Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
ALAN SHATTER HAS said that a referendum needs to be held on the issue of allowing terminations in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities, rape and incest.
The former justice minister made the comments at a Dublin Rathdown constituency meeting this evening, just four hours after voting against Clare Daly’s Bill on the issue.
Earlier, Daly labelled the Taoiseach “a hypocrite” over his stance on the legislation. Enda Kenny said the bill, which was rejected by 104 votes to 20, was unconstitutional.
Speaking tonight, Shatter recalled opposing the inclusion of the so-called “pro-life” amendment in the Constitution in 1983, saying:
“At that time, I predicted some of the possible consequences of its inclusion in our Constitution and, unfortunately, over the years, some of the predictions made by me have been proved right.”
Shatter reiterated comments he made during the debate on the Protection Of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, saying it is “an enormous cruelty that a woman in this State is compelled to bring to full term a pregnancy where a fatal foetal abnormality has been identified and there is no prospect of a child surviving”.
He also said it is “entirely unacceptable that a woman who is a victim of rape or incest should be compelled to retain a pregnancy resulting from such circumstances”.
Shatter said most of the public agree constitutional change is needed in this regard, adding that he hopes Fine Gael will include a commitment to holding a referendum on the issue in its General Election Manifesto.
Shatter also wants the subject of divorce to be put to the people once again. The 1996 vote allowed for the inclusion in the Constitution of a provision that requires couples to live apart for a minimum of four years before a marriage can be legally dissolved.
He said this time frame “locks estranged spouses into a legal limbo”, “results in thousands being required to involve themselves in two separate sets of court proceedings, one initially for separation and another later for divorce”, and “costs the taxpayer annually millions of euros” through legal aid.
Shatter went on to describe constitutions as “documents of their time” that need to be updated as “society evolves”.
Shatter said that a ‘Yes’ vote in the upcoming Marriage Equality Referendum should not be taken for granted “despite what is represented currently in opinion polls as being overwhelming support for change”.
In 1986, there was similar overwhelming support for constitutional change to permit divorce at this distance from the date of the referendum but, by the time the votes were cast and counted, the support had evaporated.
He said that legal uncertainty surrounding same-sex partners and their children will remain an issue regardless of the outcome of the referendum in May.
“Unfortunately, these issues are not widely understood by the general public and, at the time when Cabinet decided to hold a Marriage Equality Referendum, I emphasised the importance of our enacting the Children and Family Relationships Bill addressing these important parental issues in advance of the Referendum being held.”
Shatter said he is concerned that if this new legislative framework is “not enacted and in place well in advance of the referendum to be held, it will facilitate those opposed to constitutional change generating controversy and muddying the waters and misleading people into voting ‘No’”.
The Fine Gael TD said he is “greatly concerned” that the Children and Family Relationships Bill has not yet been published for second stage debate in the Dáil as he published the draft legislation a year ago.
He added he was “further concerned” that the provisions contained in the Bill relating to surrogacy have been removed and that a separate Bill dealing with both assisted reproduction and surrogacy is to be published by the Department of Health.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
It’s ironic that Shatter ultimately evolved into a hate figure for many on the left when he was arguably the most progressive Minister for Justice that has ever served.
Maybe in his own mind but no one else’s.
Who was a more progressive Minister for Justice then?
Most Justice ministers who do not use information supplied by a commissioner on public TV I’d guess?
Kerry I have often agreed with you with many an issue but I am as shocked as you that Shatter said something that many people feel is right in this situation.
I feel dirty for this because I don’t really like him but if he backs up his word and FG legislate for what he speaks about here then I don’t see the issue.
Kerry, cutting off her nose to spite her face.
Shatter thought that the ancien regime was unchallengeable, and would always win the day, and he backed the wrong horse.
Nope Jason my nose is fine. How’s yours?
Shatter has a brilliant legal mind. Such a pity the power corrupted him. He could have single handily changed this countries legal system for the better.
The boys in the Law Library (and their supporters in Labour) would never have allowed that to happen.
I though Shatter retired from politics to become a chef?
Hes a randy divil who writes saucy books
Does not take long for racism to show itself.
Speculation that he is going to be a chef and an observation that he writes saucy books is racism? You don’t half talk crap. This has to be the most nonsensical so far.
I’d suspect there are comments which have been deleted which would have been the ones the comment about racism was aimed at.
I’d suspect there are comments which have been deleted which would have been the ones the comment about racism was aimed at.
Ahhhhh Bernard a man who thinks. I like you. You will be kept.
Can’t say much for the other clown. Oh the irony of it all
Let the public decide.
That sounds something like democracy
Any chance we could have a referendum on the public ownership of Irish Water?
Failing that a General Election?
Good man Jarlaith
We could be talking GAA and you’d have to bring up Irish Water
Jarlath is either a troll or an idiot or potentially both.
Yes James, correct!
A meaningful referendum on a matter of public concern with serious ramifications for the future generations.
But if you wish to follow the smoke and mirrors of a political elite, chasing shiney marbles off you go son.
Unless I’ve been in coma, Alan was Minister for Justice in the current FG/Lab Govt with a majority in both houses which has enabled them to ram through every piece of legislation and referendum they saw fit.
He even had an opportunity today to support a piece of legislation which could address some issues.
But no, some would suggest they would rather cynically use it as an election platform in the forthcoming elections.
Yet another abortion referendum to carefully fudge the issues?
More work for highly paid Barristers to wax lyrical about the nuances of semantics?
James, how do you think the pitch in Croker is kept so green! Ha, Ha.
Jarlath, perhaps you did not know this but you cannot ram through a referendum.
Well said Jarlath, distraction politics at its best. This government will do anything to deflect attention from Irish Water and this nonsense from Alllahn Shatter is typical.
Yet the hypocrite Shatter voted against Daly’s bill. A bigger hypocrite then most I guess.
Kerry, they will kick the can down the road by promising a referendum if they are reelected, this promise is on the never never as FG don’t have the ba11s to tackle the abortion issue. Labour won’t be part of the next government, it will prob be FF, they are even more spineless.
Or SF who went awol for tonight’s vote
@denito, I totally agree, SF will wait and wait until they get the percentages of those in favour, they will then make their decision, similar to their stance on Irish water. They were quiet on the issue until they saw the mass protests.
I don’t see, however, why Shatter is a hypocrite in voting down an unconstitutional bill while expressing a view that the constitution should be changed. Claire Daly’s bill wouldn’t have changed the constitution – that can only be done through a referendum.
I don’t think he was a hypocrite to do so, more pragmatic.
Even if it turned out to be unconstitutional, they can still pass it just to check. They don’t get fined or anything if it fails constitutionality.
But if he (or more than just 1 Labour member) defied the whip and they were all expelled, the bill would still fail (look at the margin) and the government would collapse.
The campaign for one of the other issues he mentioned (SSM) has already started yet they haven’t actually passed a referendum bill yet. Be very unfortunate timing for the government to collapse.
Whilst I normally disagree with shatter on everything, he has always spoken very compassionately and sensibly on abortion
Not just abortion. He’s hit the nail on the head with all of these.
I’d be the first to knock Fine Gael and their members for the things they do wrong on a regular basis. I wouldn’t be a fan of Alan Shatter either but I do think his comments are welcome and practical. I agree with almost everything he has to say here as long as we have safe guards that no fetus/ child/ baby or whatever people want to define it gets aborted late term like what happens in Canada.
My feelings towards Fine Gael aside. Good job and it is a shame the rest of the party didn’t support the essence of Clare Daly’s bill tonight. No women should ever have to go through a forced pregnancy through rape, incest or stillborn. At the same time we need to minimize the hurt an abortion can have on an unborn baby that is conceived through incest and I would hope that all parties can come up with something that is fair to all citizens.
I wish the rest of the politicians in the Dail would grow a pair of balls and remove these amendments to our constitution. The constitution is not the place for these sweeping statements. They should be removed and the legislators must get on with what they are paid to do.
We cant force people to stay married if they dont want to.
But there is something wrong if the divorce rate is at or approaching 50% like it is in the US and other places and may approach here eventually. There is a feedback loop, people see that the divorce rate is so high that they can get married thinking “well if it doesn’t work out sure I’ll just get a divorce” – lots of others are doing it, this is the social norm. This in turn leads to more divorces, and so on.
The problem here is that (some) people often have shorter periods of “courtship” then before getting married, and give less serious consideration to who they marry. We more often end up marrying the wrong person then! What is the cost to society of that?
When the divorce rate becomes so high like 50% it devalues marriage. And in some ways EG legal costs I would say makes marriage a less desirable prospect than it should be.
We need to find ways to allow divorce but reduce the incidence off it, balance personal freedoms and social constraints – we need both.
What a marriage means to two people is between them some.
If some want to get married and divorced like they’re going grocery shopping, it doesn’t really affect me unless I let it.
To try and influence what marriage “means” by making it unnecessarily difficult to get a divorce is just nanny-stateism. And unlike smoking or drinking, it actually has no tangible benefit to anyone, except those whose ideology would be appeased.
@ Gerard – no you are wrong. People’s understanding of what a marriage means is very much influenced by what they see happening around them. This is called social conditioning and it is part of human nature.
A high divorce rate is not good for anyone concerned.
How about spending more time with your partner before getting married in the first place. Or not getting married at all. The only ones who gain when the divorce rate is high are the lawyers.
No I’m not “wrong”. You disagree with me.
There’s a difference.
“When the divorce rate becomes so high like 50% it devalues marriage”
Even if every other couple on the planet Gay or straight got divorced it would not make an iota of difference to your marriage.
Haven’t Fine Gael already divorced him
Fatal disabilities and rape I can understand, but why make an exception for incest?
Anyway, in more cheerful abortion news http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/6651442 Woo! Choice vindicated!
Hates men. Gets pregnant.
Why wouldn’t incest be mentioned?
1 in 10 abusers were clerical child abusers the rest were people known to victims. I am talking about fathers, uncles, brothers grandfathers etc.
I just think your cheer towards a baby boy being aborted is vile. You are a sick little individual that wants a good roasting and perhaps a good hiding. You are the type of bile that should have been aborted based on hindsight but your mother and father didn’t have a time machine to go back and rid themselves of you. Unlucky them you piece of feses. But instead we are were we are and you laud an innocent child’s death. A child that did nothing other than be conceived as a boy. How stupid and immature are you?
Silver Planet… What a shocking article… #FeminismGoneMad
Something upset you spiderman?
Good point Silver planet – if we support abortion “on demand” as many do, that does mean it can be for any reason, including genetics, gender, eye colour and so on. There are millions of girls “missing” in China for example that were aborted purely because of their gender also.
In my opinion it is a good point against allowing for abortion on demand.
Silver Planet, that report is a hoax made up by an internet newspaper as clickbait. Do your research.
People believe what they want to believe.
http://jezebel.com/that-fake-feminist-aborts-baby-boy-story-fooled-so-many-1685182760
Who’s Alan Shatter? Vaguely recognise the name. Ah well sure he can’t be that important or I’d remember.
Who is shatter never heard of him .
Now I know the whistle blower that did not listen .
This news is Shattering.
Am i missing something Alan ? Were you not the minister for Justice nad tell us why you did none of these which you now call for
How about the government bring in abortions and let the adults make up there own mind as a free world to make informed decisions it’s not north Korea
agree with the opening poster
Shatter was one of the most liberal and best minister in Ireland and it was a sad day when he left
F uck off shitter into the abyss
You have nothing to offer Alan you are a failed has been. Now away and use your firm to block democratic debate in an attempt to save your good name…lol… We know what you are Alan
Did he vote for Clare daly’s bill then? No ? Hypocrite. Talk is cheap – but unfortunately Shatter has an awful lot of talk.
Three FG TD’s in a 5 seater that is being reduced to a four seater. A guy has to stand out somehow.
Headline Text ordinal = 524 Reduced = 5+2+4 = 11
hello divorce byebye daddy vote no no divorce campaign = 490 reduced 4+9+0 = 4+9 = 13
“Yes” = 49 reduced = 4+9 = 13
“Pro Life” = 18 (6+6+6)
“locks estranged spouses into a legal limbo” = 2484 common = 2+4+8+4 = 18 (6+6+6)
From Poster: “Ing the wait”= Jewish = 1179 reduced = 18 (6+6+6)
Equal ordinal 56 reduced = 11
Shatter Poster _ “Dublins” Jewish = 356+102 Reduced = 3+6+5+1+0+2 = 17
ALL quoted texts contain messages
The cat just walked on your keyboard
Frank!
C18
Who’s Alan Shatter?
Like him or not, he’s right on the money with all of these. Especially the Family and Relationships bill. Passing it before the referendum isn’t enough. It has to have happened long enough in advance that people are AWARE that, despite what No campaigners will say, that matter IS in fact already a foregone conclusion.
The government seems to think “Ah sure, as long as it’s passed in advance, there’s no rush. It’ll be grand”. They even excised the more “complicated” issue of surrogacy. You’d think they could move a bit faster…
Not quite the legal genius when you consider the fact that legislating for access to abortion in the cases of incest and rape is a completely unworkable idea. Think back for a moment to the Y case, a woman who should’ve been able to access a termination as she was suicidal. She did her duty, was sufficiently paraded in front of the necessary number of doctors to “prove” she was “suicidal enough” to be shown a scrap of compassion. If you ask women to fit a moral checklist before they are allowed safe access to abortion you are sentencing rape victims to “prove” their rape (keep in mind the extremely low conviction rates and the fact that statistics show most victims know their attacker) surely instead of subjecting people to this degrading and Inhumane ordeal of deciding if they are tragic enough to help we could simply… Wait for it… I know this is a mad concept.. Trust women??
Alan shatter piss off
The government are allowing the public to choose something?? Wait…what? This has to be incorrect….
We all that Shatter has a vendetta to bring down the government. ….. ..
lol,
Rosemary’s Baby.
have your say