Sir, – Claire McEvoy of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) says that “the right of the public to protest in public places” is a “a sign of a healthy vibrant democracy”, but questions what she calls the “extreme measures” of banning protests in the vicinity of Leinster House (“Are barriers, road closures and locking down the city centre the right way to police protests?”, Opinion & Analysis, September 30th).
These positions are strange for two reasons.
First, Article 40.6 of the Constitution, which protects the right to protest, specifically mentions “the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas” as the only public place in the State where protests can be prevented by law. Beyond this, the courts have made clear that anyone protesting peacefully in a public place can avail of the constitutional right to do so.
Second, if the ICCL supports the right to peaceful protest, why has it vigorously supported the first targeted ban on the right to protest of a specific group holding specific views since the 1930s? The so-called “Safe Access Zones” Act will be brought into force on October 17th and seeks to prohibit anyone protesting against abortion from gathering outside hospitals or GP surgeries where these procedures are carried out.
The ban applies only to those protesting in relation to abortion. Anyone who wishes to protest peacefully outside hospitals or GP clinics for any other reason will remain perfectly entitled to do so, without restriction.
Does Ms McEvoy believe that such a targeted ban on specific protests against a specific Government policy is “a sign of a healthy vibrant democracy”?
This law is almost certainly a breach of the Constitution, but it has been loudly supported by the ICCL – surely the first time that a civil liberties organisation has supported a draconian restriction on a civil liberty. It is strange indeed to criticise the regulation of protests at Leinster House which enjoy no constitutional protection, while supporting draconian restrictions against peaceful protests which are specifically protected by the Constitution.
I’m sure it would never be the case that the ICCL supports protests which it agrees with, but supports the banning of protests it disagrees with? – Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.