referendum

Blog, Monishots

The outcome of an abortion vote is predictable in a liberal Ireland.

/

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves ~ Ronald Reagan There has been close to 9 million abortions in the United Kingdom since the implementation of the 1967 Abortion Act. A rather mind-numbing figure. To put it more starkly, approximately 500 unborn babies who were killed daily under the law over the past fifty years. And to add salt to the injury another disturbing stat states that 97% of these were healthy pregnancies aborted for social reasons while 38% were repeat- abortions. As the campaigns for the abortion referendum wraps up here in Ireland we have been treated to hot debates over all the media platforms. Most have been as interesting as they were revealing and I must admit that my pro-choice position had been under review for the last few months. A yes vote will permit the lawmakers to amend the laws and perhaps even make it laxer than what obtains in the UK. Leading the charge to repeal the law is none other than the PM himself, not oblivious of the chilling stats listed above Mr. Varadka has said in a recent report that there may not be another chance to vote on the issue of abortion for a “long time”, and that a No-vote would send the wrong message to women and the world about Irish society. But such narrative riles the No-campaign who despite the fact that an average of 9 women travel daily for abortions stated through a spokesperson that the only way “to prevent the adoption of an extreme abortion law is to vote No” as a Yes-vote will likely go “far beyond dealing with limited difficult cases”. For a small country (Ireland has less than 5 million people) that is historically known to have deep conservative traditions, it amazes me how the changes are coming thick and fast. We are talking about a country where you could only access contraception with a satisfactory proof of marriage less than 40 years ago. As a matter of fact, any pregnancy outside of marriage back then could get the lady ‘imprisoned’ in care home and children born out of wedlock were considered ‘illegitimate’ or ‘bastards’ to be less palatable. Fast forward to 2015, Ireland set the record of becoming the first nation to legalise gay marriage by popular vote. That was when 62% of the electorate voted in favour of gay marriage and the country’s parliament enacted the 34th amendment that permitted marriage to be contracted by two persons of the same gender. And in 2017 the country’s parliament elected Leo Varadka, a 38-year-old, openly gay son of an Indian immigrant as the Prime Minister. Making him the youngest person and the first from a minority ethnic background to hold the highest office in the land. Now we are heading to the polls again, this time to decide on repealing or keeping the abortion law which prohibits abortion barring severe health risks. I have observed the debates with keen interest. The nosey parker in me also extrapolated the issue beyond what is often found in the media to ask some pertinent questions. Is the push to repeal the current law be a covert strategy by the government to stem the rising population which peaked at a decade high in 2017? While it may be true that governments use loose abortion laws as a tool for population control, especially if you consider the Prime Minister’s position on the matter, one cannot underestimate the activists and nerds whose influence is beyond the reach of government control. Buoyed by the country’s young population this group has demonstrated in the past that smartphones and loudspeakers are the only tools necessary to push through any societal reform. I recollect that the evaluation of my position on the matter started a few weeks back when my 13-year-old daughter made a point during school-run as we drove past a group of activists gathered in front of the Mardyke Arena. “Daddy, I’m torn on this one”, she had said, “much as I believe that unborn babies shouldn’t be punished with death for an act they knew nothing about, I also think women should determine what happens to their body” she added. Growing up as a teenager in Nigeria I never gave it a thought that a day like that would come, my parents didn’t discuss such topics with my older sisters, at least not that I know of. But here we are, in a world that is increasingly liberal and I’m having a hearty discussion on abortion with my teenage daughter, I only can imagine that many parents now discuss same with their kids back in Nigeria let alone here. So as we await the official results of today’s vote, one does not need rocket science to project the outcome in a country where the elderly conservatives have recently lost the battles against contraception, divorce, and gay marriage. I believe the Ayes will have this one.

Blog, FEATURES, Lifestyle

What you need to know about Ireland’s abortion referendum.

/

  The Republic of Ireland is holding a referendum on May 25 that could dramatically change its stance on abortion. Here’s a rundown of what is happening, when and why. What is Ireland voting on? The referendum is about taking action that would result in the repeal of article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution (commonly referred to as the 8th amendment), allowing the Irish government to change the law on abortion, which is currently illegal unless a woman’s life is at substantial risk. Voting yes would repeal the amendment, while voting no would keep it in place. What is the 8th amendment? The eighth amendment was passed by referendum in 1983. It says that “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”. It is commonly viewed to equate the life of a pregnant woman with the foetus, making abortion unavailable in almost all circumstances. It is also seen as affecting maternal healthcare because a woman loses her right to refuse consent to medical treatment in pregnancy. Why does Ireland have this clause in its constitution? When contraception was legalised in Ireland in 1974, there was a widespread belief that liberal abortion laws would inevitably follow. An amendment campaign emerged in 1981, brought together various “pro-life” groups to lobby for constitutional protection of the “unborn”. Their campaign was helped by the fact that in the political instability of the early 1980s, successive Taoisigh (prime ministers) were conscious of alienating the dominant conservative vote. Ireland’s attorney general warned at the time that the wording of the amendment was too ambiguous and could have potentially negative consequences for women’s healthcare. But momentum had gathered and the referendum resulted in a two-to-one majority in favour of the amendment. Is Ireland unusual in having an amendment of this kind? Yes. Regulation of abortion through a constitution is rare (because constitutions are difficult to change). It has left Ireland with some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, which have been regularly criticised by a number of international human rights bodies. Why is this vote happening now? There have been a number of high profile, distressing cases in the recent past which have highlighted the inadequacy of the current law. Just two examples (there are many more) are the death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012 from sepsis after being refused an abortion during miscarriage and the case of Amanda Mellet, who was forced to travel to England to terminate a pregnancy with fatal foetal anomaly. Mellet’s case reached the UN Human Rights Committee, which concluded that Ireland’s near total abortion ban was discriminatory and amounted to “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”. In 2017 the Irish government convened a Citizens Assembly to consider evidence on abortion law reform. The 99 randomly selected citizens, after hearing extensive evidence, voted voted 64% to 36% in favour of having no restrictions on termination in early pregnancy. What is the Irish government’s official position on the vote? The government is split on the vote, with many undeclared. However, it appears that more support “yes”. Party leaders are supportive – Leo Varadkar (the Taoiseach and leader of Fine Gael) is openly pro-repeal, however his party is allowing a free vote. Micheál Martin, leader of the opposition party Fianna Fáil, has also backed repeal, although many in his party think differently. Sinn Féin supports repeal but not abortion without restriction. Members of parliament for Labour, the Green party, Social Democrats and Solidarity-People Before Profit support both repeal and access to abortion up until 12 weeks into a pregnancy. Independents are mixed. What happens if the 8th amendment is repealed? Repeal of the 8th amendment would allow the government to legislate on abortion. The proposed legislation will bring Ireland into line with the majority of European countries, allowing for abortion on request up to the 12th week of pregnancy (subject to medical regulation). After 12 weeks abortion would only be available in cases of fatal foetal anomaly, if the pregnant woman’s life was at risk or if her health was at risk of serious harm. Cases after 12 weeks would have to be approved by two doctors. What happens if Ireland votes to keep the 8th amendment? Nothing would change. The constitution, in conjunction with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, only allows for abortion where there is real and substantial risk to the life – as distinct from the health – of the pregnant woman. She can only access abortion when doctors deem that her life is at risk due to medical complications, or she is at risk of taking her life. Women in their thousands would continue to travel to England and further afield to access abortion or procure abortion pills online illegally, risking criminality. The impact of Brexit on women’s ability to travel freely remains unknown. Who is opposed to repealing the 8th amendment and why? Groups who describe themselves as “pro-life” say they are protecting the foetus through their opposition to any change to Irish abortion law. Many of these groups are supported from abroad, in particular from America, and often align themselves with religious views, in particular the Catholic Church. What is the main argument for repealing the 8th amendment? The main argument is that criminalising abortion does not prevent abortion. In fact countries with liberal abortion laws usually have lower rates of abortion. Women living in Ireland have abortions, either abroad and at their own cost, or illegally in Ireland with the abortion pill. All a “yes” vote will do is allow the government to legislate for women to access healthcare legally in Ireland. Is it likely that the vote will result in repeal? Polls have indicated that marginally more people support a “yes” vote. There has been concern over voter manipulation, in particular foreign interference with both

Blog, Essays, Monishots

The Catalonia Stalemate.

/

On the 1st of October 2017, the Catalans voted in a controversial referendum that now has the global media focused on the wealthy North East region of Spain. Catalonia is an integral part of Spain whose quest for independence dates back centuries, with its own distinct language and culture it is also blessed with abundant resources. Its contribution to the Spanish economy doubles that of Scotland to the UK. With independence, the region would have a GDP of about €270 billion and a GDP per capita of €30,000, which would make it wealthier than Italy. The dominant feeling among Catalonia’s political elite is that a people whose taxes sustain the central government should expect more in return. It is therefore not too difficult to see that even if previous bids for self-rule were driven by a perceived difference in identity the current one has its origin in political economy and resource control. Firstly, let us not forget that the referendum of 1st October is illegal. Spain’s democratic constitution of 1978, which had overwhelming support from the Catalans back then gave the region huge autonomous powers but nevertheless affirmed the indivisibility of the Spanish nation. The constitution can only be amended by the Spanish parliament. So unlike the UK, where an autonomous Scotland was duly authorized by the central government in Westminister to hold a referendum, Mr. Puigdemont’s referendum was not only in contravention of that constitution but was also outlawed by a Spanish court. You simply cannot eat your cake and have it. The referendum went ahead all the same and despite a police clampdown people turned up on polling day to cast their votes. If the bourgeois Catalan nationalists who narrowly won the regional elections two years ago banked on the long-held sentiments against Madrid then they had another thing coming. A break down of the official figures did not show a record turnout as was touted. As a matter of fact, it was less than 50%. Could this be a reflection of an earlier poll that revealed only a similar percentage of Catalans want a referendum if the Spanish government objects? It could sound perfunctory to assert that a ‘reticent’ majority oppose the independence bid but given the aforementioned facts can one say otherwise with certainty? The following week thousands poured out into the streets of Barcelona to protest against the independence referendum. Similar pro-Spain protests erupted in Madrid and other cities across the country. While some called for dialogue others insisted that the authorities should take a tougher stance against the “golpistas” (coupists). The stage was set and we all watched mouth agape in anticipation of a major European crisis as the October 10th date approached for the Catalan leader to declare independence from Spain. Alas, it came to an anti-climax as Mr. Puigdemont only signed a document but failed to publicly announce that the region was now an independent nation. His words: “We propose the suspension of the effects of the declaration of independence for a few weeks, to open a period of dialogue, and if everyone acts responsibly, the conflict can be resolved in a calm and agreed manner.” My first reaction was to shake my head and mutter “politicians!”, when will they altruistically carry along the masses they claim to lead? There is little doubt that the turnout at the polls would have been much less if many had foreseen this. Juxtapose all these and one may begin to see why Mariano Rajoy and his cabinet emphatically insist on a unified Spain. Now the central government is set to activate Article 155 of the constitution, which enables it to revoke some of Catalonia’s autonomous powers and take over the running of the region. We are witnessing a series of events which will aggravate the already sour deadlock. The pro-independence Catalan National Assembly Assemblea Nacional called on consumers to put pressure on banks that moved their official headquarters to other locations in the wake of the political crisis. There are reports that some customers are already complying with this directive. However, there are no indications that the intended impact of such action is being realised as the affected banks claim that business has been largely normal. Moreover, whatever effect that may have was already proactively countered with a swell in deposits as the banks moved their legal domiciles last month. Let us remember that before the invocation of Article 155, Mr. Puigdemont had failed to respond unequivocally when Prime Minister Rajoy asked if he had declared the region’s independence from Spain. So what exactly does he intend to achieve? What strategy does he want to deploy going forward? It certainly does not include the “real sauce” if you know what I mean, for even in a modern and civilized Europe secession has often been characterised by armed conflict when branded illegal by the central government. And bearing in mind that the EU would naturally discourage separatists especially as it is locked in a tricky Brexit negotiation it didn’t come as a surprise when the union declined Puigdemont’s mediation appeal. So when the Catalan leader rather than declare independence said in a long speech that they “have been prepared to engage in whatever dialogue was necessary to do so in a mutually agreed way”, one begins to wonder. Did he suddenly realise that dialogue is essential after the fact? Need we remind him that all the wars in the former Yugoslavia started with a referendum? Or that Iraq is on the brink of another civil war because of the colossal miscalculation of the Kurdish independence declaration? We can only hope that these realities informed the cautious choice of words. As the push to implement the provisions of Article 155 begins in earnest, the coming days will likely be more chaotic if the bedlam witnessed before and after the independence poll is anything to go by. It will be proper for both parties to have back channels for a negotiated political solution despite the usual tough talk. Let us hope that they will settle for a financial

Join our essay competition.

This will close in 13 seconds

Solverwp- WordPress Theme and Plugin

Scroll to Top