A novel published by current Irish Justice Minister Alan Shatter in 1989, has been referred to the country’s Censorship of Publications Board, according to reports.
Laura: A Novel You Will Never Forget which features a politician pressures his lover to have an abortion, is currently available on Amazon, coming with the lone user review:
this book by alan is his only novel. its about the traumas of adoption in ireland with a bit of fact based on fiction..parts of this book could be true as i was involved with a real life case similar to this book…it,s a must read and should be republished..have plenty tissues at the ready as many a tear will appear in the eye.
Shatter is currently at the heart of a political storm after he used information learned from a Garda briefing to him in his role as Justice Minister to attack a political opponent, flamboyant independent TD (member of parliament) Mick Wallace.
Speaking on a live TV debate, Shatter revealed that Wallace had escaped censure from traffic police after he was seen using his mobile phone while driving. Wallace has been campaigning against the overturning of motoring infringement penalty points for high profile and well-connected figures.
Meanwhile, Shatter’s Fine Gael party has come under attack from anti-abortion activists who believe the centre-right party is set to liberalise Ireland’s strict abortion law. Taoiseach and Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny faced protests from anti-abortion protesters during a visit to Boston yesterday.
Over 200 publications are banned in Ireland, including books on abortion and several sex manuals.
The majority of the rest of the banned titles are soft and hardcore porn magazines, including Playgirl and Scamp magazine.
A controversial academic paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics has triggered a torrent of abuse, including threats of violence and death.
Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini, who wrote After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, argue that given that those who accept abortion typically do so for reasons that have nothing to do with the foetus’s health (even where the foetus clearly is a potential person), then where abortion is permissible, killing a newborn should be permissible, on grounds of consistency. Not a palatable conclusion for many of us, though it could be read as a Swiftian modest proposal that ultimately attacks the morality of permitting abortion.
But should we be free to discuss killing babies at all? Is that on a par with publishing articles that are pro-pedophilia? Julian Savulescu, the journal’s editor, has defended the decision to publish on the grounds that the goal of the publication is not to present an ultimate truth or a simplistic view based on morals, but rather to present well-reasoned arguments based on widely accepted premises. In this spirit, Savulescu is equally ready to publish coherent responses to the controversial article.
This is a test case for the liberal defence of free speech so eloquently advocated by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. Mill believed that dissenting, provocative and challenging voices jolt us out of the complacency of our dead dogmas. Mill writes that “Both teachers and learners go to sleep as soon as there is no enemy in the field”. Unless we have had our fundamental views challenged, we are likely to hold them in a drowsy fashion, scarcely aware of why we believe what we do.
Most of us believe that killing babies is wrong; here’s an argument that suggests that if you think that abortion on non-medical grounds is sometimes acceptable, then you probably ought to believe that infanticide is sometimes acceptable. It’s clear from the context of presentation in an academic journal, too, that this isn’t an incitement to actual infanticide, but rather a provocative move in an ongoing debate, a plea for consistency. No doubt there will be a flurry of refutations submitted to the journal.
For Mill, as for many who defend free expression, the limit of free expression is the point where someone incites harm. But the only people directly inciting harm here are those issuing death threats. They seem to have confused a contribution to an academic debate with an invitation to kill. Here context is all and quotation out of context likely to lead to misunderstanding. Yet we can take even this category mistake as a stimulus to clarify what it is we value about freedom of expression in this context and where its limits lie.
Julian Savulescu has taken just this opportunity: “Free speech” he told me, “is not valuable in itself — hate speech, for example, is not something we should seek to protect. Rational argument that seeks to engage others — that is worth protecting.”
The state of North Carolina has about 100 different specialty plate designs, allowing citizens to use their license plate to proclaim their love for square dancing, NASCAR, or even watermelon. North Carolinians against abortion can now share their views in traffic jams, since the General Assembly passed a proposed license plate that features the slogan “Choose Life” earlier this year. Pro-choice drivers who want to display their views on their car are out of luck, their licence slogans rejected by the General Assembly.
The North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a federal lawsuit against the state on 8 September 2011, calling for the license plate to be blocked because it violates the First Amendment, as it only allows for the representation of one perspective. Six amendments were proposed to the bill, adding a plate which had a messages such as “Respect Choice”. According to Katherine Lewis Parker, legal director of the NC chapter of ACLU, the decision to only approve the pro-life message is unconstitutional because it provides “a forum to one side of the argument”.
The specialty plate was approved by the legislature on 18 June, and signed into law on 30 June. In a statement, the ACLU said that they were suing “on behalf of North Carolinians seeking a specialty license plate that supports a woman’s right to reproductive freedom”. Republican Mitch Gillespie, who had promoted the anti-abortion plate, has dismissed the ACLU suit, telling the Raleigh News & Observer that the union is “an evil liberal organization to try to appease its liberal base.”
So, last week, for those of you who weren’t paying attention, I was cross with the BBC. Yes, cross, I tell you, as they filled the news with World Cup non-stories, and issued vacuous non-statements about North Korea. But this week, it’s time to level things up. Because they also did a good thing last week, which was to broadcast an episode of Family Guy, Partial Terms of Endearment, on BBC3. This episode wasn’t screened at all in the US, because it is about Lois having an abortion. She becomes a surrogate mother for a friend, but the friend then dies in a car crash. So Lois heads to the Family Planning Centre with her husband, Peter, where she makes a reasoned and thoughtful decision to have an abortion. Peter’s all in favour of an abortion, too, until he is shown a pro-life video by protestors outside the centre.
This is all — in case I have made it sound rather joyless — incredibly funny. The video that Peter watches is a heroic pastiche: “Science,” proclaims the spokesman, “has proven that within hours of conception, a human foetus has started a college fund and has already made your first mother’s day card out of macaroni and glitter”. At this point, it cuts to a picture of a foetus holding a handmade card which reads, “Mom, don’t kill me! I wuv you.” Sorry to declare myself sole arbiter of good and bad jokes, but that’s a corker. Peter is converted to the pro-life cause. “If God wanted us to kill babies,” he tells Lois, “he would have made them all Chinese girls”.
It’s no surprise this episode hasn’t aired in the States, although it is expected to be included in the DVD release of the series. But it hammers home the fact that abortions used to happen in popular culture, just as it happens in life. No longer: films like Knocked Up, Waitress, and Juno all deal with unwanted pregnancy, and all tie themselves into knots trying to explain why smart women wouldn’t even consider an abortion (either in Knocked Up, where Katherine Heigl is a career woman who despises the guy with whom she has an ill-advised one-night stand, or in Waitress, where Keri Russell is married to a wife-beating lout whom she loathes). It’s a huge narrative flaw that Ellen Page’s sassy, fearless, pro-choice teen, Juno, would be so overwhelmed by the mention of baby fingernails that she would cancel her abortion immediately, and have a child she didn’t want.
It seems that we can’t be expected to like fictional women if they do what factual women do all the time: terminate an unwanted pregnancy. But things weren’t always this way; Dirty Dancing has an abortion storyline, and it’s regarded as a classic chick-flick. Pop culture has simply become more judgemental — and less realistic — as pro-lifers have become more vociferous.
So three cheers to Family Guy, for having the courage of many of our convictions. And an extra cheer for the BBC, for letting us watch it.
