Stand by the open society

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

— İyad el-Baghdadi | إياد البغدادي (@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.

Concerns about Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill

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.

Outcome of the abortion bill

The Heads of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill seem to fulfill minimal requirements of legislation in line with the ruling in Attorney General v. X.

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.

How the Fine Gael lost the Dáil vote on abortion in 1983 while in government

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,

Amendment One

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.

Amendment Two

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.

Amendment Three

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.

Amendment Four

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.

Amendment Five

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.

Referendum

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%.

Action on X

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”.

Deirdre McCloskey – "It’s Good to be a Don if You’re Going to Be a Deirdre: Gender Crossing in Academia" from oxford libertarian on Vimeo.

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.

Marriage, society and the state

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.

That the Catholic Church hindered social progress in Ireland

This debate in the Hist was on 18 November, so before the publication of the Dublin Diocesan Report eight days later. Nevertheless, I think this showed the inadequacy of a student debating society as a forum in addressing certain issues of relevance in modern society. There are motions where one side or other is not sustainable. Sometimes this might be because of a debate on whether Russia is a threat to the West, which we held in early 2008. Many of the ordinary members of the Hist on that occasion had reason to believe the proposition, and put good cases from what they had researched. Then Sir Roderic Lyne, a former British Ambassador to Russia, spoke on the opposition, and it was clear given his unquestionable expert opinion, as well as that of former Irish Times correspondent Seamus Martin and retired Political Science Professor Ron Hill, that the case lay on the opposition.

But I mean particularly when even before the debate, those on one side know that the other is fundamentally right, and can only put their case by finding a nuanced argument, or focusing on particular points. Of course, in a competitive debating context, in its various formats, this is entirely appropriate. It serves a very good purpose in training the mind to think about subjects from different approaches. And I would not propose either that a one-sided motion is never appropriate for chamber debates, where the emphasis is truly on trying to convince the audience of a stance, and giving people the opportunity to voice their opinions. I would hold that in general, speeches in the chamber should be sincere, and that both the speaker and the audience benefit when this is the case. But I have on rare occasions myself during my many years in the Hist argued against my sincere belief, in order to capture a particular nuance, or to challenge myself to put a case. And at times when there is a somewhat imbalanced debate, it is reasonable for the Correspondence Secretary to ask good speakers to speak on the side contrary to their sincere belief to facilitate other speakers.

On this occasion, however, there was simply no contest as to which side was in the right. Despite one of the guests being the artist Cllr. Mannix Flynn, who had been through the industrial school system, the debate from student speakers’ point of view ended up focusing on issues like divorce, contraception and homosexuality. It was on issues such as these that there was at least a plausible case that Roman Catholic Church was merely in line with the mood of the time, though even then one has to ignore how much a part of that system they were, and the influence they had. I spent time myself on the question of illegitimacy, and how their stance truly affected people’s lives, but I can’t claim to have been satisfied with my speech given the enormity of the Catholic Church’s crimes and harms as we see them now. The debate put those professed Roman Catholics among us in an impossible situation, and I feel that they more than others should really be the ones to find the case for the proposition, as other than those directly harmed, it is practising Catholics more than those like myself who have been more affected.

I found this blog post difficult to write, to be able to convey the feeling properly, which is why it is here now that bit after the debate itself. I think it is only on the rarest of occasions that such a situation arises, and someone who appreciates the difficulty in selecting relevant and debatable motions, I do not mean to be critical. But there are some statements that cannot be debated.

That this house believes the gay community perpetuates a negative stereotype

On Wednesday 28 October, I gave the first opposition speech to this motion in The Hist. I didn’t get to engage with some of the points made later on, so my speech was a little disconnected from the rest of the debate. In my speech, I looked how things have changed over recent decades. Up to the 1980s, what was the gay community did keep itself apart from the rest of society, and was happy to emphasize this difference, to reject many of the notions of the society which had made them feel like outcasts. It was ultimately the AIDS virus that made people, both gay and in general, change in their attitudes, something I didn’t mention when speaking. Now the main claims of gay activists is simply that the state should not privilege the love between a man and a woman over any two people in general, a conservative claim for stability and a traditional institution.

I said that what people see as the gay community is really what people choose to care about. For me, that ends up meaning politics, so I listed prominent gay politicians, such as Peter Mandelson, possibly the most powerful politician in the British cabinet, Barney Frank, Chairman of the US House Financial Services Committee, or Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, Prime Minister of Iceland. I said of the new German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, that it really mattered far more to me that he was the leader of the liberal FDP, but it was still nice to see a gay person in that position.  We can choose to think only of drag queens and worry about the image they portray, or realize how much has changed.

Afterwards, someone mentioned to me that he was well read on British politics, had read Alistair Campbell’s diaries, but didn’t know till that night that Mandelson was gay. I actually think this is common knowledge in Britain, but he had a point in that Mandelson never puts himself out as gay in the way some do at pride parades, so it’s not surprising that people in general think first of those who make it clear that they are gay. It’s equally true of myself in ways, it is quite possible that he didn’t know till that night that I am also gay, as like Mandelson, it’s not something that I’d have raised out of context. But I wouldn’t have avoided speaking, as it made perfect sense in the context of the debate while others were also making their positions clear. Equally here, it makes no sense to shy away from writing on this issue which means a lot to me, or as someone active in party politics.

The best speech of the evening was from a girl who made the case that it is not anyone’s responsibility to act in any particular way for the sake of anyone else. Someone in Dublin should not have to consider the proverbial person in the closet in Leitrim who is less likely to come out if they are more flamboyant. Someone in drag is not more justified in doing so because they also perform charity work. It was a reminder to those there that gay people are simply a collection of individuals, who should act as they see best for themselves.

There were a few points on the proposition that I think worth mentioning, to give a brief answer to. I had anticipated the objection to gay bars in my speech, and my answer to the feeling that they are a form of self-imposed segregation is really that if many people go out to nightclubs hoping to score someone, we are really asking too much of gay people that they would not do the same. And as people would like to have statistics in their favour, and know that they fall into someone’s broad categorical type, it is not surprising that there are gay bars.

And there was the suggestion that it is evidence that gay stereotypes are harmful that it was news that Dónal Óg Cusack is gay, where it wouldn’t be news if a hairdresser came out. This is in large part the fault of sporting bodies worldwide, but I think there could well be some truth to this stereotype. I have as little interest in sport as fashion, but I think it likely that a greater proportion of male hairdressers are gay than of male sports players. Stereotypes are based on generalizations, and not all of them are groundless.

It turned out to be quite a good debate, more so than I had expected. We were reminded from some of the speakers of how pride parades began, and what a step that was, while many others wished to simply get on with their lives, finding gay-specific environments restricting. The atmosphere of the debate showed that, thankfully, things have changed since years gone by.

That this house would legalise euthanasia

In wondering what pieces to write for my blog, if there’s a topic that I’m interested enough in to deliver a seven-minute speech on it in a debate, I should be able to muster a few hundred words on it here. I speak a few times during the year at the debates of the College Historical Society (having in the past organized these debates as Correspondence Secretary), so I plan to write up my thoughts on those debates, at least the ones from this Session.

On 21 October, I gave the second speech on the proposition to the motion, “That this house would legalise euthanasia”. This was the third time we had held this debate during my time in the society, but the first time I had spoken.

For me, it is ultimately a question of compassion. As a strong believer in individual rights, I also see it in those terms, but that philosophical and moral justification is secondary. Though we may not be able to imagine the feeling of a desire to die, we should not doubt the sincerity of those who express this wish. These are often people who are otherwise emotionally sound, but feel at this time such a level pain that they wish to end it and their live. Because of the sensitivity of the issue, I think it makes sense to advocate this possibility only for those who are terminally ill.

The two main arguments presented against the proposition were the value we put on life, expressed at times from an explicitly Christian point of view, and that treatment at the end of life is improving, and that if we give up on people at this point, we won’t develop the research into this care.

On the first of these, euthanasia may be something that we disagree with fundamentally, whether as a religious belief, as simply a deep-held belief in fighting to the end. But those coming from that point of view have to acknowledge that such stances are their personal beliefs, and while they may carry through on this in their own lives, in society at large, we should not seek to enforce such general views on the population at large, and that on other matters we don’t. In a republican society, no one should have to act on such a fundamental matter in a way that others feel is right, even if it is the belief of the majority.

From a medical point of view, I can understand the grave difficulties physicians could have with euthanasia, devoting their careers to preserving life, and for those who research in the area. Of course, no doctor should be compelled to take part in the process at any stage. But those who are suffering here and now should not be asked to continue to suffer, to sacrifice themselves, for the sake of future benefit. There are equally many doctors who have found ways to put their patients out of pain, even if if that meant death, such as by agreeing with them on a high level of painkillers, ostensibly to relieve the pain, but both knowing that it could result in death, and willing to accept that.

A common practical objection is that those who are vulnerable could be pressured to go through with the situation. This is a legitimate concern, but a 2007 report of the Journal of Medical Ethics found no evidence of abuse in the 12 years euthanasia had been in place with a strong regulatory system in Oregon, where it designed to be safe, legal and rare.

This is ultimately no more than my personal feeling, having given the matter thought. I have been fortunate not to have had to consider these questions more directly than this. But I do feel that those who can relieve their suffering should not be prevented from acting on one of the few areas they still have control over should they so wish.