On hundreds of occasions since the commencement of the new abortion law in January, pro-life activists have chosen to picket venues where abortions are carried out. By and large, these protests have attracted very little media attention.
It was something of a surprise, therefore, to see such a protest at Holles Street Hospital hit the headlines in the manner that it did last week. Liveline’s telephone lines lit up with outraged members of the public. The Irish Times, Independent and Examiner weighed in with condemnations, and most of the daytime radio programmes ran items discussing whether it is time for such protests to be banned. It is not.
The referendum last year removed the right to life from unborn children. It did not remove any rights, let alone the right to free speech, from born adults. In a democracy, the right to express dissent and protest is vital, and it is not reserved to, or denied to, any minority, interest group, or campaign.
Those of us who believe abortion is wrong have a right to say so, and a right to demonstrate peacefully in public.
Proposals for so-called ‘exclusion zones’ would not see these protests banned, their supporters say, but would see them moved to a more appropriate location, several hundred meters away from where the abortions are taking place.
This is, they say, to minimise the distress caused to any woman seeking an abortion who may have to walk past the protests.
In addition, they seek to prevent distress to people who may be upset by the protests for other reasons – parents who have suffered a miscarriage, or the loss of a small child for example.
Restriction
A well-intentioned restriction on the right to free speech, however, is still a restriction. It sets a precedent that could, and arguably should, have impacts well beyond the abortion debate. After all, is it legitimate for vegans to protest a steak restaurant, with images of dead cattle, in order to reduce the amount of beef eaten?
Is it legitimate for people to protest a large Chinese company based in Dublin over the internment of Muslims in China, with images of tortured Chinese children? In either case, the people being protested might say, reasonably, that the protest is upsetting to their employees and their customers, and that it should be moved.
In either case, they will be able to point to the precedent set in the treatment of pro-lifers.
All of us, whatever our views on abortion, should oppose attempts to police the exercise of free speech. It is a vital, and a foundational right.
That said, I know I am not the only person opposed to abortion who thinks that protesting with white coffins outside a maternity hospital is crass, offensive, and counter-productive.
Holles Street sees tens of thousands of patients each year. For most, thankfully, that journey has a happy end, and the families who walk through those doors leave a few days later one little person larger, with happy memories and a lifetime of hope ahead of them.
That the abortion debate is emotive should not be a surprise to those of us on the pro-life side of the argument”
For others, however, the walk through those doors is amongst the most painful any of us might ever take, and when they leave, they leave with a gaping wound in their hearts where a little person should be.
For those people, the sight of protestors using the most profound symbols of their pain as a prop must be deeply disturbing and infuriating.
There is no cause, most especially the cause of life, that cannot be advanced without inflicting pain and hurt on those in the midst of deep sorrow.
To inflict that distress, even if it was not intentional, was wrong, and it should not happen again.
It also, and this is a secondary concern, does not benefit the pro-life cause. The reason for the media coverage of this protest, rather than the hundreds of others since the start of the year, is that this one could be used to paint the pro-life cause in a negative light.
That the abortion debate is emotive should not be a surprise to those of us on the pro-life side of the argument. The loss of any life is a tragedy, and should be met with compassion, not self-righteousness.
Desire
The desire that protestors may have to shame the state, in this case, comes across to many people as a desire to upset those who have suffered a loss. It may not have been the intent, but that is not a defence for it.
It is right to say that a maternity hospital is not a place for the taking of human life.
It is fair to argue that the abortion law is harmful to women, and children, and to our society at a whole. It is absolutely essential to stand up for the right to free speech, and to oppose efforts to criminalise protests.
But for goodness sakes, leave the white coffins at home, and pray that you never have need of one.