That is a point of information.

That was a point of information to me. I am very glad to take it. It does not in any way advance the Minister's case, needless to say. The Minister has very little to advance his case, except Government bluff and bluster. What bothers me most about the Minister's bluff and bluster is that it trivialises the life-and-death nature of this issue. I have absolutely no problem with the HSE putting on the record its wish to back up the Minister's case. I would be very surprised if the Minister brought forward legislation…

I am simply making the point. The endocrinologist, Professor Donal O'Shea said - again I am paraphrasing from memory - that the HSE and the politicians were in the grip of the activists. The idea that when we are dealing with the HSE we are dealing with some kind of honourable neutral, incapable of being corrupted by ideology, has long since lost its credibility. However, I reiterate that the Minister has signally failed to bring forward evidence from a single healthcare facility. Let us be clear that we are talkin…

I am just responding to the point.

All I will say is this: there is no contradiction between honouring mothers by recognising their particular role in the Constitution-----

-----and witnessing to the respect due to mothers and unborn babies. I remind my colleagues Senators Clonan, McGreehan and Gavan and the Minister that there are people who witness against abortion, who believe in the value of respecting human life, who support the idea of peaceful and honourable witnessing to this in public and who do not believe dissent should be curtailed. Among them are people who have also suffered. It is important that everyone here accept intellectually and internally that nobody has a monopo…

I accept that but it does indicate the insiderism going on. The council, an organisation that gets funded for 95% or 96% of its staffing costs, is out canvassing for one side in a referendum campaign without having consulted ordinary people and, as far as I know, without even having consulted its member organisations.

Notwithstanding the McKenna principles stipulating public money should not be used-----

Understood. I have two other points. My friend and colleague Senator Clonan referred to laïcité . He turned to me as he made his remark-----

I am, but obviously, I have to try to challenge the arguments being advanced against the amendment.

I am trying not to say anything twice.

There are many good examples here because the Minister’s case is so weak.

There are a lot of good examples because the Minister's case is so weak.

On the laïcité point, I am not sure it is the definition of laïcité that there is civil space from which faith voices have to be completely excluded. As I explained, this is not about a religious view necessarily. Many people who have no religious faith see this issue exclusively through a human rights lens. It was Senator Clonan's first misunderstanding that this was about religious people. He then said ideological. He appeared to accept that this is philosophical. It is about the value we place on human life and …

No, I will withdraw it with a view to reintroducing it on Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 4: In page 6, lines 12 and 13, to delete “, within that 100 metres”.

I move amendment No. 5: In page 6, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(3) Nothing in section 2(2) shall prohibit a person from engaging in debate or lawful protest, advocacy or dissent on premises occupied by a designated institution of higher education, provided such debate, protest, advocacy or dissent is not directed at a specific relevant healthcare premises or persons accessing a relevant healthcare premises.”.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(4) Nothing in section 2(2) shall prohibit a person from engaging in silent prayer in a public place.”. The amendment will come in under the section that provides for exceptions to the requirements set out in section 2. Not every part of what the legislation proposes is problematic. Section 2(1) states: A person shall not, without lawful authority, in a safe access zone, engage in conduct— (a) that is likely to obstruct or impede …

What I am saying is not irrelevant.

I am trying to address the issue of what matters in our society in terms of respecting people's freedoms. The irony in this case was that the garda was completely polite but in the wrong on the law and not acting in the best interests of a free and open democracy. Billboard Chris, a Canadian guy, was completely in the right in terms of asserting his right to say something that was truthful and was not threatening, abusive, indecent or obscene. Again, I am constantly referring back to the wording in the public order…