Professor Binchy was away on holidays and it proved a little more difficult than expected to track him down. I hope the piece submitted is OK. If you would like to talk or need a photo of William, you can get me at 01-8747553 or 087-2471472. Smyth - PLC Press Office
The summer holidays are a time for relaxation, turning off the television and forgetting about the cares of working life. Paradoxically, they also offer the opportunity for reflection about the future for ourselves, our families and our society.
Anyone from Dublin who has spent a week or two in Kerry, Cavan or Wexford will have responded to the signs of social and economic change in every village and pondered on how things are likely to unfold in coming years.
There is a sense that Ireland is at a crossroads. The physical and economic constraints of daily life have eased for many people; authoritarian structures, often involving corruption and betrayal, have been exposed; our young people have a confidence to succeed at the highest international level.
So what direction should our society now choose? What should be the basis of our social philosophy in the coming years? There is a curious lack of analysis of this question at the party political level. Yet the issue is clearly one of the greatest importance.
When one looks at a range of seemingly disconnected matters of controversy in the past few months - the North, Travellers, asylum-seekers and abortion - one can find that a common theme emerges. This is one of social inclusion and exclusion.
As Irish people we have now the opportunity to define ourselves in terms of what we are rather than what we are not. The kind of Ireland I would like to see - and which I suspect most Irish people favour - is an inclusive truly democratic society accepting everyone, regardless of religious or political background, age, physical power or dependency, as an equal member with equal rights.
This principle of inclusiveness is not empty rhetoric: it translates into a practical, and at times challenging, agenda. It means, for example, that Irish people of unionist views should be welcomed as part of the Irish political tapestry as warmly as those of the nationalist tradition.
If we are to achieve real unity on the island, it has to be based on acceptance of diversity of political attachments. I personally regret that the proposed Orange Order march in Dublin fell through. This is not because the history, or even present reality, of the Orange Order is beyond serious criticism. It is precisely because political leadership consists in moving people from entrenched positions into the clear air of freedom to hold diverse views.
The political leadership in relation to asylum-seekers has been lamentable. Far from welcoming them, and encouraging local communities to make special efforts to reach out to them, our political leaders have struck a tone of suspicion, hostility and control. If our politicians could have the vision to recall our own history of political and religious persecution and the confidence to embrace an international perspective, the treatment of asylum-seekers would be transformed.
In regard to Travellers, our social policy continues to be ineffective because it proceeds largely on the premise that Travellers' propensity to travel is the product of some quixotic aberration of character rather than springing from a legitimate source. A housing policy for settled people which proceeded on the basis that the desire to stay in one place throughout the year was not a legitimate one would inevitably fail.
Equally an accommodation policy for Travellers which rejects their need to travel cannot succeed. Again, one must have regard to historical and international perspectives.
Throughout history there have been groups of recurrent nomadic disposition. The historical sources of the nomadism of Irish Travellers are a matter of debate, but the fact that Travellers have such an imperative cannot be denied. Political leadership is crucial yet, with notable exceptions such as Chris Flood and Liz McManus, has been largely lacking.
If our society is to be truly inclusive, our protection will extend to unborn children. The unborn are in need of our protection. They are small, utterly dependent, invisible and unable to speak up for themselves. These vulnerabilities inspire humane and inclusive societies to come to the assistance of the unborn.
Brian Lenihan's Oireachtas Committee on Abortion has done a most comprehensive job of consultation and analysis. I am not aware of any similar attempt in any other country to engage the issue so fully. What emerged from its public hearings was the repeated message that the present medical practice, based on the official guidelines of the Medical Council, should have legal backing.
As a result of the Supreme Court's mistaken interpretation of law and medical practice in the X case (where no evidence from any psychiatrist or obstetrician was heard), it will be necessary to amend the Constitution to ensure that the law comes into line with the present ethical guidelines and practice.
As with other issues of inclusiveness, good laws are only part of the solution. A genuinely pro-life society must have comprehensive policies to reduce the pressures that lead to abortion. The Government must support initiatives in housing, education and family law, as well as expanding its financial assistance to organisations which offer positive alternatives to abortion.
How will Ireland look in 10 years time? Is it too much to hope that peace in the North will have been consolidated, political diversity cherished, the families of asylum-seekers integrated into our society and the legitimate aspirations of Travellers recognised?
Is it right to expect that our law and social policies should have been harmonised with a genuinely pro-life philosophy? As the evenings get shorter and we return to our day-to-day tasks, is that not an agenda that we should encourage our politicians to adopt?
William Binchy is Regius Professor of Laws at Trinity College Dublin and legal adviser to the Pro-Life Campaign