equality Archives - Irish Council for Civil Liberties

What does the programme for government mean for human rights?

15 June 2020

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has welcomed significant advances for human rights in the (draft) programme for government published today. We especially welcome the commitments to end Direct Provision and bring in a law to prevent hate crime.

ICCL Executive Director, Liam Herrick, said:

“The Direct Provision system has facilitated significant human rights abuses for too long. Along with hate crime, it lends itself to some of the most serious violations to which Black people, people of colour and anyone seeking international protection are subjected in our country. These commitments are particularly welcome in the context of the international conversation on racism which is currently taking place.”

In early May, ICCL submitted 18 calls for human rights reform to the three negotiating parties. We are very pleased to see strong commitments to ten of those calls, including the establishment of an Electoral Commission; reform of An Garda Síochána as envisioned by the Commission on the Future of Policing; the creation of an independent inspection system for all places of detention; the establishment of safe zones for access to abortion; a referendum on the Right to Housing; the decriminalisation of drugs for personal use; the outlawing of image-based sexual abuse (commonly known as revenge porn); and strong protections against facial recognition technology.

Other positive commitments include a commitment to examine new protections for people discriminated against because of their socio-economic status and a commitment to amend the law on discrimination based on gender identity; ensuring that local authorities draw down all funding available for Traveller accommodation; and abolishing wardships (where people deemed incapacitated are denied autonomy in dealing with the Courts).

However, we are also disappointed that some straightforward reforms that would have real impact on all of our lives are not specifically mentioned. We had called for an end to the illegal and discriminatory Public Services Card project; a Citizen’s Assembly on Brexit; and the full implementation of EU fair trial standards in our justice system. However, we are pleased to see that civil society initiatives regarding Brexit on the island will be supported. We also called for an Ombudsman for Victims of Crime which has not been included though we are glad to see a commitment to full implementation of the Victims of Crime Directive.

Mr Herrick concluded by saying

“This is a very ambitious and positive programme for government. ICCL will be using these commitments to hold the new government to account and to continue to advocate for human rights for every person in Ireland.”

ENDS/

Please support ICCL. Become a member today.

Find our 18 calls for human rights here: https://www.iccl.ie/icclsubmission-on-programme-for-government-may-2020/

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties is one of Ireland’s leading independent human rights bodies, and the only one with a dedicated programme of work on privacy and information rights. We monitor, educate and campaign to secure all human rights for everyone.

For media queries:sinead.nolan@iccl.ie

ICCL calls for immediate legislation for safe zones around abortion clinics

Dublin, 8 January 2019

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) today welcomed the announcement by Minister for Health Simon Harris that he intends to legislate for safe zones around abortion provision centres and called for him to move to enact such legislation immediately.

Speaking today, ICCL Executive Director Liam Herrick said:

“ICCL attaches great importance to the right to peaceful protest. However, the right to protest is not absolute and does not include a right to intimidate, harass or prevent women from accessing health care, including abortion services. Recent protests at health clinics appear to have been targetting women with the intention of deterring them from accessing health services.

The Irish government is obliged by international treaties to which we are party, as well as by our own Constitution, to protect the right to privacy. It is also obliged to protect access to healthcare and to ensure that healthcare professionals working in these settings have the right to work in a safe environment.”

Under human rights law, the right to protest may only be interfered with in specific circumstances, including in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others. Protecting the right to access healthcare and the right to privacy can be considered legitimate grounds for interfering with the right to protest, as long as the measures taken are necessary, proportionate and provided for by law.

Existing provisions in Irish law for responding to protestors using intimidation and harassment do not provide adequate protection for individuals seeking to access abortion services because they rely on the discretionary use of powers by Gardaí.

Mr. Herrick continued:

“Where there is evidence of a pattern of orchestrated and organised interference with individual rights, such as the right to access healthcare, general measures to protect individual patients and healthcare workers may be necessary. The creation of exclusion zones that prohibit such behaviour within a specified area around healthcare premises would help to fulfil individuals’ right to privacy and right to access healthcare. ICCL looks forward to the publication of legislation in this area, and we will examine it carefully to ensure that any proposal provides a proportionate balancing of rights.”

The use of such exclusion zones has been found in other jurisdictions to constitute a proportionate and necessary interference with the right to protest. Máiréad Enright of Lawyers for Choice has provided a detailed analysis of the legality of exclusion zones and how they might be provided for in Irish law here: https://lawyers4choice.ie/2019/01/05/a-note-on-exclusion-zones-rogue-crisis-pregnancy-agencies-possibilities-for-reform/

ENDS/

Notes for editors:

The right to protest plays a crucial role in democracy and can be a significant driver of positive social change. The right derives chiefly from the right to freedom of assembly and the right to freedom of expression. It involves the exercise of a range of other rights including the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to participation in cultural life. As such, the right to protest attracts significant legal protection under the Irish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (EHCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (ICCPR), to which Ireland is a State Party.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) requires States Parties (which includes Ireland) to fully realize the right to health. Access to health services forms one of the pillars of the right to health. The UN Treaty Body charged with interpreting the ICESCR has held that “health facilities, goods and services must be within safe physical reach for all sections of the population, especially vulnerable or marginalized groups”. The government is therefore required to prevent third parties from hindering access to healthcare.

The right to privacy and confidentiality is one of the personal rights protected by the Irish Constitution, and is explicitly protected under the ECHR and the ICCPR. The government must ensure that third parties do not interfere with the right to privacy of individuals when accessing health care services.

Under existing Irish law, protestors who are considered to be breaching the public peace without lawful authority or reasonable excuse or to be causing harassment, alarm or distress may be restricted. The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 gives the Gardai a broad power to ‘move on’ individuals when there is reasonable concern for the maintenance of the public peace. A person commits an offence if he or she, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, willfully prevents or interrupts the free passage of any person in any public place. The Gardai can also potentially use powers under The Criminal Justice Act 2006 to issue a behaviour warning in response to behaviour which causes or is likely to cause harassment, significant or persistent alarm, distress, fear or intimidation. The fact that the Act applies to behaviour “likely to” cause alarm etc. means that there need not be an actual victim.

For media queries:

Sinéad Nolan: sinead.nolan@iccl.ie 087 4157162

ICCL says 3-day abortion waiting period not rights-compliant

Dublin, 7 November 2018

As the Joint Oireachtas Committee discusses the proposed three day waiting period for abortion care, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has said that the waiting period contained in the proposed legislation does not comply with international human rights standards and that it should be removed. We are also calling for decriminalisation of abortion and for legislation for abortion after twelve weeks in cases where the life or health of the pregnant person is at risk. There should be no qualifications such as “serious” on the risk to health.

A mandatory waiting period imposes an unnecessary restriction on safe access to abortion and also reinforces patriarchal notions of women as incapable of making decisions regarding their own health. It will particularly impact on pregnant people who are in abusive relationships, who live in remote areas, who live in direct provision or who struggle to find the resources to attend two doctors’ appointments. It will reinforce the current situation of inequality which has persisted even since the repeal of the 8^th amendment and is thus incompatible with internationally recognised human rights standards. We call for its removal from the proposed legislation.

We further call for the decriminalisation of abortion, particularly given that there is no longer a constitutional impetus for this after the 25 May vote. The Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment recommended that all criminal sanctions applying to those who access abortion services be lifted and we would concur with this recommendation.

One of the most serious issues with the 8^th amendment was that it put doctors in the invidious position of deciding when the risk to the life of the mother became great enough that doctors could intervene to save her. The wording of the General Scheme risks falling foul of the same problem by stating that the risk to the health of the pregnant person must be “serious” before an abortion can be provided. The risk to health must never be qualified. We instead recommend that the wording suggested by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the 8^th amendment, “where the life or health of the woman is at risk”, be adopted.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) formed part of Together for Yes, and before that the Coalition to Repeal the Eighth Amendment. We signed on to the Coalition’s policy statement on the proposed legislation in March 2018 and we reiterate that commitment now. Further, we restate our support of Lawyers for Choice’s considered statement containing recommendations for amendments to the Bill.

ENDS/

Notes for editors:

Lawyers for Choice statement can be found here: https://lawyers4choice.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/hrtop_briefing_final.pdf

For comment or media queries, including for a copy of the Coalition to Repeal the Eighth statement:

Sinéad Nolan: sinead.nolan@iccl.ie 087 4157162

Scottish Minister for Older People and Equalities visits ICCL

On 11th September 2018, ICCL was honoured to welcome the Scottish Government’s Minister for Older People and Equalities, Christina McKelvie, to our offices.

ICCL team with Minister McKelvie.
L-R Aoife Masterson, Elizabeth Farries, Min. McElvie, Liam Herrick, Chris McCartin, Sinead Nolan and Dr Maeve O’Rourke

The Minister was in Ireland to meet with Irish Government and human rights bodies and organisations to discuss cooperation and areas of common interest between Ireland and Scotland in relation to equality and human rights.

During her visit she met with Minister of State David Stanton TD, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and with ICCL. The visit was organised by the Scottish Government’s innovation and Investment Hub in Ireland.

Minister McKelvie and team with Liam Herrick of ICCL

The issues which we discussed with the Minister included current issues relating to women’s equality, structures and policies for promoting human rights,Traveller rights and the human rights impact of Brexit. The Minister shared information about a number of innovative measures being taken by the Scottish Government to integrate human rights and equality provisions in all aspects of Government policy, budgeting and planning.

ICCL believes that there is great potential for Ireland and Scotland to learn from each other in these areas and we look forward to future cooperation with colleagues in Scotland on issues of human rights and equality post-Brexit.

L-R Dr Maeve O’Rourke, Liam Herrick, Minister McKelvie and Sandy McPhee, representative of the Scottish government in Ireland.

Gareth Noble on children’s interactions with An Garda Síochána

Gareth Noble heads up the Children’s Law Department with KOD Lyons. He spoke at ICCL’s event Rights-based policing: Visions from the Community on 18 July 2018.

I want to offer some observations having practised in the Children’s Court since 2008. I don’t come with any statistics or studies but with the experiences I have had in representing and assisting children, not just in the criminal justice system but also in the care system.

I decided as part of gathering my thoughts that I would conduct my own informal focus group with young people I have met over the last two weeks. This was an informative exercise from my perspective, in that the children I had acted for in the criminal justice system had a number of interesting observations. They totally get why we need a police service. The whole concept of policing is not an alien concept to many young people. But when we go on to the experiences with An Garda Síochána that they have had, on the whole it is pretty negative. And I think it is also really important that when I probed them in relation to that, a number were able to identify individual members of the Gardaí who they had positive experiences with, and it is important to acknowledge that. They were all able to give examples of positive interactions they had. But on the whole, whilst accepting they had some positive experiences, their experiences were negative.

Stop-and-search tactics and children

They see the overuse of stop and search provisions as unnecessarily restrictive upon them. They say that when they are before the court on public order charges, if the real truth were told of their experience of what was being said to them – if we used the same standards for the Gardaí as for them – there would be more people in the dock about the type of abuse and behaviour directed towards them. I have acted for children from 12 to 18 over many years, and I find that there is a raw honesty about children who come into conflict with the law. But there is a feeling and a perception that many young people will not countenance pleading anything other than guilty because of their view that it is not in their overall interests to discuss their negative interactions with police. They are thinking, ‘I might say that on a Tuesday but I have to go back into my community and interface with the same guards potentially for the rest of my life.’

I then decided, maybe I am getting a skewed view so I’ll talk to children in the care system. There were remarkable similarities with children in the care system in relation to that as well.

Children with autism

I then decided to investigate a third category. I do a lot of work with children with autism and their families, so I contacted and spoke to young people. Their experiences of seeking out the assistance of Gardaí or interacting with them was on the whole negative. They were able to distinguish – I spoke to a 15 year old boy on the autism spectrum who was succinct in what he had to say – but he would distinguish between whether or not if he had made a complaint to the Gardaí it would be treated differently to if his mother or father had.

There was an overwhelming sense of not being heard and listened to. It’s such a pity because An Garda Síochána was created with the community policing style in mind. We know that from its inception as an unarmed police force the emphasis was on the goodwill of people and their moral support. But there is still huge work to be done in relation to gaining young people’s confidence.

Children in the Court system

How does that manifest in the Children’s Court? Well, a huge number of charges come before court – this is totally anecdotal – regarding the aftermath of stop and search provisions being invoked. In a huge proportion of those cases, children are subjected to drug searches and a Garda cannot stop a child or any person unless they have reasonable cause to suspect that they are in some way infringing the law. A huge number of prosecutions before the Children’s Court are in respect of obstructing searches, and I would venture to say that there are way more prosecutions regarding obstructing, than regarding what the result of the search is. A huge number of searches take place where no drugs are found. A huge number of charges are in respect of obstructing drug searches, and we need a conversation about why that is.

Another bugbear that young people have is that when they are out with their friends they are seen as troublemakers. They see the official attitude as being that they’re out to do no good. I have lost count of the number of prosecutions that are dismissed in the Children’s Court regarding section 8 of the Public Order Act. Under section 8 a Garda is permitted in certain circumstances to ask a person to leave an area for a particular reason, and failure to leave the area constitutes the criminal offence. But in order to ground a prosecution under section 8 you also have to show the person is guilty of another offence under the Public Order Act – whether intoxication, indecency, abusive or insulting behaviour, and so on. It is not a standalone charge. The number of prosecutions brought where it is section 8 and you say to the Garda, ‘What other aspect of the Public Order Act was being infringed?’ – and the number of Gardaí who don’t know they don’t have the power to simply say ‘move on’ – has astonished me over the years.

Children and other State agencies

In terms of children’s attitudes to the Gardaí, it would be unfair to say and unhelpful to say that there is a particular problem with An Garda Síochána as an organisation, because children’s experiences of other state agencies would reflect the same view – for example TUSLA. All of the state agencies and organisations have much work to do.

What are the solutions?

I have assisted Gardaí to train – in terms of the Case Management Programme and the Youth Diversion Project. At all those sessions Gardaí say ‘We don’t need more laws or powers, we need more resources.’ The Gardaí who sign up for those programmes – the case management programme and the diversion project – all talk about the lack of training they have in respect of general interactions with young people specifically.

We know, for example, with children with autism – a huge number of children come before the Children’s Court on public order charges, and Gardaí may not be aware that the child has a diagnosis of being on the autism spectrum so their ability to address appropriately moments of pressure can be somewhat compromised. If there was more insight and training about addressing young people with those specific additional needs we would have more awareness. And I have discussed this with Gardaí on a number of occasions. We need to ensure that Gardaí don’t look at children as mini adults but as a particular section of society that require support – a child’s brain is wired so they do not on some occasions make the most rational decisions about moving on or submitting to a search.

Finally regarding the wider agencies: Section 8 of the Child and Family Agency Act laid emphasis on enhanced co-operation between state agencies. I don’t see any evidence of that, whether I’m looking at children in care or the criminal justice system. The organisations still looking at each other. Gardaí are still expected to be social workers at weekends and after 5pm, and it’s not fair on Gardaí to expect them to carry out those functions. The Garda Diversion Project resources were slashed during the recession, and I hope will be restored. In terms of the Policing Authority and GSOC, children with complaints about Garda behaviour find the GSOC website very difficult to navigate, and it would be helpful – if we’re having a conversation about how all agencies communicate with children – it would be great to see a section on the GSOC website that speaks to children about how to progress complaints. There is again that feeling of not being heard, not being listened to and the sense that ‘adults will be taken seriously, we won’t’.

On a positive note, everyone knows we have had huge challenges. But with every crisis comes great opportunity. Let’s put services for young people and people with additional needs at the heart of the debate. Let’s design a police service that goes back to its roots – a community-based service that sees young people as future adults and future good citizens, rather than as people to be treated with caution and suspicion, which is often unfounded.

To register for ICCL’s next event on Garda reform, see here: https://guardourrights.eventbrite.ie

Ireland has among highest rates of hate crime against people of African background and transgender people in the EU, but no laws to address it

Dublin, 4 July 2018

In a report launched today by Emily Logan, Chief Commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, Ireland is shown to be seriously deficient in addressing hate crime. The Lifecycle of a Hate Crime: Country Report for Ireland shows that from the point at which a victim reports a crime to An Garda Síochána to the point at which a judge sentences an offender, the hate element of a crime is filtered out of the criminal justice process. This report was funded by the European Commission and is the product of a two year international research project involving five EU states, coordinated by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL). The Irish research was conducted by the Hate and Hostility Research Group at the University of Limerick.

The National Steering Group Against Hate Crime, a coalition of civil society organisations, has called for the introduction of hate crime legislation for a number of years. The authors of the Lifecycle Report highlight that the absence of any laws against hate crime has led to a “policy vacuum” in relation to crimes motivated by prejudice in Ireland.

map of europe showing hate crime figures

EU FRA research into physical attacks against people of sub-Saharan African background

Launching the report, Emily Logan said:

“Hate Crime has a real-world, oppressive and damaging effect on those who fall victim to it. Hate Crime can cause people to withdraw from society and avoid expressing their identity. When unchallenged, hate crime carries consequences well beyond the immediate victim. It has the power to act as a ‘message crime’ – the ability to send out a message to an entire community – to warn off those who stray from the norm. It can also cause people to alter their daily lives to avoid further victimisation, including moving neighbourhood or job. It is not the responsibility of victims to avoid being targets of hate crime: the State, as the principal duty bearer – has a responsibility to send a clear message to society that hate crime is not tolerated.”

Author of the report, Dr Amanda Haynes, said at the launch:

“From the moment of reporting a hate crime, to the moment where the judge sentences an offender, the hate element of a crime is progressively filtered out of the criminal justice system in Ireland. The criminal justice process is not responsive to victims’ experiences of targeted hostility against their identity. There is no certainty that a hate motivation will be presented in court. There is no way of recording that an offender has committed a hate crime, meaning that is no way of addressing this type of offending behaviour and no way of recognising recidivists. ‘Hate crime’ simply is not part of the language of the Irish criminal justice process. ”

Author of the report, Jennifer Schweppe, said at the launch:

“The EU Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia requires member states to ensure that a racist motivation is taken into account at sentencing. The European Court of Human Rights has also made clear that states are under an obligation to ensure that a hate element is properly investigated in all cases. Unfortunately, the criminal justice process in Ireland does not provide those working in the system with the tools to ensure that these two obligations are met. People experience hate crime every single day in our country, and it is time that politicians recognised this, and send a clear message through legislation that it is not acceptable.”

Liam Herrick, Executive Director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties who were the lead partner on this European Commission funded study which was carried out across five jurisdictions, said:

“This report identifies significant gaps in Irish law, policy and criminal justice practice around how we respond to the problem of hate crime. This project has also afforded us the opportunity to benefit for the experience of other countries who have grappled with this issue and points to how balanced and effective responses to hate crime can be developed. ICCL has been proud to be part of this important initiative.”

ENDS/

REPORT LAUNCH will be held at 1pm on 4 July at IHREC buildings. Speakers will include all above-named persons, alongside Professor Barbara Perry of the University of Ontario. Media welcome.

LINK TO REPORT – “Lifecycle of a Hate Crime – Irish National Report

https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Hate-Crime-Report-LR-WEB.pdf

BACKGROUND NOTE – LIFECYCLE OF A HATE CRIME PROJECT

This report was part of a two-year EU funded research project across five EU member states – Ireland, the UK, Sweden, Lithuania and the Czech Republic. The full details of the project and the other national reports and the project’s comparative report are available at https://www.iccl.ie/hatecrime/

BACKGROUND NOTE – EU FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AGENCY REPORT:

In a report published in December 2017 by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), Ireland ranked highest among the EU Member States in which respondents from a sub-Saharan background experienced 6 or more physical attacks due to their ethnic or immigrant background in the 5 years preceding the survey (21% of respondents compared to the EU group average of 9%). 8% of respondents in Ireland reported having experienced 6 or more physical attacks due to their ethnic or immigrant background in the 12 months prior to the survey, compared to an EU group average of 2%. In an earlier FRA study, published in 2014, Ireland recorded the second highest rate of hate-motivated violence against transgender people in Europe: In the 12 months prior to the survey, 13% of trans respondents in Ireland reported having been physically or sexually assaulted or threatened with violence, in attacks either wholly or partly motivated by transphobia, compared to the EU average of 8%.

BACKGROUND NOTE – NATIONAL STEERING GROUP AGAINST HATE CRIME:

The National Steering Group Against Hate Crime is a coalition of civil society organisations, which aims to promote meaningful reform of law, policy and practice as it relates to hate crime in Ireland including, but not limited to, hate crime legislation; reporting and recording of hate crime and hate incidents; education; training and awareness raising activities; hate speech; cyber hate crime.

ICCL celebrates Historic Vote for Women’s Rights

Dublin, 26 May 2018

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) today warmly welcomed the overwhelming referendum vote to repeal Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution (the Eighth Amendment). Liam Herrick, executive director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL), said:

“This resounding and emphatic vote by the Irish people to repeal the 8th Amendment is an historic victory for women’s rights. This vote demonstrates that Ireland in 2018 is a more caring and compassionate society that recognises the harm and terrible injustice that has been caused by this constitutional provision. Ireland will now be able for the first time to introduce nuanced legislation which can address the full complexity of pregnancy in a manner compatible with the rights and dignity of Irish women.”

Mr Herrick was speaking as news rolled in of a yes majority in the referendum to repeal the 8th Amendment. The ICCL campaigned against the insertion of the 8th into the Constitution in 1983, is a member of the Coalition to the Repeal the Eighth and Together For Yes and has been running a human rights-based campaign for its repeal since March. Paying tribute to those who had fought for this result over the past 35 years, Liam Herrick said:

“This referendum result was won through the leadership of a powerful grassroots movement which fought hard to secure a referendum vote over many years, and which evolved into an effective and focused Together For Yes political campaign over the past few months. ICCL is especially proud of the role our members have played in fighting against this referendum since 1983 – including our founder Mary Robinson and our former Board members Ivana Bacik and Ailbhe Smyth.

Most of all this vote is the victory of the courageous women who put their personal stories before the Irish people at great personal cost. It was the sharing of their lives and their suffering that convinced the Irish people that change was necessary and urgent.”

However, Mr. Herrick also cautioned against thinking that repeal of the 8th was the end point of the journey, highlighting that it is rather a staging point in the ongoing struggle for equality. Mr. Herrick continued:

“We must also remember that women in Ireland face many other obstacles to full equality – including physical and sexual violence inside and outside the home; the gender pay gap, and underlying societal assumptions about women’s bodily autonomy. We only need to look to two very recent murders of young women for this to become all too apparent”.

ICCL also recognises that this referendum campaign has disclosed wider issues about our political and democratic process, including restrictions on freedom of expression, the need for greater transparency regarding campaign financing, and a wider lack of clarity regarding how elections should be regulated in the digital age. In the coming months, ICCL will call for a wider review of how Ireland addresses these complex issues and we intend to work with civil society partners to call for a review of the existing law in this area.

ICCL convenes 1983 Anti-Amendment campaigners for ‘Under the 8th’ event

Dublin, 23 May 2018

Former Supreme Court judge Catherine McGuinness, Senator Ivana Bacik, and editor of Hot Press magazine Niall Stokes were amongst speakers at an event organised by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) which brought together people who campaigned against the insertion of the Eighth Amendment into the Constitution in 1983 and which took place at Dublin’s Smock Alley Theatre last night.

Speaking at the event, Justice McGuinness said:

“In 1983 the Eighth Amendment was devised by a small group, with the backing of the Church, who convinced the main parties to adopt a legal measure that many of the leading lawyers of the time could see would bring great hardship and uncertainty. The amendment was voted into the Constitution in a febrile environment. This was the era of the Kerry Babies and the death of Ann Lovett, and the 1983 referendum was part of the terrible hypocrisy that accompanied those tragedies. Sadly, we continue to observe this hypocrisy from commentators on the no side who directly opposed the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act in 2013 and who now laud it as a panacea to all difficulties which a pregnant woman may face. However, I believe that the Irish people have now seen through the hypocrisy of the Eighth and they will vote on Friday to take back responsibility for abortion and women’s rights in pregnancy.”

Ms. Bacik said:

“A Yes vote on 25 ^th May is vital because our legal experience over 35 years of the 8th Amendment is that there is no other way we can legally provide for terminations of pregnancy on grounds of fatal foetal abnormality; or on grounds of rape or incest; or even where a pregnancy poses a serious risk to a woman’s health. It is long past time that we removed the absolute constitutional prohibition on reform, and allowed our democratically elected legislators to introduce an appropriate legal framework for the regulation of lawful termination of pregnancy.”

Mr Stokes said:

“The only way to free the women of Ireland from this draconian, insulting paternalism is to Repeal the 8^th Amendment. The only way to end a situation where sourcing an abortion pill carries the threat of 14 years in prison is to repeal the 8^th Amendment. That, I believe, is what good, kind, caring, compassionate people will want to do, and will do, on Friday next.”

Director of the ICCL Liam Herrick said:

“It’s remarkable now to look back at the Anti-Amendment campaign and to realise the prescience of those involved. They claimed that it would do nothing to provide support to women in crisis pregnancies, that it would not eradicate abortion in Ireland, that it would endanger the lives and health of women, and that it could actually kill women. Over the 35 intervening years, those predictions have all come to pass. Unless it is repealed, the Eighth Amendment will continue to cast its long shadow over the lives of women and girls in Ireland.”

Legal experts Catherine Forde BL and Máiréad Enright as well as campaigner Pauline Conroy all spoke about individual cases, watershed moments and the shadow the Eighth has cast over women and girls’ lives for the past thirty-five years. A multimedia exhibition, Women to Blame, which was curated by Therese Caherty and Pauline Conroy, showcased 40 years of struggle for contraception and reproductive rights. Excerpts from Aisling Malone’s new documentary This Is Ireland were shown alongside clips from the archives, including a TV debate between William Binchy and former president Mary Robinson.

ICCL unveils mural calling for Repeal of the 8th Amendment

Dublin, 18 May 2018

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) today unveiled a campaign mural calling for a YES vote in the forthcoming referendum at Bang Bang café in Phibsborough. ICCL commissioned street artist and graphic designer Giant Sigh to create a mural, which draws on images of feminist workers’ icon Rosie the Riveter and Yeats’ and Lady Gregory’s cultural representation of Ireland Cathleen Ní Houlihán to highlight the importance of women’s rights and equality in today’s Ireland.

Orla O’Connor of NWCI and Together for Yes with ICCL’s Liam Herrick, poet Paula Meehan, Project Arts Centre’s Cian O’Brien and artist Gearóid Seoighe, aka Giant Sigh

The mural unveiling comes as ICCL released a statement this morning on the increased importance of political and artistic freedom of expression in referendum contexts. The statement was circulated widely in the arts community.

A number of speakers discussed the recent censorship of artists such as Grace Dyas, Una Mullally and Maser. Liam Herrick, director of the ICCL, said: “We’ve been gravely concerned that artists are being prevented from exhibiting art during the pre-Referendum period because their art concerns women’s experiences of abortion and has therefore been deemed too “political” to be allowed. We have analysed court judgements such as McKenna and McCrystal in the light of European Court of Human Rights judgements and, in our view, it is imperative that the government facilitate, rather than shut down, artistic and political expression even when it does come down on one side of the debate”.

Cian O’Brien of Project Arts Centre said: “I’m delighted that the ICCL are engaging with this vital issue which goes to the very core of our society and constitution. Art by its very nature, is indelibly political because it relates to the workings of the society from which it emerges. Project Arts Centre has always placed the vision and freedom of expression of the artist at the centre of our work. We firmly believe there is immeasurable value in creating space for artists and artworks that not only reflect our society, but also directly address and challenge its issues and complexities head on.”

Orla O’Connor of NWCI and Together for Yes with poet Paula Meehan and artist Giant Sigh

Poet Paula Meehan of the Artists’ Campaign to Repeal the 8^th Amendment said: “The artist’s role in the culture is to question, to probe, to articulate what is silenced, to make manifest what is hidden, to reflect the full complexity of the human condition. The painting over of Maser’s mural on the wall of the Project is emblematic of a fear culture. Irish people know that attempting to bury what we find disturbing brings only heartbreak and shame. There is a relationship between the words timid and intimidation; the growing intimidation of venue management and curators bodes ill for the long-term health of the arts in Ireland and has a resonance far beyond the issue of Repeal. Self censorship is as bad for society as active oppression. We must send a clear signal of resistance and stand together for our rights as artists to make manifest the work we need to make in the context of this referendum and for the future.”

Orla O’Connor of NWCI and Together for Yes with poet Paula Meehan and artist Giant Sigh

Orla O’Connor of Together for Yes wrapped up the event, saying “There are 7 days to go to the vote. It’s time to take a stand and provide care and compassion for women in ireland. Abortion is a reality in Ireland when over 3,000 women travel to the UK and over 3 women per day take abortion pills. The decision that faces us on the 25th May, is do we want another century where women and couples have to endure extreme stress and trauma or do we want regulated, safe abortion where decisions are made between between a woman and her doctor.

A representative of the SUBSET artistic collective spoke about their Grey Area Project and the crowd gathered also heard poetry from spoken word artist Lewis Kenny.

Artist Gearóid Seoighe AKA Giant Sigh with ICCL comms officer Sinéad Nolan in front of ICCL mural 'Rosaleen the Repealer'

Artist Gearóid Seoighe with ICCL comms officer Sinéad Nolan and ICCL mural ‘Rosaleen the Repealer’

ICCL welcomes call for yes vote by UN women’s rights expert

Dublin, 10 May 2018

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties today welcomed a statement from UN women’s rights expert, Frances Raday, on the forthcoming referendum, saying that it brings a welcome note of clarity regarding the systematic violation of fundamental rights that the Eighth Amendment means for pregnant people, particularly survivors of rape, in Ireland.

Frances Raday is Special Rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Council’s Expert Group on Discrimination against Women, former Chair of the UN Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Expert Member of the Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). She is calling for a yes vote in the forthcoming referendum.

In her statement, Ms Raday said that “The Eighth Amendment of the Irish Constitution, by making a symmetrical equivalence between the right to life of foetuses and women, results in the systematic violation of the human rights of women and girls”.

She further stated that the Eighth Amendment “may result in grave violation of the right to be free from arbitrary detention” and that “cases which would give grounds for allegations of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, are any cases where pregnant women and girls have been detained in psychiatric institutions although their distress was, according to psychiatric opinion, caused by pregnancy and not by a psychiatric disorder; have been subjected to forced feeding in response to refusal to eat; or have been refused access to legal abortion where the pregnancy resulted from rape, including in the case of pregnancies of girls under the age of eighteen.”

The right to be free from torture and the right to be free from arbitrary detention are both absolute rights, meaning that the State can never restrict them under any circumstances, even pregnancy.

Director of the ICCL, Liam Herrick, said:

“A vote to retain the Eighth Amendment is a vote to continue to subject women and girls who have been raped to treatment that may amount to torture or arbitrary detention. It is a vote to continue denying fundamental rights to pregnant people. It is a vote to continue to ignore the plight of the most marginalised in our society. It is a vote which says that cruel mistreatment of women and girls in crisis should be allowed to continue unabated.”

The Eighth Amendment does not allow for abortion even in cases of rape or fatal foetal anomaly. Following the death of Savita Halappanavar, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act clarified that the law does allow for abortion when there is a ‘real and substantial risk of the loss of the woman’s life’, however its threat of fourteen years in jail for unlawful abortions hangs over doctors who may be uncertain what constitutes “real” or “substantial” risk. Additionally, in the 2017 case of Miss M, a vulnerable child who requested an abortion under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was detained under mental health law and subsequently released by court order. In the 2015 case of Ms. Y, an asylum seeker who had been raped in her own country and was suicidal as a result was force-fed when she went on hunger strike to plead for the lawful termination of her pregnancy.

Mr. Herrick said:

“Those who don’t have the necessary papers or resources to travel are left in situations like those of Miss M and Ms Y. After hearing about these cases, only women and girls in the most desperate circumstances would try to access an abortion under the PDLPA. Michael McDowell recently said that the next Ann Lovett will be a girl who dies after taking an abortion pill alone in the next Granard. The reality may be even more horrific than that.”

The ICCL is currently running a campaign highlighting how the Eighth Amendment violates fundamental human rights.

What does the programme for government mean for human rights?

ICCL calls for immediate legislation for safe zones around abortion clinics

ICCL says 3-day abortion waiting period not rights-compliant

Scottish Minister for Older People and Equalities visits ICCL

Gareth Noble on children’s interactions with An Garda Síochána

Ireland has among highest rates of hate crime against people of African background and transgender people in the EU, but no laws to address it

ICCL celebrates Historic Vote for Women’s Rights

ICCL convenes 1983 Anti-Amendment campaigners for ‘Under the 8th’ event

ICCL unveils mural calling for Repeal of the 8th Amendment

ICCL welcomes call for yes vote by UN women’s rights expert

Contact ICCL

Sign up for our Newsletter

Contact ICCL

Sign up for our Newsletter

Stop the Card and Delete Our Data!!