As expected, UN pressures us to liberalise our abortion law even more

 

• Ireland appeared before the UN Human Rights Council last week
   
• As expected, several countries asked us to liberalise our abortion law even more
   
• Even totalitarian North Korea and China lectured us on our human rights record

As we mentioned in a previous e-letter, Ireland was due to appear before the UN Human Right Council. That took place last Wednesday and, as we anticipated, pressure was exerted on Ireland to further liberalise its already very permissive abortion law. Pressure was applied to push us in a more socially liberal direction in other areas as well.
 

The Irish delegation was headed by the Minister for Children, Roderic O’Gorman. After having considered the national report submitted by Minister O’Gorman, each country representative on the Council presented recommendations, for a total of 260. (They can be found here)

We will consider some of them under a number of headings.

 Abortion

The delegates from Austria, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland all urged us to use the upcoming three-year review of our abortion law to make it even easier to obtain a termination.
 

For example, the Austrian representative said: “Ensure that the three-year review of the Health Act 2018 on the Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy is comprehensive and focused on providing a human rights-compliant framework for abortion, including by identifying and eliminating barriers impacting marginalized groups”.
 

The Danish delegate told us: “Ensure that the three-year review of the Termination of Pregnancy Act focuses on ways to expand access to voluntary termination of pregnancy, both in law and in practice”.
 

The Netherlands said: “Build on the steps undertaken in the area of sexual and reproductive rights by removing the remaining barriers to accessing safe and legal abortion services and making it practically available to all”.
 

Bizarrely, the Iceland representative asked us to, “Expand access to abortion and repeal the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act”, as it if this has not already happened in 2018.

 Schools

Surprisingly, no recommendation made reference to denominational schools or to the role of religion in education. The recommendations about schools were quite broad in their scope.
 

“Ensure fair access for all children to quality education” (Qatar);

“Prioritize equitable access to quality education opportunities at all levels” (Botswana);

“Consider introducing legislative guarantee of free primary and secondary education” (Ukraine);

“Improve the system providing children and their parents a real opportunity to choose from among religious, multi-denominational or non-denominational types of schooling and curricula.” (Czechia).
 

Gender
 

Germany and Norway recommended we review Article 40 of the Constitution, which covers fundamental rights, and Article 41, which deals with the issue of women in the home, to make them gender neutral. 

Israel asked to prohibit “conversion therapies”. Cuba and Cyprus wanted more efforts to reduce the gender pay gap. Israel also asked to prohibit “conversion therapies”. Only Panama mentioned sex education while Chile and Iceland raised the issue of intersex children, asking for a ‘rights-based’ care protocol.

 

Family
 

Only Egypt mentioned the natural family as “fundamental unit of society”. Paraguay asked for “additional support to families in situation of homelessness”.

 

Some of the recommendations to Ireland seemed to be totally spurious, particularly when we consider the countries that were presenting them. For example, Iran was concerned about “worrying reports on chronic sexual abuse against underage girls in schools” in Ireland. North Korea asked Ireland to “cease torture and cruel or inhuman treatment of children in places of reformatory and industrial schools operated by religion institutions.” Venezuela asked Ireland to “Provide an apology for the serious violations suffered by mixed race children in institutions or unsuitable families”. China asked us to consider the right of ethnic minorities.

  

Ireland has adopted all the recommendations, which basically means that we will take them into consideration and produce a response before the next session of the Human Right Council that will take place in February and March 2022. The Irish government has also committed to produce a voluntary ad interim report by the late 2023.

Two major setbacks for freedom of conscience and assembly

In the middle of the current crisis, it is easy to miss other stories. One is that we have had a bad few days for freedom of conscience, speech and association in various parts of Europe. For example, on March 12^th last week, both the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the European Court of Human Rights refused to hear cases that would protect the freedoms of those opposed to abortion.

The first refers to a Public Space Protection Order introduced in April 2018 by the London Borough of Ealing.  The order bans activities such as public prayer or offers of help to women considering abortion in the vicinity of abortion clinics in the Ealing area. The ban was challenged by Alina Dulgheriu, a young mother who changed her mind about having an abortion after speaking to pro-life activists near an abortion facility.

Ms Dulgheriu said the ban imposed by Ealing Borough violates fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. She challenged the Ealing Council’s order twice unsuccessfully until her case reached the Supreme Court, which has now rejected her appeal.

The second and even more serious case involving two midwifes working in Sweden who said they would not help to carry out abortions on the ground of conscientious objection. Sweden, which has the reputation of being tolerant and liberal, is one of the very few countries where conscientious objection to abortion is not recognised by law.

The midwives in question,  Ellinor Grimmark and Linda Steen said that they could not practice their profession if were obliged to help with abortions by their employers. They had lost several cases in Sweden and now the European Court of Human Rights has declared the two applications inadmissible, confirming that the position of the Swedish authorities.

The Court’s decision deprives those women of the right to conscientious objection and it is even more worrying as it could be extended to other medical professionals.

The European Centre for Law and Justice claimed the decision represents a “moral regression” and a complete departure from previous judgements of the Court. It has also expressed doubts about the impartiality of the three judges involved in this case, as one of them is a past member of the Swedish Gender Equality Agency while another has been involved in feminist activities since the 1980s.

The aforementioned Ms. Dulgheriu is now considering bringing her case to European Court of Human Rights, but the decision concerning the midwives is not encouraging.

In both the British and the Swedish cases we see that the right to have an abortion is now considered so fundamental that it prevails when there is a conflict with other important rights such as freedom of conscience, or speech, or of assembly. Abortion is now so established in our culture that everything else is deemed secondary and has to be sacrificed.  The recent court decisions confirm that the slippery slope is real, once the right to life is infringed all other fundamental rights will inevitably suffer.

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” So begins the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris 70 years ago, on 10^th December 1948.

The idea of dignity, which is the basis of any human right, has a long history that goes back to the fundamental Christian teaching that all human beings have an intrinsic value and are created morally equal. This value does not depend on circumstances or specific characteristics but simply on the fact that human beings are created by God. They have a value in themselves by dint of that fact.

The uniqueness of every person has moral significance, as it implies an obligation to respect and cherish each single human. There is value inherent to every person. This is precisely what we mean by dignity and this the source of all individual and collective rights.

Samuel Moyn, professor of law and history at Yale University, has pointed out that the first country to mention dignity in its Constitution was Ireland in 1937. As an alternative to classical liberalism and to totalitarian regimes, both of which were perceived as forms of secularism, the Irish Constitution was inspired by Christian values and specifically by the principle of human dignity.

In invoking the Trinity, the Preamble proclaims that the Irish people adopt Bunreacht na hÉireann “so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured”. Not simply the freedom, as in the liberal tradition, but also the dignity of the individual.

In that same year, Pope Pius XI wrote his encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge in which he denounced Nazism because it “violates every human right and dignity”. This was in line with a long tradition of Catholic social teaching about the necessary respect for all persons, as created by God.

It was only a few years later, after the tragedy of World War II, that the principle of dignity appeared in new national constitutions and international declarations. The Charter of United Nations (1945) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) both mention human dignity, and so does, for example, the first article of the German Constitution (1949): “Human dignity shall be inviolable.”

The Preamble of the Charter says that the peoples of the United Nations are determined to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small”.

The Universal Declaration, mentions dignity twice in its preamble, then in its first article (“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”), and later two more times with respect to just remuneration and to economic, social and cultural rights. The French philosopher Jacques Maritain, a Catholic convert, had a central role in the drafting of the Declaration.

In celebrating 70 years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights let us not forget the long history behind its fundamental principles, a history deeply indebted to Christianity.