Legislating for "limited" abortion, a dilemma based on the Sunday Independent opinion poll.

This post is inspired by an opinion poll in last Sunday's Sunday Independent. I can't locate an online version but if anyone can find a link for me I'd appreciate it. 

As I've said before, I ain't no big city lawyer but there's one thing that puzzles me about the reporting in the media regarding the discussion about abortion in the case of rape. There have been opinion polls over the last few weeks that ask people if they favour making abortion available in the case of rape. This is a very emotional question. Rape is a horrible crime, a violation that most of us could never imagine. It is argued that making abortion available in the case of pregnancy arising from rape is a compassionate response to women who have suffered a huge trauma.
I've heard a lot of people who describe themselves as pro-life say that in the case of rape they'd be willing to make an exception, indeed I've heard it from members of my own family. I've heard other impassioned campaigners speak about being forced to carry a reminder of the horrible experience of rape for the rest of their lives.
This is a complicated debate. It attempts to balance the rights of a woman who has suffered a violation and deserves to be treated with compassion and the unborn child. It is an attempt to see justice done, how will that happen? On the other hand there is the new life, does the unborn have any rights in this context? I will not go near any of those questions, instead I have another issue that struck me as I looked at the opinion poll in the Sunday Independent last Sunday (3/2/2013). I can't find a link to an online version but if anyone can please add it in the comment section below. 
If a woman is pregnant as a consequence of rape and seeks an abortion who decides? Since we are discussing a crime, surely it must have to be a judge. A decision to permit an abortion based on the fact that conception occurred as a consequence of rape is a decision that a serious crime has been committed. Will the judge hear evidence on behalf of the accused as in any rape trial? It seems to me that in such a case that would be essential, necessary before any decision could be made.
At this stage I think it's necessary to mention that pregnancy resulting from rape is rare. It is also necessary to mention that most women who are raped are in fact raped by men whom they are in a relationship with. This may be a marriage relationship or an on again/off again relationship. In other words the attacker is known to the victim, it would not be hard to name him to the authorities. The victim may be afraid of her attacker but surely it would be necessary to name him since the decision that a rape took place, and thus an abortion is legal, is a de facto judgement.
Presumably, in the case of limited abortion, there would be a time limit imposed. suppose that limit was twenty weeks. That would leave very little time to carry out an investigation. It is more likely that in the case of limited abortion the accused would have to have his day in court, the right to defend himself. That would be the only right thing to do, however that would lengthen the process to an extent that would make an abortion based on rape impossible. Justice delayed is justice denied but hasty justice does not help anyone either.  
Introducing a limited form of abortion in the very rare case of pregnancy resulting from rape would, in my untrained legal opinion, result in huge legal problems. In order to provide abortion in that very rare case you would have to introduce a very liberal law providing abortion on demand and with no time limit.

The Story of Why (the Irish Times is on its last legs).

Here's a question for you? When was the Irish Times' circulation at its highest? Believe it or not it was in the second half of 2007, after the sub-prime crisis hit the US and all but the most delusional saw that the bottom was falling out of property. In other words the Times was most popular when Ireland was at its most dysfunctional.

Since then the sales of the Times have likewise fallen. People are less interested in Fintan O'Toole's analysis of why Ireland's so utterly corrupt (... and why, oh why can't people be as smart as him and see it all) than they were in the huge property supplements exhorting the faithful to buy now before their badly built, pyrite infested flats/houses were out of their reach. 
When the sales of the "paper of record" dipped below 100,000 a year ago they began to worry and started a campaign to rebrand that culminated in a change in ... format! This was accompanied by a video promoting their new slogan! "The Story of Why." I wonder how much they spent on that? Sounds like something some stoned student came up with in the Trinners common room. 

The new slogan makes me think is why is the Irish Times even asking Why? We all know that they are the answer to a question that most of us never asked and more importantly, don't care about. The highly dubious tactics they used last year when the death of Savita Halappanavar became public knowledge is but one example of how the Irish Times is no longer a newspaper. It is a campaigning paper of opinion, not record. That is why it is dying. On the sensitive issue of abortion they are, and a glance at their archive will reveal they always have been, a campaigning paper that wants abortion in Ireland. A paper that does not consider the humanity of the unborn person, a paper that commodifies
human life.

 

I'm a celebrity lawyer ... get me out of here!

I should really begin this post by saying that I'm not a solicitor.  I'm not a barrister either; I'm not even a law clerk.  Everything I know about the legal profession, I've gleaned from box sets of Rumpole Of The Bailey, with the odd episode of The Irish R.M. thrown in for good measure.  

 This is a joke, please don't report me to Aodhán Ó Ríordáin!

So it could be that when it comes to reporting on one of their own in their official publication, the Law Society of Ireland operate a clandestine set of rules that the rest of us don't know about.  

That said....I was more than a little surprised when a solicitor friend put me wise to the article appearing on page 9 of the December 2012 edition of the Law Society Gazette.  (You can access the entire publication here: Law Society Gazette and then scroll down to page 9.)

As you can see, the story seems to be part of a regular slot entitled "In the media spotlight" - presumably focusing on members of the profession who are involved in high profile cases.  The December slot is devoted to Gerard O'Donnell, Solicitor for Praveen Halappanavar, husband of Savita who died tragically on October 28th in University College Galway.  

I have a few problems with this article.  Why was it considered an appropriate topic for inclusion in the Gazette, given the fact that an investigation is currently underway and the results are awaited?  Newspapers can't report on legal cases before they come before the courts for fear that the Defendant will claim that his right to a fair trial has been prejudiced.  Why wasn't the same consideration applied here? Surely the editors of the Gazette were aware of the way in which Savita's tragedy has become part of the national debate on abortion?  Yet they chose to print an article which allowed the solicitor involved to broadcast his own views on the matter.  In fact, the Gazette allowed him to canvass his case without any thought for the fact that this implies a clear bias on the part of the editors:-

"It was disappointing that some politicians sought to coerce my client to partake in a process in which he had absolutely no faith or trust."

"I would have hoped that the Government would have responded promptly and efficiently to my client's request for a full public inquiry, but unfortunately, this has not yet happened."

But perhaps the most worrying aspect of this article is the way in which it highlights the way in which the media was used throughout.  The solicitor himself admits on several occasions throughout the article that media manipulation allowed him to stage-manage the way in which the case was handled:-

"I had some experience of working with the media.  I have always had an interest in human rights and in the equal treatment of all persons.  I realised this case would benefit from sustained exposure in the media rather than a one-off media 'storm', and so we chose to release information to the media more slowly in order to ensure that the case would have continued momentum.  This certainly worked."

"A case such as this highlights just how important the media is in society.  The interest in the case could not be achieved simply by writing letters."

It is hard to read these comments without being amazed at the fact that the solicitor involved sees nothing wrong with ensuring a "drip-feed" of information to the media - something which we have seen result in near-hysteria during the weeks following Savita's death.  To act in such a way over an issue of vital importance like abortion is grossly irresponsible.  It is also quite remarkable that the editors of the Gazette would see fit to publish this piece.  By revealing the way in which the media was controlled during this fraught and tragic case, they have confirmed what many suspected but few were able to prove.  Gerard O'Donnell's own words do not lie.  

Unfortunately, they also reveal a more fundamental problem in society - the fact that the media is being placed above everyone.  Cases involving human tragedy are played out in the most public forum possible.  Maximum attention is sought and ensured, thus denying the general public the opportunity to have a calm and rational response.  And what happens now, when we don't even have the results of the investigation?  Those responsible for dripping the information to us are heralded by their own professional Body, and given even more exposure!  

Perhaps the Law Society should bear in mind the comment that my friend made to me - the fees for membership of this organisation increase annually.  For a pro-life solicitor like him, one-sided articles like this one really stick in the craw, not to mention the wallet.

I'm a celebrity lawyer ... get me out of here!

Just in case you thought I was a voice in the wilderness ...

It seems as if I am not alone in questioning the Irish Times' decision to revise the figures that were at the #march4choice on Saturday last. Plenty more people out there thought that something stunk about the 'paper of record.' So hats off to my favorite military historian, The Thirsty Gargoyle who has more time on his hands than I, hard as that is to believe. He actually counted the people at the march and he used the video, you know, they one that was to prove that there were simply thousands and thousands there. Well, guess what? He counted 850! So, it's reasonable to believe that the march picked up people along the way, therefore the original Garda figure was right. You can read The Thirsty Gargoyle's post here. I recommend his blog by the way.

The Irish Times, our 'paper of record' has some explaining to do after March For Choice debacle yesterday

Well, the #march4choice that took place yesterday (29^th September) in Dublin definitely justifies a blogpost.

What shenanigans!  Pro-choice advocates are entitled to peacefully protest, and are entitled to their day out as it were, as are pro-lifers, but the chaos that reigned in the Irish Times' reporting of the event in the late afternoon and evening yesterday could be the subject of a dissertation.  

While I don't have time for that, I do want to record some of what happened for posterity.

I hope the below is comprehensive.  If you feel you can add or clarify anything please feel free to comment below.

The March appeared to pass off peaceably.   A fairly small crowd (several hundred) gathered at 2pm at the Spire and started walking after 2.30pm.    The crowd grew as people joined the March as it progressed. None of this is controversial.

There doesn't appear to have been much media coverage of the event from the start despite the fact that Press Releases were sent according to conference organisers. There was no mention of the event on RTÉ and no mainstream newspaper reporting save the Irish Times.  The fact that RTÉ didn’t report on it was the first hint that the turnout was lower than expected.  So what exactly was the story with the numbers?

According to a tweet from Conor Pope, of the Irish Times at 11.27pm last night,

'Initially I was told that around 500 were there.  At 7.30pm I double-checked and that was confirmed'

As a result of the initial information (note the double checking happened after the initial Irish Times article went online) and discussion with Gardaí on site, an article was published on the Irish Times website after the March ended at 17.50pm with the headline 'Low turnout for 'pro-choice' rally'.   That heading was not unusual given the level of planning and the publicity that the March had garnered including a piece in the Irish Times itself posted at 16.34pm on Friday evening entitled 'Pro Choice Rally expects Thousands'

The original report on the Irish Times website was posted on 17.50pm on Saturday evening.  This article has been removed but you can read the original report (a screenshot) in full below

It's fair to say that subsequent to this article being posted, marchers and supporters of the march took to social media to berate and pressurise the Irish Times to increase the figures.   Part of this included the spreading online of a YouTube video uploaded by @darraghdoyle.  I've embedded it below.

In fairness, I would agree that there are more than 500 people on this video.  There probably is nearer to 800.  

There are not however 'Thousands' as reported in later version of the Irish Times story or indeed 5,000 as tweeted by Labour Party Senator Ivana Bacik!

And there certainly is not 5,000 - 7,000 as tweeted by March organiser Sinead Redmond!

Question - Did choice advocates generally agree with the initial lower figures?

(i) March for Choice speaker @ariel_silvera's tweeted at 7.51pm last night and said that from standing at podium, she could see 1500 at least 

Incidentally @ariel_silvera changed her tune today when she tweeted that the Irish Times had changed their 'early crappy report on the #march4choice Thousands attend pro-choice rally'

(ii)  @rallyforchoice had already started justifying the bad attendance last night, and indeed had started a hashtag entitled #lessthanathousand under which they tweeted things like 'Less than a thousand people built the pyramids' - a fair sentiment.  It would be unusual for @rallyforchoice to be tweeting something like this if they really honestly believed that there were over 2,000 in attendance surely?

(iii) @wendylyon a well-known choice activist also justified the low numbers tweeting @conor_pope '500 still more than any pro-choice rally in ten years'   That is true.

Question - Why did @conor_pope and the Irish Times second-guess themselves?

What inspired the numerous phone calls from Irish Times journalist @conor_pope to the Gardaí?  Is it normal for the Irish Times to ask the Gardaí, not once, not twice but three times about their figures.  And is it normal for the Press Office to be consulted on this as opposed to local Gardaí?  Or was there external pressure on @irishtimes and @conor_pope.  Let's have a look.

Graham Linehan is a well-known comedy writer (of Fr. Ted fame, IT Crowd etc) and importantly, he has over 218,000 followers on Twitter.  So when he tweeted yesterday evening ( around 9pm ) that ‘The Irish Times is a f*+$ing rag’ (except he used the full word), it's not surprising that some people got a little nervous.  He has since deleted that tweet but a simple google search brings it up.  This screen grab is taken at 16.37 on Sunday, 30^th September.

Tweet from @conor_pope sent last night that confirms the @glinner pronouncement about the Irish Times

Graham Linehan subsequently entered into a conversation with @conor_pope the journalist who is accepting 'responsibility' for the initial 'incorrect' story.  It's clear the Irish Times felt under pressure from @glinner.   How he could have so much information on the numbers on the march when he doesn't appear to have been in attendance is another question altogether?  There was a bit of over and back between the two on Twitter with @conor_pope sending no less that five tweets to @glinner 'justifying' the earlier Irish Times story.  Why would an Irish Times journalist feel the need to justify the Irish Times’ report to a comedy writer?

At the same time, back home, the Unlike Youth Defence Facebook page (which I understand is manned by some of the organisers of the #march4choice - though am happy to be corrected on this) decided to launch their own lobbying campaign against the Irish Times.

They tweeted at 19.37 'Can anyone who can contact the Irish Times ASAP to demand that they issue a correction and ideally apology for this factually incorrect - or, as we like to call it, lying- piece' 

A contributor to the same page suggested that people should contact Irish Times journalist @conor_pope and referred to him as a 'sympathetic IT journalist'  Strange.

@niamhpurseil tweeted @glinner that the March 'included several IT journalists in private capacity'.  Just saying.

   

At 19.58, the Unlike Youth Defence page then directed their attention at Hugh Linehan, the editor of the Irish Times asking people to contact him directly linking @darraghdoyle's YouTube (see above).

At 20.19, they stated that they were 'INCANDESCENT with rage that sloppy reporting from our national paper of record' 

 

-->

And some of the contributors to the page (also part-organisers of the March) got fairly angry with what they saw as an incorrect report

Oh and @ChristineBohan of online news aggregator The Journal certainly deserves a mention here for spending the evening ensuring that at least The Journal got it ‘right’.  Given Bohan’s history of hostility towards pro-life advocates, it’s no wonder she spent so much time getting ‘clarity’ on the numbers.  The Journal doesn’t merit too much discussion on here to be honest.   It doesn’t even pretend to be impartial on this issue.  For Christine Bohan’s credentials, you can check out this article she wrote last year where she refers to pro-life advocates simply as the ‘noisy religious right’  The Journal.  Bless.

Anyway, all of the protagonists expressed a sign of relief when they ultimately got what they wanted from the Irish Times at 22.35pm last night.

This article confirms that (eventually) the Garda Press Office (as opposed to the Gardaí on the ground!) agrees that there 'may' have been in excess of 2,000 people involved.  How this justifies a headline of 'Thousands attend pro-choice rally' I do not know.

I have screenshot the article at 17.22pm Sunday, 30^th September.   Given the bungle that was this event from beginning to end, I can't imagine it remaining on the website for too much longer.  @hlinehan and @conor_pope will hardly want to be reminded of this mess.

Just shows what a few calls to the right people and what a popular Irish comedy writer abroad can achieve with our ‘so-called paper of record’.  I wonder will @glinner write a TV series based on this?

It.is.pure.comedy.