, she could no longer obtain an abortion. Her GP would ordinarily attempt to alleviate her condition of suicidal ideation; but in this case, while he believed that an abortion was in her best interest, he would feel conflicted as to whether he should do so.
This situation is a result of the constraint the legislature is in, to act within Article 40.3.3°, specifically as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Attorney General v. X. Reading the judgment, which includes extracts from the oral proceedings, it did seem clear to me from a number of instances that the girl in question had entertained serious thoughts of suicide, but it also struck me that it was not primarily on that condition of suicide ideation that John Rogers, representing X, made his defence. It was on her more general case and circumstances that he made the case against an injunction preventing her from travelling to England to obtain an abortion.
This effect then reinforces for me a need for a referendum to remove Article 40.3.3°. This bill, and what I believe to be a generally unsatisfactory position, is within that provision.
Removing this Constitutional provision would not introduce abortion; it would rather remove the constitutional prohibition on doing do. I do not imagine that any likely government in the near future would introduce a liberal regime, but it would be a matter for Dáil debate and party negotiation as it is in most other countries. The Oireachtas would have the freedom then to consider various provisions, and review and revisit these laws after perceiving their application.
In the wording of the first paragraph of Article 40.3.3°,
The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
there are two clauses that the government had to consider in drafting this legislation, ‘equal’ and ‘as far as practicable’. It also had to be considered the ruling of the Supreme Court that ‘the risks to the life of the mother which should be considered by the Court included a real and substantial risk that the mother might commit suicide’.
In all cases, the meaning of Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Article 34.4.5°–6° is itself explicit in this regard. Their ruling in 1992 meant that a risk of suicide has been grounds for abortion, not just from that date, but from the insertion of 40.3.3° into the Constitution in 1983. A doctor could have taken it upon themselves to administer an abortion in response to a diagnosis that there was a real and substantial risk that a woman might commit suicide. This legislation does not grant or remove additional rights to either the mother or the unborn; legislation tightly within the framework of Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution cannot do this.
It may not have been the only measure permissible; someone might reasonably ask whether the government’s defence in D. v. Ireland, that there could be a recourse under Irish law for a termination in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities, could have been included in this bill. There might also have been flexibility in terms of the nature and composition of panels in the bill.
There will be some members of Fine Gael who break ranks to vote against this. The debate in the coming weeks will show how many they are, but I expect that the bill will come into law in a form not that far from this.
I do not expect that without further constitutional amendment, this bill lead will lead to more than a minimal increase in the number abortions performed in Ireland. Unlike measures in Britain and California from 1967, this bill refers only to situations that threaten the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother. It is not a small thing for a woman to declare that she is suicidal, and it is not something that the medical system takes lightly. The consequences for her personal freedom after such a declaration would be such that for many women seeking to terminate their pregnancy, travelling to Britain would be a preferable outcome.
While campaigners against abortion have resisted legislation in line with the X Case till now, and sought to amend the constitution in 1992 and 2002 to overturn it, I would expect that to largely die away as a focus, given the small scale of the change. Similarly, while legislation for the X Case has served as focus point for those seeking for more widespread access to abortion, that will shift to an amendment to remove 40.3.3, as advocated this week by Labour Cllr Jane Horgan-Jones, which would make legislation on abortion a matter for the Oireachtas, and not a constitutional matter. However, I cannot imagine that referendum occurring for quite some time.
The events of the past week prompted me to look back to see how Article 40.3.3° was proposed in the Dáil, knowing that there was an odd circumstance in its passing as the only constitutional amendment that was not a government amendment. The speeches are interesting to read as a snapshot into Ireland of 1983, and Oliver J. Flanagan’s contribution stands out in that respect, as does the speculation from Fianna Fáil’s Dr Seán McCarthy as to whether the Taoiseach had been influenced by the “pro-abortionists in Young Fine Gael”.
Though further amended in 1992 to protect the freedom to travel and receive information, the substantive clause as still exists was inserted by the Eight Amendment to the Constitution Act, 1983,
3º The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
Dr Garret FitzGerald was then leading a coalition government of Fine Gael and Labour, but only 13 TDs from the two government parties actually voted for that wording.
The wording above was drafted by the Pro-Life Amendment Campaign. There had been fears since the US Supreme Court had found a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade in 1973, and the Pro-Life Amendment Campaign was further mobilised in the aftermath of Pope John Paul II’s visit to Ireland in 1979. By the third election between June 1981 and November 1982, they had secured commitments from both Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil to introduce this amendment. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution Bill was first moved in the dying days of the Fianna Fáil government in November 1982.
Fine Gael initially accepted this wording and in the Programme for Government with Labour, it was agreed that Labour would have a free vote on the bill. It was moved by Michael Noonan as Minister for Justice in February 1983.
Fine Gael’s alternative wording
Peter Sutherland, the Attorney-General, subsequently advised of problems with the wording, and in April, Michael Noonan moved an alternative amendment,
3º Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to invalidate, or to deprive of force or effect, any provision of a law on the ground that it prohibits abortion.
This wording would have meant that the current legislation prohibiting abortion, the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, could not be deemed unconstitutional, and similarly for any possible subsequent legislation on abortion. This would thereby prevent a Roe v. Wade–like decision in the courts.
At the same time, a law to allow for abortion would also be consistent with this alternative amendment. This led to splits in both government parties. In Fine Gael, TDs who maintained their support for the original wording abstained in the vote on the alternative amendment. Labour allowed a free vote, and split three ways, between those who supported the original wording, those who opposed any amendment, and those who accepted that there would be a referendum and saw the Fine Gael alternative as at least better the the Pro-Life Amendment Campaign original wording.
Michael Noonan’s reasons for opposing the original wording seem chillingly prescient in the current context. This was on 27 April 1983,
Briefly, those defects are twofold: first, that the expression “the unborn” is very ambiguous; second, that the reference to the equal rights of the mother is insufficient to guarantee that operations necessary to save the live of the mother but resulting in the death of the foetus may continue.
On the first point, it is scarcely necessary to say that objection is not being raised simply on the basis that there is a certain degree of ambiguity. Some ambiguity is probably inescapable — language is not a precise instrument. The criticism in this case is the extent of the ambiguity, a criticism which is strengthened by the fact that it was obviously accepted in order to avoid argument.
On the second point, I would like the record to show very clearly what is being said by way of criticism — and what is not being said. It is not being said that the wording would be held to make the operations in question unlawful. Nobody could say with certainty what interpretation a court might put on the words. What is being said is that, on the ordinary meaning of words, that should be the interpretation and that therefore there must be a definite risk.
Of the opposition parties, Fianna Fáil maintained a strict whip against the alternative and in favour of the original wording and the two Workers’ Party TDs were against any amendment.
With this division between the parties, the amendment proposed by Michael Noonan was defeated by 65 votes to 87.
Between the parties:
- of the 74 Fianna Fáil TDs, 73 voted against;
- of the 70 Fine Gael TDs voted in favour, 60 voted in favour;
- of 16 Labour TDs, 5 TDs voted in favour (Liam Kavanagh, Barry Desmond, Michael Moynihan, Seamus Pattison, Dick Spring) and 10 TDs voted against (Michael Bell, Joe Bermingham, Frank Cluskey, Eileen Desmond, Seán Treacy, Toddy O’Sullivan, Frank Prendergast, Ruairí Quinn, John Ryan, Mervyn Taylor);
- both Workers’ Party TDs voted against, and;
- both Independents, Neil Blaney and Tony Gregory voted against.
Workers’ Party amendments
The Workers’ Party proposed further amendments, but as there weren’t sufficient numbers in the voice vote, the house wasn’t divided, and all these were lost. Even tho they opposed the amendment altogether, they proposed them to make the amendment a lesser harm or clearer in its meaning, and these proposed changes to the original wording highlighted show the nuances to the discussion at the time.
3º The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn human being and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
3º The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, subject to the right of the mother to life and bodily integrity, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
3º The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn human being and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable without interference with any existing right or lawful opportunity of any citizen, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
3º The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn human being and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable without interference with any existing right or lawful opportunity of any citizen, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right. This subsection shall not be cognisable by any Court except in a case seeking to have section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, declared unconstitutional or contrary to any provision of this Constitution.
Original Pro-Life Amendment Campaign wording passes
After all attempts to change the wording had failed, the Dáil then proceeded to vote to retain the initial wording. This was a very strange vote; a vote to amend the constitution in which no Government Minister from the senior party voted. Nearly all the Fine Gael members who voted for the alternative wording abstained on this vote, while those who had abstained on the alternative voting in favour of this one. This motion passed by 87 vote to 13.
Between the parties:
- of the 74 Fianna Fáil TDs, 73 voted in favour;
- of 70 Fine Gael TDs, 8 TDs voted in favour (Michael Begley, Liam T. Cosgrave, Michael Joe Cosgrave, Joe Doyle, Oliver J. Flanagan, Alice Glenn, Tom O’Donnell and Godfrey Timmins), while 2 TDs voted against (Monica Barnes and Alan Shatter);
- of 16 Labour TDs, 5 voted in favour (Michael Bell, Frank McLoughlin, Frank Prendergast, John Ryan and Seán Treacy) and 8 TDs voted against (Joe Bermingham, Frank Cluskey, Barry Desmond, Eileen Desmond, Toddy O’Sullivan, Ruairí Quinn, Dick Spring and Mervyn Taylor);
- both Workers’ Party TDs voted against;
- and of the Independents, Neil Blaney voted in favour and Tony Gregory voted against.
The Bill proceeded to the Seanad where, after the three Trinity Senators, Catherine McGuinness, Mary Robinson and Shane Ross, were unsuccessful in pursuing amendments, it passed, with only Fianna Fáil Senators voting in favour.
The referendum was held on 7 September, 1983. The leaders of the two government parties, Dr Garret FitzGerald and Dick Spring, both called for a No vote; the leader of the opposition, Charlie Haughey, called for a Yes vote. It was passed by 67% of the electorate, carried in all but five constituencies (all in Dublin), on a turnout of 54%.
I am but one of thousands thinking and writing today about the death of Savita Halappanavar late last month. It is quite possible that she would have survived had her wishes been followed and she had been granted an abortion.
While she was told that she could not an abortion because this is a Catholic country, it is in fact legal to perform an abortion to save a woman’s life. The Irish Medical Council Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics states in Section 21 on abortion, “Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother.”.
In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that in the case of a risk to a woman’s life, including a threat of suicide, an abortion was permissible under the Constitution.
The issue for the doctor was that there are no legislative guidelines or Department of Health directives outlining exactly when and how this Supreme Court interpretation should be applied, in varying difficult circumstances.
The question of whether abortion should be available in other circumstances is a debate for another time. As long as Article 40.3.3 remains as it is, and it can only be altered by a popular vote, it is within these limited terms only that abortion can be provided.
This should be a matter for the government to act without delay. My criticism of the government parties is not that they voted down an opposition motion earlier this year, something that happens every week on a range of bills, but that a year and a half after government, there has been no action on the European Court of Human Rights ruling of December 2010.
I will attend the protest in outside Leinster House at 6 calling for action, and then press for this over the coming weeks, whether legislation or clear Department of Health regulations.
Deirdre McCloskey: "It’s Good to be a Don if You’re Going to Be a Deirdre: Gender Crossing in Academia"
It’s Rainbow Week in Trinity. This year there has been a particular focus from the LGBT Society on issues affecting trans* people and the debate in the Hist is on the motion, “THB the Interests of the Transgender Community are Best Served Under the LGBT Banner”. Because of their very small numbers, the social and legal obstacles they face do not get much focus.
This brought to mind on of the those whose work I’ve read in the past year for my thesis. Deirdre McCloskey is Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at University of Illinois at Chicago and Professor of Economic History,Gothenburg University, Sweden, and has started a six-volume work on the history of bourgeois thought.
In this talk to the Oxford Libertarian Society, she talks here of how she knew at 11 that she wanted to be a girl, but didn’t transition until age 53. Talking of the social difficulties, she says it was was much easier in her particular profession than it would be in wider society, but also of how the world is becoming more open in these matter. As she says early on in this piece, “It’s a matter of a free choice in a free society; there’s nothing else involved”.
She really is fascinating to read or listen to, whether discussing economics, history of intellectual thought, or gender in today’s society.
On the subject, I also came across this manual of style this morning, a useful guide to understanding trans* people better.
David Cameron has proposed incentives of £150 annually for married couples and civil partners earning less than £44,000. He spins this as part of claiming that under the Conservatives, Britain would be one of the most family-friendly countries in Europe. There are though, reasons to be sceptical about what impact this will have.
It is undeniable that there are benefits to society at large to couples getting married (or entering civil partnerships, while that distinction remains). The commitment of marriage provides a stable environment for any children the couple may have. The effect from young men settling down, tends to lead, if I may speak against my own demographic, to lower rates of crime and drink-driving. And for the couples themselves, being in a long-standing relationship leads to better health, both mentally and physically, particularly later in life. This is aside, of course, from the romantic benefits for the couple themselves, but by relieving strain on social and health services, there is a wider positive externality.
- 2011 presidential election (5)
- Book review (5)
- British politics (23)
- Culture (9)
- Economics (13)
- Electoral history (18)
- EU Politics (10)
- Fine Gael (27)
- General (8)
- History (3)
- International politics (2)
- Ireland for Europe (24)
- Irish history (4)
- Irish politics (85)
- Law (4)
- Letters to the Editor (7)
- LGBT (47)
- Liberalism (10)
- Northern Ireland politics (15)
- Personal (8)
- Political Reform (10)
- Politics (12)
- Religion (6)
- Social and moral issues (10)
- Uncategorized (1)
- US politics (41)
- RT @ywirl: Young people more open to immigrants than parents @ywirl #equality17 survey irishtimes.com/news/ireland/i… via @IrishTimes 23 hours ago
- Mayor of Annezin considering resigning after the people there voted for Le Pen. twitter.com/avenirartois/s… 1 day ago
- RT @mattyglesias: If the US had the French electoral system (two rounds, majority rules in round two) Clinton would have won here. 1 day ago
- Yes, but Osborne got his name right! twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/st… 1 day ago