What I've been saying (News, Blog and Media)

For these reasons I commend the Bill but question the value of an exercise focused on repealing or retaining pre-1922 statutes when the post-1922 Statute Book is in such a poor and inaccessible state.

Recently a controversy arose over comments I was alleged to have made at an abortion briefing in Leinster House. Below is the text of a letter published in the Irish Times in response to an article in the same paper. The original article misrepresented what had happened and I felt compelled to respond.

The purpose of the Bill is to change a section of legislation that allows religious education or medical institutions to take action that is reasonably necessary to prevent a prospective employee from undermining an institution’s religious ethos. As it stands, this legislation does not mention homosexuality in particular. It provides a general protection.

I refer to an issue arising in the other House this evening, which prompts a call from me for a debate on a sensitive issue. For the first time, legislation is being introduced in the other House to legalise abortion. That is a sad situation. The legislation has many flaws, not least that it provides for abortion without time limits, disregards the consent of women in certain situations and imprisons conscientious objectors. It is also based on a false premise, an outdated notion that there are psychiatric grounds for abortion, as was canvassed in the X case, in which no psychiatric evidence was heard. The question is no longer whether abortion is ever necessary for mental health reasons; the question experts are considering is in what circumstances abortion poses a mental health risk for some women.

The reason for the enduring support for denominational schools is that tens of thousands of parents, including many who wouldn’t regard themselves as particularly religious, want something more than mere toleration of diverse beliefs. They want their children to have values they can hold as true no matter what life throws at them. They may want their children to understand that real love is about self-giving, which is a much greater calling than just tolerating diversity. Their local Christian school knows how to cherish pupils from different cultures and traditions without adopting a neutralism that might ultimately promote indifference.

I also notice a tendency in the comments of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, to let RTE off the hook, so to speak. I do not think it was satisfactory that Deputy Rabbitte should go to the other extreme and ridicule the notion that one would have heads on plates so to speak. I do not think the Madame Defarge approach is being advocated by genuine critics of our public service broadcaster. There is a very legitimate concern that people who are in receipt of taxpayers’ money are not doing their utmost to guarantee full fairness, impartiality and balance in their coverage of certain current affairs matters

This is about attitudes to different groups and sectors in our society. Political parties, like the media, need to show responsibility in their public utterances. That is why this is a relevant issue which I bring before the House this morning.

Why the silence? Is this another example of a bias in our media whereby certain issues are deemed to be worthy of coverage but the near death of an Irish woman as a consequence of an abortion in England is covered by only one broadsheet newspaper? Has there ever been coverage of the fact that in 2008 alone, 66 unborn children survived being aborted in England and were delivered alive, only to be left to die? That is going on in our nearest neighbouring country. Anybody with the most rudimentary sense of what human rights should encompass must ask questions about this. However, the Irish media apparently do not agree.