Signs of promise of a new Irish politics

Lucinda Creighton – not going away anytime soon

If anyone, in the aftermath of last week’s shameful political shenanigans in the Irish parliament, doubts the character and determination of sacked Minister, Lucinda Creighton, to be a force in the public life and politics of that country in the years ahead, let them begin by reading her blog entry today. It was published in the Irish Mail on Sunday and is now posted on Lucinda Creighton.ie.

This is not a manifesto for a future Irish politics but it is a preliminary for such a manifesto. It addresses from the depths of her heart and soul the concerns which thousands of Irish people share with here this week – not just on the issue of abortion but on the corruption in the very heart of a country which in just two and a half years will be celebrating the centenary of the beginning of its final battle for freedom and independence as a state among the nations of the earth. What freedom, what independence, many are asking? Lucinda Creighton seems to be on the verge of offering Ireland something to make that a redundant question.

On July 1st she delivered a speech in the Irish chamber of deputies, the Dail, in which she elaborated her concerns about abortion in a general societal sense, as well as focusing on specific aspects of the proposed and shamefully designated Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill which she considered, and still considers, to be deeply flawed.

In it she referred to an underlying cancer afflicting Irish public life – in politics, in business, and above all in the media. Reaction to that was near-apoplectic in some quarters. The cries of hurt and indignation from those who thought they were being targeted made headlines the next day

“My speech”, she correctly says, “was incorrectly picked up as singling out members of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party for participating in group think. This is not what I said.”

“What I said in fact, was that group think is a negative feature in society, in the media and in political life. Increasingly we are all supposed to think and speak the same way. There is less and less room in this country for a diversity of opinion, for real and meaningful debate and for genuine analysis. We are all supposed to swim with the tide on every occasion. I consider this dangerous. I am certain that this is dangerous for our democracy.”

That is just as things are in Ireland and the daily exasperation of the millions who listen to and read what the Irish media turns out on a daily basis is sufficient evidence to prove it. When the manifesto for a New Ireland come this must be among the serious illnesses to which it will address itself.

Bloody but unbowed, Ms. Creighton tells us that “This was a long and difficult week, particularly for many in the Fine Gael party. Five of us argued for the right to express an alternative … view on this vitally important piece of legislation. We lost the internal battle to have our voices heard and our consciences respected. This is not a good thing for the democratic process in this State.

“Much of the commentary in the aftermath of Thursday’s vote confirmed to me that our media perpetuates the blind group think which prevailed and contributed to the economic collapse in this country.”

She tells of her “alarm” listening to one of Irish radio’s premier news analysis programmes on the morning after her historic stand against the “flawed” legislation.  “The level of analysis or understanding of what is happening in our shambolic Parliamentary system was alarming,” she said.

“A commentator from the Irish Times seemed only capable of understanding the events of the week in terms of ‘strength’, ‘power’ and ‘crushing opponents’. To him it was just a numbers game. He was entirely uninterested in the substance of the disagreement, or the fact that an important viewpoint was ignored or ‘whipped into line’.

“He seemed to believe that the only issue at hand was the fact that ‘only five’ TDs had voted against the legislation and this was somehow a great victory for the Government, its senior figures and Fine Gael. This is a sad and shallow analysis, which ignores the fundamental questions of democracy which were raised thoughout the last few weeks when elected Members of our Parliament were, in many instances, coerced and cajoled into voting for legislation they clearly considered to be faulty and against their better judgement.”

One of the most shocking spectacles in the drama in the Irish parliament last Thursday and into the early hours of Friday morning was the speech of a young woman member, Michelle Mulherrin, voting against her conscience after the whipping she had received from the party leader, Prime Minister, Enda Kenny. Ms. Creighton’s response to it says it all. “I understand completely the dilemma she found herself in. I was there too. I took a different decision, by voting against the legislation. She clearly wrestled with her ultimate decision and eventually decided to vote for it. She did so to avoid being “booted out” of Fine Gael, her party. I felt sick to the pit of my stomach listening to her speech in the Dáil Chamber – out of sadness for her, and the choice she has clearly been forced to take to avoid expulsion. There is something so, so wrong with this. Citizens of this country ought to be concerned at the words uttered by Michelle. They genuinely gave me a deep sense of foreboding.

“In every other modern western democracy that I have studied, public representatives are not and would never be, forced to choose between their conscience and their party. That is worth considering and reflecting upon. This includes Australia, New Zeland, the USA, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and many, many more. In my investigations I could not find any other democratic country on this planet that forces people to vote against their conscience. Ireland has the dubious distinction of standing alone in its denial of conscience. This is not something I am proud of. Nobody should be.”

“The great democrat and peace maker Mahatma Ghandi said ‘In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place’. This is correct. History has taught us what savagery and crimes against humanity can occur, when people abandon their conscience, for the sake of the quiet life, or worse, to satisfy personal ambition. Our State should guard against this, rather than try to normalise it. And we as citizens should demand that this be so.”

She concludes by saying that politicians in her country “really do need to stand up and be counted” – and there will be more cries of hurt and pain from the numerous public representatives who know very well that they have failed to do so, and who have not had the courage to tell the truth about their shame like Deputy Mulherrin.  Ms. Creighton sees the value of the discipline in parliamentary democracy. “I don’t advocate the abandonment of the Whip system. It is an essential fundament of a stable economy and a stable society. Coherent positions and voting by political parties are essential in the context of the annual Budget, all finance measures, social welfare measures and so on. But there it should stop.”

Finally, she has a word for those “commentators” who cheer the crushing of political opponents, and applaud the stifling of debate in Ireland. We are back to the driving force behind group think. They “do no service to either good journalism or good politics. In fact they are complicit with the rot in a system which so desperately needs changing. Their anxiety to take quotes and spin from ‘well placed sources’ may make their contributions sound plausible and knowledgeable. In fact, they are missing the real story.”

There has been a good deal of sympathising, moaning, regrets at the loss of a promising political voice in Irish politics over the past few days and this weekend. These words tell us that we need not worry. This is a voice which is not going away and for that the Irish should all – well, nearly all, – be very grateful. There will be no shortage of stories, real stories, coming down the line.

Victories, but no peace in sight

Austin, Texas

This week, over in Texas, another pro-life battle raged in the Austin legislature. But in this case victory went to the pro-life side – for now. It all goes to show that what we are engaged in is a global struggle and one that will continue for a long, long time.

The words of the Texan pro-abortion Democrats – who lost this battle – could be taken as a mirror image of the words of the Irish pro-life campaigners facing their defeat in Ireland’s legislature this week, bloody but unbowed. This battle in the culture war will run and run. Eden is a long way off.

The New York Times reports from Texas: To explain why he and his colleagues continued to fight when the outcome was certain, Mr. Kirk Watson, the chairman of the Senate Democratic caucus, posted a Facebook photo earlier in the week showing an orange T-shirt bearing a statement: “A foregone conclusion has never stopped a group of citizens committed to ideals of democracy and liberty from taking a stand and fighting with everything they’ve got. This is Texas, baby. Remember the Alamo.”

The next step will be a court challenge to the new law before Mr. Perry’s signature has time to dry; the many proposed amendments and discussion of them were clearly intended to build a record that could eventually be reviewed by the courts.

In closing her own speech late Friday night, Ms. Wendy Davis told the groggy lawmakers, those in the gallery and beyond, “The fight for the future of Texas is just beginning.”

And then, minutes after the vote, she spoke again, through a bullhorn, to an immense crowd of supporters in front of the Capitol building. Ms. Davis called out to the orange-clad throng to turn their anger into political change. “Let’s make sure tonight is not an ending point,” she said. “It’s a beginning point as we work to take this state back.”

Inside the Texas Capitol

A sad but determined pro-life Ireland, mobilised and growing

A defiant statement was issued by Ireland’s Pro Life Campaign this evening in the wake of the Irish parliament’s chamber of deputies, the Dail, passing abortion legislation last night. PLC spokesperson Caroline Simons said that “Thousands of people across Ireland feel a deep sadness at what happened but also a determined motivation to turn this bad situation around.

“The constitutional protection for unborn babies achieved in 1983 was undermined by the Supreme Court decision in X. That decision made it possible to legislate for the unjust destruction of unborn children. It is shameful that our Government should activate all this now,” Ms Simons said.

“Thousands of people feel deep sadness at what has happened. We know that Ireland, without abortion, has been among the safest places in the world for women to be pregnant. We now move into a new phase of activity where we will work to restore full constitutional protection for unborn children and a legal order that operates to discourage abortion, not promote it. That work starts today.”

“The pro-life movement is mobilised and growing. We have seen the biggest ever gatherings of pro-life people in recent weeks. We may not have as many media friends as our opponents but we will continue to work with every sector of society to promote and defend the dignity of human life.”

“Opinion polls show that where it is shown that abortion is not a treatment for suicidal feelings – and it is not – there is strong opposition to abortion.”

“There is deep disappointment that the Taoiseach and Fine Gael reneged on their pre-election pro-life promise and over the Government’s bullying of TDs whose consciences were troubled by this legislation. What has happened is an indictment of our political culture. But the pro-life movement has new impressive role-models in former Minister Lucinda Creighton and Fine Gael TDs Terence Flanagan, Brian Walsh, Billy Timmins, Peter Mathews and Sinn Féin TD Peadar Toibín who dared to dissent.

“We thank those TDs for their impressive leadership in the defence of human dignity. Our members will work as never before to ensure that they and others like them get a resounding mandate at the next election,” she concluded.

“When I use a word,” said Humpty-Dumpty Kenny “it means just what I intended it to mean, and neither more nor less.”

Paraphrasing Lord Hartley Shawcross: “The Dáil is sovereign; it can make any laws. It could ordain that all blue-eyed babies should be destroyed at birth, and because the Dáil so declared it, it would be legal.” More or less, setting aside the small complication of a Supreme Court appointed by the same sovereign and a Head of State who owes his position to the manipulation of the Fourth Estate. We will have legal abortion in Ireland in a matter of weeks.

Legal, but utterly immoral. It is not enough that Parliament “reflect” society. Parliament’s duty is seek justice and legislate according to the principles of that justice and right reason. In the Irish parliament’s debate on abortion – and debate was all it was, a debate without any determining effect – one member spoke of Ireland’s old law prohibiting the destruction of children awaiting birth as being “out of kilter with society”. Well, that parliament has now changed this and by an abuse of the spirit and letter of its Constitution has legalized the snuffing out of those lives.

Abuse? Yes. The party system, governed by a whip regime, the exercise of which in this case proved to be nothing short of totalitarian, has lead to this immoral law being passed and in the process of so doing  has denied the representatives of the people their fundamental right of personal political judgement and freedom of conscience.

But what was more frightening about the entire process which has led to the passing of this bad law was the abuse of language. Yesterday’s statement from the Pro Life Campaign  outlines some of it – the questions which the Parties-in-Power refused to answer or answered with blatant untruths. But it went much farther that this. It was indeed surreal. It reminded one of Alice in Wonderland.

‘“When I use a word,” said Humpty-Dumpty “it means just what I intended it to mean, and neither more nor less.”

“But,” said Alice, “the question is whether you can make a word mean different things.”

“Not so,” said Humpty-Dumpty,” the question is which is to be the master. That’s all”.’

Taoiseach Enda Kenny kept telling the Irish people that he was not changing Irish law, that he was not introducing abortion to Ireland, etc, etc. Yet the international Press, the pro-abortion lobbies across the world were rejoicing at what he was trying to do and are celebrating today. They grasped the truth of all this. Is he stupid? does he think the Irish people are stupid? Or is he Humpty Dumpty?

But Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall. Mr. Kenny’s natural political life is coming to an end. Most people expect that he will not contest another general election. Some regret that because they would like to see him fall like Humpty Dumpty.

“My end is my beginning”, Mary Queen of Scots, is reported to have said before she went to the block. Ex-Minister Lucinda Creighton will not go to the block but had she lived in the age of Mary she might have. Nevertheless, very many Irish people hope that Queen Mary’s words will apply to her – that Kenny’s taking of her political life will be just the beginning of a political life free from a system as corrupt as that which he sought to impose on her. She and the four party colleagues who broke from the straitjacket their leader tried to force them into – along with the senators of the party who will do the same over the next few hours – stand tall among the sad members of that party who professed themselves to be pro-life and then voted for abortion.

Ireland needs a new politics. Lucinda Creighton and her honourable colleagues offer a new hope that the disenfranchised Irish might get this.

A world gone mad

The Week’s Daily Briefing reports: “The decline in couples getting married means that the number of children born out of wedlock hit a record 47.5% last year. If the trend continues, the figure will pass 50% by 2016. Data from the Office for National Statistics also shows a record number of women having children over the age of 40 – up to 29,994 last year from 6,519 in 2002.” And David Cameron persists with his gay “marriage” plan on the pretext that it will strengthen the institution. The world has gone mad.

The peril of forsaking private conscience for the sake of public duty

Should human life be protected in all stages and conditions? Or should abortion and euthanasia be permitted and even promoted as “best” (or “least bad”) solutions to personal difficulties and social problems? Should we preserve in our law and public policy the historic understanding of marriage as a conjugal union-the partnership of husband and wife in a bond that is ordered to procreation and, where the union is blessed by children, naturally fulfilled by their having and rearing offspring together? Or should we abandon the conjugal understanding of marriage in favour of some form of legally recognized sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership between two (or more) persons, irrespective of gender, to which the label marriage is then reassigned?

Coming to terms with modernity is one of the fundamental issues of our age and the choices we make in facing this challenge are of such importance that the future of our civilization is truly at stake with the choices we make. The questions posed above are not the only ones which we have to face up to in meeting this challenge – they are currently the frontline questions across many jurisdiction and in the Irish parliament today, one of them is being voted on marking a stage in that nation’s answer to modernity.

But there is a more fundamental Rubicon facing the all those who undertake the care of the Common Good of their peoples in the public square and it is the question of their attitude to that one universal guiding principle which has kept mankind safe from chaos from time immemorial. It is that principle which when he has resisted it, fudged it or abandoned it, has reduced to rubble the community for which he has taken charge or control. This is the principle of conscience.

For over the half of the past decade the world has been grappling with economic chaos. We are still suffering – whether innocent or guilty of the acts which brought it about – in the midst of that chaos. But the common denominator among the primary perpetrators of this disaster was the abandonment of private conscience in relation to their acts. When Gordon Geko declared that “greed is good” he was thought outrageous. But nevertheless, millions followed his example and abandoned the principle of conscience which told them the “No, greed is not good. It is evil”.

The opening paragraph is a quotation from Robert George’s new book, Conscience and its Enemies. In it, mainly in an American context, he says that disputes surrounding those questions posed in relation to life’s beginning and end, and the institution of marriage in between, reflects the profound chasm that separates opposing worldviews. People on the competing sides use many of the same words: justice, human rights, liberty, equality, fairness, tolerance, respect, community, conscience, and the like. But they have vastly different ideas of what those terms mean. Likewise, they have radically different views of human nature, of what makes for a valuable and morally worthy way of life, and of what undermines the common good of a justly ordered community.

There is a truth all too rarely adverted to in contemporary “culture war” debates-namely, that deep philosophical ideas have unavoidable and sometimes quite profound implications for public policy and public life. Anyone who takes a position on, say, the ethics of abortion and euthanasia, or the meaning and proper definition of marriage, is making philosophical (e.g., metaphysical and moral) assumptions- assumptions that are contested by people on the other side of the debate.

It is precisely here that conscience is betrayed and where the phenomenon of groupthink – without our even noticing it – takes control. Once that happens, conscience is diminished or obliterated completely. In that surrender of the free will to the will of some spirit of the age, some party apparatus, or even some leader – be he charismatic or bullying – that personal integrity, supported by an informed and articulate conscience, is forfeited.

All this is not a question of modernity, good or bad? It is simply a question of what kind of modernity? Modernity resting on the truth of our nature as free rational beings and beings whose acts will be guided by reasonably exercised free will, not guided simply by naked and untrammelled emotions, or by the dictate of party apparatchiks.

This is what Ireland faces today. This is what the entire world has to contend with or we will all take that perilous road predicted in the words which Robert Bolt put in the mouth of Thomas More, “Any public servant who would forsake his private conscience for the sake of his public duty leads his country down the short road to ruin.”

 

Science off the rails

Harald Eia – bewildering stuff

If you did nothing else today but take the 30+ minutes you will need to watch this video your day will be well-spent. It gives a light-hearted but also a chilling example of how intelligent people allow ideology to corrupt both science and our political life and culture. In it we see a bewildered handful of serious scientists trying to come to terms with another group blinded by the politically correct ideology which is currently the driving force behind social policy in the West.

Unintended consequences of Kenny’s final solution to an Irish problem?

Needing a radical shake-up

In view of the seismic rumblings now taking place in the lower strata of the political earth in Ireland, as the unintended consequences of the  Irish coalition government’s “ final solution” abortion legislation begin to unfold, it seems like time to look at the political future.

The quartet of rebel Fine Gael TDs expelled for voting against the Abortion Bill were promised yesterday at Ireland’s biggest ever public street demonstration that they will receive the full backing of the pro-life movement in the next election if they decide to run as independents.

The big political question now is what strategy will be best to bring about the formation of a new political landscape – the pre-election formation of a new party or the flooding of the Dail chamber with a new wave of independent, conscientious and intelligent members who will then put their heads together and collectively and  freely deliberate on the needs of the country and the common good of its people.

The Sunday Independent speculated today that the four deputies who have been whipped out of their party and other Fine Gael dissenters could be attracted to run for a new political party, now being actively advocated by a group led by Libertas founder, businessman Declan Ganley. It is another option but somewhat more complicated than getting new and better blood into Dail Eireann on the wave of revulsion against the old politics now sweeping the country.

That wave became stronger yesterday with the revelations about the emails and other messages which were doing the rounds before the last election, exposing further the barefaced audacity of the Taoiseach’s U-turn on abortion legislation.

The Independent reported:  In the run-up to election 2011, a “direct approach from Enda”, which was unsolicited, was made to the PLC, (Pro Life Campaign), seeking to associate Fine Gael with the views of the pro-life movement.

 One pro-life source said that once FG had made contact “they wouldn’t stay away from us, they were insatiable, they kept on coming back for more and more”.

 The claims are backed up by a series of e-mails, where on Saturday February 19, Fine Gael noted its strong pro-life stance and added: “We would be most appreciative of your support in spreading this message to your supporters at your earliest convenience.”

 A day later, another e-mail from Mr Kenny’s then legal adviser said the party would be “obliged if you would send to your supporters and post on your Facebook page” the FG position.

 One PLC source told the Sunday Independent they were told the hierarchy were “very anxious the message got out, that it would be put on Facebook as quickly as possible after that e-mail. Fine Gael headquarters made several calls over a period of days to ensure that the message was getting out on Facebook and on e-mail to pro-life supporters”.

 A spokesperson for PLC, Cora Sherlock, said: “Fine Gael went to extraordinary lengths, they courted us. It was made clear Enda Kenny was centrally involved and willing it on.”

 Fine Gael was not entirely united, though. At one point the pro-life camp was told: “Alan Shatter was trying to hold it up but he was told by the Taoiseach’s men to back off. Shatter stayed quiet – for once he knew what side his bread was buttered on.”

  Others were more supportive. One PLC source claimed the then Fine Gael front bencher Leo Varadkar “followed his letter up with a call to assure us how committed he was to the cause”.

 Fine Gael TD Simon Harris also sent an anxious e-mail in the final week of the campaign assuring PLC that: “I am happy and proud to assure you I am pro-life.”

New best friends, Harris and his leader, Kenny

 Mr Harris added the nervous plea of: “Please be assured of my support. I need No1 votes on Friday so I can be in a position to support these positions in Dail Eireann.”

 “I’ll smile and smile and be a villain” Richard III said to himself – according to William Shakespeare – on his way to medieval murder and mayhem before finally being butchered on the battlefield at Bosworth. Smiling young Mr. Harris may soon get his comeuppance

Is the Irish Government’s justification for its abortion bill now in tatters?

Ireland’s Supreme Court

Judge Hugh O’Flaherty, a member of the Irish Supreme Court which handed down the judgement on the X-case back in 1983, seems to have pulled the rug from under the feet of Enda Kenny in an interview in today’s Irish Times. In the interview he ranks the judgement as little more than an obiter dictum from the judges.

This must put the onus on the Government to go back and look at its reasoning on the whole legislation issue again. If not then it seems inevitable that the constitutional case against the law the government is proposing to pass on Wednesday will end up facing a challenge in the courts which it would be very unlikely to survive.

“If the Supreme Court struck down an act as unconstitutional,”, O Flaherty said, then “that would be the end of that debate. There would be no two ways about it. But when it gives an opinion on a case, [and] that doesn’t work out as submitted to it, then it’s really an obiter dictum” – meaning that it is merely an incidental but not binding remark or opinion by a judge in deciding a case.

Asked if he thought the Government was obliged to include the suicide clause, he replied that this was not necessarily the case “for the reason that the case wasn’t as binding as a different type of case would have been”.

Judge O’Flaherty said In relation to the X case: “Until legislation is enacted to provide otherwise, I believe that the law in this State is that surgical intervention which has the effect of terminating pregnancy bona fide undertaken to save the life of the mother where she is in danger of death is permissible under the Constitution and the law.”

Judge Niall McCarthy said in giving judgement for the Court in 1983:

“Legislation may be both negative and positive: negative, in prohibiting absolutely or at a given time, or without meeting stringent tests: positive by requiring positive action. The State may fulfil its role by providing necessary agencies to help, to counsel, to encourage, to comfort, to plan for the pregnant woman, the pregnant girl or her family. It is not for the courts to programme society; that is partly, at least, the role of the legislature. The courts are not equipped to regulate these procedures.”

Judge O’Flaherty’s interview may well prove to be a turning point in the entire saga of this Government’s very confused efforts to bring in legislation for abortion. Certainly public representatives will have to examine the implications of what he has said and those who are backing the Bill with little or no reservation will have to burn some midnight oil on their decision. Otherwise they will run the risk of looking very foolish indeed in the months to come when the constitutional lawyers begin to get to work on it.

Conscience-free politics – truly bizarre

Two faces of Irish politics – Creighton and Kenny

Irish TAOISEACH (prime minister) Enda Kenny thinks politics is all about fixing things. He is a mechanic without a clue when it comes to principles – either philosophical or anthropological, not to talk of his bizarre theology. He is now is facing an unprecedented party rebellion for the very reason that he has failed on all these counts. Those who rebelled against him in the Irish parliament – and those who will do so over the next two weeks – know that there is more to life and the pursuit of the common good than “arranging things” so that those who want to can do what they like – regardless of its consequences.

This abortion Bill which the Irish parliament is about to pass into law will be the undoing of Kenny’s reputation as any kind of statesman. It may also be the undoing of his party and many are hoping that it may be the catalyst which will bring about a realignment of Irish political forces into a meaningful one where the illiberal ideologues of the left, and their populist followers, will be confronted with a politics guided by a true perception of humankind and its common good.

Kenny – and the governments of whatever party mixes which have been in power for the last 20 years – inherited a constitutional mess created by a rogue Supreme Court decision, the notorious “X” case decision, based on faulty evidence. This decision compromised the Irish Constitution’s guarantee of the right to life of children in their first nine months of life. Kenny and his acolytes’ ham-fisted effort to “fix” this mess is even more flawed than what it tried to fix.

Mr Kenny has adopted a hardline stance against those who voted against the Government’s legislation last night. He expelled all four members from the parliamentary party immediately, promising to end their political careers. But Irish people looking on at this debacle can now see a handful of principled politicians who are prepared to think about what they are being asked to sign their names to. On the other side they see a crowd of sheep following a leader who ordered them to vote with him, regardless of their conscience.

Both Ireland’s main political parties – whose origins go back to Ireland’s Civil War over 90 years ago – now look like unravelling. The Fianna Fail party leader, Michéal Martin, supports the legislation and if principled voices within the party had not prevailed he would also have denied its members freedom of conscience on this matter. Potentially the Irish parliament has now been divided into two camps, those from who conscience counts for something and those for who it clearly counts for nothing – for it it doesn’t pertain to matters of life and death what does to what does it pertain?

This unravelling will be no bad thing. There is every hope now that the women and men of principle – of any and no party – inside and outside the parliament might now come together to give an effective voice to a disenfranchised electorate disillusioned for at least a decade by a political culture devoid of anything other than a “fix-it-up-at-any-cost” mentality.

Lucinda Creighton, a Minister in Kenny’s government, whom all observers expect will take her stand against him on the issue next week, made a powerful defence of the dissidents’ case in the parliament yesterday and would be the natural leader if a new political force were it to emerge. If it does this will be no single issue movement but a movement based on a vision of human society and the true nature of humankind within it – just, free and enterprising. There are many currently outside the formal politics of the country who would have been ashamed to stand beside those currently in power but who would be very happy to cooperate and support those who are now revealing themselves as politician with principles.

Ms. Creighton put her cards on the table in the parliament in a long, articulate and detailed speech on Monday. At one point she told us that I’ve had people contact me in recent months condemning me for having a ‘moral’ or ethical concern about abortion. Some demanded that I leave my morals or conscience aside in order to support abortion. Now I must say that I find this bizarre.

There is an emerging consensus in Ireland which suggests that having a sense of morality has something to do with the Catholic Church. It is automatically assumed that if you consult your conscience, you are essentially consulting with Rome. This is deeply worrying. It is a lazy way of attempting to undermine the worth of an argument, without actually dealing with the substance. This is not just a Catholic issue, any more than it is a Protestant or Muslim issue. This is not a religious issue. It is a human rights issue.

This was nothing less than a veiled criticism of her leader who has been proclaiming his peculiar brand of religion and politics around the country over the past few months – a very bizarre political philosophy indeed.

I wonder what one should consult when voting on a fundamental human rights issue such as this, Ms. Creighton continued, if not one’s own conscience? My personal view is that all I can do, when making a decision on life and death, and that is what we are considering here, is consult my conscience, which is based on my sense of what is right and what is wrong. What else can I consult? The latest opinion poll? The party hierarchy? The editor of the most popular newspaper?

I mentioned groupthink, which is a corrosive affliction in this country. We saw it in the Haughey era, we saw it during the Celtic Tiger era, and we see it on this question of abortion. It is easy to understand why people in positions of responsibility want thorny issues to simply disappear. It is far easier than risking conflict, unpopularity or worse; paying the price for speaking up…

Some were very offended by her groupthink remark. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? ‘Groupthinkers’ never see themselves as such.

This is a voice we have not heard in Irish politics for many years. This represents a political philosophy of depth and substance worthy of Ireland’s greatest political thinker, Edmund Burke. Hopefully this will be the beginning of a new era in Irish politics in which cant, posturing and “fixing” will be a thing of the grim past.

A further six Fine Gael may follow Ms. Creighton next week. With two thirds of Michéal Martin’s party voting contrary to his line and without any substantial policy differences between them and the Fine Gael rebels on other issues, there is every hope that the old outdated party structure might finally crumble.