Ivana Bacik

STATEMENT BY SENATOR IVANA BACIK 

Labour Party Seanad leader and Spokesperson on Justice
Tuesday 29th November 2011

BACIK SPEAKS AT SONAS LAUNCH, CALLS FOR WOMEN’S REFUGE IN DUN LAOGHAIRE

Sonas Housing Association, which offers support, refuge and housing to women and children made homeless because of domestic and gender-based violence, today launched a feasibility study report recommending the establishment of a women’s refuge in the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown area.

Launching the report, Senator Ivana Bacik called for a women’s refuge to be set up in the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown area as a matter of urgency, saying:

“Domestic violence is undeniably a major cause of homelessness for women. Where the civil and criminal justice system fail to provide protection for women in the home, as we see happening in Ireland, women become forced to leave home and make themselves and their children homeless. However when there are no suitable refuge spaces for them, they may either be forced either to return home to danger; or to use inappropriate emergency bed and breakfast accommodation, where they will not get the support or security that they and their children need.

Ireland lags far below the European standard for provision of refuge spaces – we should have 424 places available nationally, but there are only 131 in total. There are no places at all available currently in Dun Laoghaire, yet this report shows that there is an urgent need for at least 8-10 family spaces to be provided in this area. It is imperative that we recognise the needs of women and children who are subject to abuse in their homes and that we take action now to tackle the serious incidence of homelessness which results from abuse.”

ENDS

 BACIK CALLS FOR JUSTICE COMMITTEE HEARING ON DOCHAS CENTRE REPORT

Gender-Based Violence: Motion

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following:

“Seanad Éireann, condemning in the strongest terms female infanticide and all other violations of the rights of women and girls,

commends the Government’s firm opposition to such practices and its efforts to combat all forms of gender-based violence;

endorses the Government’s strong support for gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls through its Official Development Assistance Programme.”.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, to the House and the opportunity to debate this important issue. The Government’s amendment to the motion encapsulates the sentiments and motivation behind the motion by Senators Mullen and Quinn while addressing some of the reservations we had about aspects of the wording.

It is important to stress the Government amendment, like the motion tabled by the university Senators, condemns in the strongest terms female infanticide and all other violations of the rights of women and girls, while commending the Government’s opposition to such practices and its efforts to combat all forms of gender-based violence and endorsing its strong support for gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls through its official development assistance programme. This support for gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls goes to the heart of the matter and the reason this issue is as important as it is.

I will deal with some of the reservations the Government has with the wording of the motion. The term “gendercide” has had some usage in the media and was first coined in 1985, but its definition is not yet fully accepted and it is not used in mainstream development terminology. There are questions as to what the word applies to and interesting work has been done on the idea that the term is gender neutral and, therefore, does not apply specifically to the infanticide of girls. The most common occurrence of gender-based mass killings involves young battle-aged men. Throughout history state-directed gender-selective mass killings have overwhelmingly involved men. There is, therefore, an interesting debate about the meaning of “gendercide”.

Leaving the definitional point aside, we agree with the sentiments expressed in the motion. However, we have other reservations about certain elements of the motion. It would be wrong to single out China and India and suggest problems covered by what could be meant by gendercide are to be found solely in these countries. It would also be wrong to suggest the governments of these countries somehow tolerate or promote, as the motion states, this practice. That is not the case. Senator Feargal Quinn fairly accepted that certain practices were illegal in India. The Government also points out that during the years Ireland has had a strong record of advocacy in EU and UN frameworks on issues relating to the rights of women and girls. Our official development co-operation programme has a strong emphasis on gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. The Irish Aid bilateral programme is strongly concentrated, as Senator Rónán Mullen knows, in sub-Saharan Africa which is not an area in which problems associated with the term have arisen.

As I stated, the Government amendment is preferable, as while encapsulating the sentiments of the motion, it does not limit condemnation of female infanticide to a particular state and does not suggest a particular state promotes or tolerate it. However, a bigger issue arises which we should debate, that is, the status of women and girls in societies in which girls are singled out for inferior treatment, even extending to killing.

An article headlined “Gendercide” in The Economist of 4 March 2010, to which Senator Rónán Mullen referred, stated the status of women was critical to the issue and pointed out that baby girls had been victims of a malign combination of ancient prejudice and modern preferences for small families. It also expressed hope this could change. The Economist suggested significant change had taken place in South Korea:

In the 1990s South Korea had a sex ratio almost as skewed as China’s. Now, it is heading towards normality. It has achieved this not deliberately, but because the culture changed. Female education, anti-discrimination suits and equal-rights rulings made son preference [a preference for boys] seem old-fashioned and unnecessary. The forces of modernity first exacerbated prejudice — then overwhelmed it.

The Economist continued to state China should scrap its one child policy. I absolutely agree with this. I visited China with the British Council and one of the issues on which we worked was the empowerment of women and the ending of the coercive one child policy. TheEconomist points out that to tackle these issues all countries need to raise the value of girls and encourage female education, abolish laws and customs that prevent daughters from inheriting property and get women engaged in public life. This is critical.

The need to empower women and girls is recognised in Irish policy on overseas development aid. Earlier today, at the launch of the UNFPA state of the world population report for 2011, the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan, spoke about the challenge to break the vicious cycle of poverty in the developing world through empowering girls and women. She spoke about the need to invest in health, particularly sexual and reproductive health, and education services for women and girls. She also stated — this is absolutely uncontested — that in country after country women and girls who had completed at least primary school education choose to have fewer children. This can lead to a more prosperous society and a society in which women and men are more equal. The Minister of State pointed out that the 2011 UNFPA report clearly stated that governments serious about eradicating poverty should also be serious about providing the services, supplies and information that women, men and young people needed to exercise their reproductive rights. The Minister of State’s speech at the launch of the report expressed very clearly the Government’s commitment to tackling the disempowerment and disadvantage of women and girls throughout the world.

In my work for many years I have always sought to ensure women and girls are empowered and that we see reproductive choices made available to women and girls. It is in this context that I very much oppose the coercive one child policy in China. I have worked with Plan Ireland which conducts a very effective “Because I am a Girl” campaign aimed at tackling, in particular, female poverty in developing countries and empowering women to break the vicious cycle of poverty for families and children. For me, the issues expressed in the motion and the Government amendment are about empowering women and girls. Many societies, including our own, have for far too long been repressive of women and sought to control women’s bodily integrity. In Ireland we forced women who had children outside marriage into Magdalene institutions and children born outside marriage into institutions in which terrible abuses occurred. What changed this was a change in culture. As happened in South Korea, we changed the culture to value women and girls more and give them rights; to give women reproductive choices; to introduce the unmarried mother allowance as it was then known, which had a hugely empowering effect on women; and to legalise contraception and access to information on abortion. All of these have helped to empower women and children in our society.

We must continue our work. I entirely agree that we must condemn in the strongest possible terms any practices which violate the rights of women and girls. I see my legislation on female genital mutilation in this context. It seeks to express utter condemnation of practices of female genital mutilation carried out in Ireland or other countries. As we know, it is estimated that there are approximately 2,500 women and girls in Ireland who have been subject to female genital mutilation. It is a very important issue to do with women’s reproductive rights and their right to health and bodily integrity. In this context, I am delighted to propose the Government amendment.

Human Trafficking and Prostitution: Motion

Wednesday, 12 October 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, and thank and commend Senator Katherine Zappone and the other Independent Senators for bringing forward the motion. This is a very important debate that has been ongoing for some time, as acknowledged by the Minister of State and others. I also thank and commend the many NGOs which have been working on this issue for many years, notably Ruhama which has been working on the front line with women engaged in prostitution.

I commend the Turn Off the Red Light campaign which was commenced to bring to an end prostitution and sex trafficking in Ireland. Many of us, including the Minister of State, were present at the launch of the campaign in Buswells some time ago. The Labour Party is one of the 40 organisations which signed up to it. I am proud to represent the Labour Party, which fully supports the aim of ensuring the putting in place of legislation to criminalise the purchase of sex. All Members agree with the aim of the Independent Senators, which is to put forward a legislative model in Ireland that is robust, will work within our constitutional system and will ensure the same outcome that has been achieved in Sweden. Like other Members, I have read the ten-year evaluation of the Swedish legislation. I had been interested to ascertain how that model has worked and there were some highly positive and exciting findings, notably that street prostitution has halved in Sweden since the introduction of that legislation. Moreover, as others have mentioned, Norway has followed suit. However, as Senator Power acknowledged, it is vital to build a coalition on this issue and the success of the Turn off the Red Light campaign to date is that it has built a broad-based coalition of different groups comprising civil society groups, political parties, trade unions and so on. One must move forward with this united front to legislate in a way that will stand up within our system.

That said, it is understandable that many would have found the Government’s counter-motion and its wording somewhat disappointing in that it appears to suggest there is no sense of urgency in moving forward to the legislative model. I assure the Independent Senators in particular, as well as colleagues on the other side of the House, this is not the Government’s intention and certainly as far as the Labour Party is concerned, as the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, has stated, it will be pressing in government to ensure the introduction of this legislation. However, as the Minister of State also observed, one cannot simply transpose the exact same model from a very different legal system. Particular issues arise in this jurisdiction and one must ensure the legislation one introduces is robust. I speak as someone who has defended successfully some women accused of offences under the 1993 Act under which, as the figures demonstrate, it is extremely difficult to prosecute.

The Minister of State has clarified the wording of the motion and has assured Members there is a sense of urgency at Government level and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, has already taken some concrete steps to further matters. On Monday, he will publish the Dignity Project report arising out of his examination of the Swedish law and I understand that within six months, either the Minister himself or the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, will return to this House to report on progress that has been made. The Minister of State has referred to submissions being invited, which would be useful. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, of which Senator Bradford, other Senators and I are members, would be a useful forum in which to take submissions on potential models for the legislation and on how the legislation might be framed. The joint committee is doing this at present in respect of the vetting bureau Bill and will do so with regard to the withholding of information Bill. It is carrying out similar exercises on legislation that have complex drafting aspects and would be a useful forum. I am reassured by the Minister of State’s statement to the effect there will be urgency in this regard and the Government will move forward in line with Labour Party policy and the intentions of the Turn off the Red Light campaign.

I will comment briefly on the history of legislation in this regard in Ireland. It has tended, the 1993 Act follows this model, to criminalise only the public display of the sale of sex and not the sale or purchase of sex itself directly and the Minister of State has referred to this. Our legislation prohibits loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution, which of course means that those who seek to purchase sex, the clients, are criminalised and in some cases usually are prosecuted with more frequency than the women themselves. However, this is of course only where loitering or soliciting is done in public and there are quite difficult evidential barriers to get over when prosecuting. The origins of the Act date back to 19th-century law in which criminalisation of prostitution again was based on public order legislation. I refer to the Vagrancy Act 1824, which penalised the common prostitutes and to the horrendous Contagious Diseases Acts 1864 to 1869, which provided for compulsory incarceration for prostitutes.

The 1993 Act, which was introduced to try to reform the law, certainly was a great improvement on what had gone before when some horrifically repressive legislation had been in place. It did at least create gender-neutral offences for the first time and no longer simply criminalised the women. Moreover, as the Minister of State noted, it also introduced offences in respect of brothel-keeping, as well as offences that were much more protective of those who were engaged in prostitution. Unfortunately, however, it retained those traditional elements of loitering and soliciting and clearly the main thrust of the legislation was to try to control the display of prostitution in public. This concern perhaps was based on a political concern to protect neighbourhoods and so-called respectable society from this public display. The trafficking legislation, which was passed much more recently, shows the change in thinking and is much more concerned about protecting the victim. However, some evidential difficulties have also been identified with this legislation. This is also perhaps a consequence of the Supreme Court judgment in the CC case, with which some of us disagreed fundamentally, which overturned the strict liability offence of unlawful carnal knowledge and provided that a defence must be present where someone states he or she made a mistake as to the age of the underage child. This may be an issue that must be grappled with in framing a Swedish-style law prohibiting solely the purchase of sex or in other words, the Swedish model of criminalising the buyers that tackles demand rather than supply.

As the Government counter-motion, the Independent Senators and everyone else acknowledge, it is of course not simply about legislation and other ways must also be considered to tackle demand in particular, and to seek to end exploitation. I note the Turn off the Red Light campaign and others have been looking at ways of closing down telephone lines or websites because the manifest advertising of telephone lines or websites is perhaps the most obvious proof of prostitution. The Swedish evaluation demonstrates the potential that lies in the model being used there to criminalise the clients and to focus on demand. It also demonstrates a way forward away from the old model, on which Ireland has been far too reliant in the past, of criminalising only public display in criminalising loitering and soliciting in a public order sense. All Members are united in their desire to see a fundamental shift in the law away from the emphasis on public order and towards protection of the victim and a recognition of those engaged in prostitution as victims themselves, be they victims of trafficking or of exploitation even if they have not been trafficked. This is the great merit of the Swedish legislation and is what we must replicate in Ireland. However, the Government side can assure Members on both sides of the House that all are united in that aim. It is in this spirit that I second the amendment and am greatly reassured by that to which the Minister of State has committed on the record of this House.

Order of Business

27^th September 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I wish to renew a call to the Leader for a further debate on the arts in the presence of the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, who has promised to attend. I do so particularly in light of the great success of culture night last Friday. It was a huge success nationwide with a record number of institutions, including Leinster House, opening their doors. It was a real piece of good news.

On a completely different note, I welcome the good news that women in Saudi Arabia now have the vote. This is a very important step forward for democracy internationally and it is worth Members noting it here.

On a less positive note, the Amnesty International report, In Plain Sight, which was published yesterday, also deserves debate in this House, given the insight it provides into the failures by successive Governments and the institutional church in respect of the terrible abuse of children over the years.

Order of Business

Wednesday, 20 July 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik: I join in congratulating Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh and his family on their new arrival. I welcome the new format announced by the Leader for today’s discussion with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. A question and answer session has the potential to be far more productive than the traditional set-piece speech from the Minister.

I welcome the appointment of Mrs. Justice Susan Denham as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Mrs. Justice Denham has a great track record of reform and will be a popular and worthy choice. It is also something of note that she will be the first woman to serve as Chief Justice in the State. In the context of that welcome announcement, I ask the Leader for a debate in the next term on the proposed referendum on judicial pay about which there has been a great deal of controversy. This House has a worthwhile role to play in debating the appropriate wording of the referendum proposal on reductions in judges’ pay. I took a view when the issue was first mooted some time ago that it was not necessary under the Constitution to have an amendment in order to reduce judicial pay if it were done as part of a public sector levy or tax. Several lawyers agreed with that interpretation, but the then Attorney General took a different view, as does the current Attorney General.

Given that a referendum is now promised, we must be careful to ensure the wording is tight enough to safeguard any abuse or singling out of the Judiciary. There is not much public sympathy for judges in respect of the reported opposition to the referendum, but it is important that we get the wording right. This House could play a useful role in debating the appropriate wording. That debate might include a review of the 2009 Private Members’ Bill introduced in opposition by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, in which he put forward a much tighter wording than that currently being circulated. This is an important issue regarding the separation of powers and the role of the Judiciary within State structures. We must have a comprehensive, careful and informed debate. This House is a suitable forum for such a debate and it should take place in early September.

Labour Party Seanad Leader
Wed 13th July 2011

BACIK CONDEMNS COMMENTS WHICH INDICATE A CULTURE OF SEXISM IN OIREACHTAS

Speaking today in the Seanad, SenatorIvana Bacik condemned reports of sexist comments in the Dáil chamber, andcalled for the urgent introduction of legislation to increase the levelsof women’s representation in politics.

Senator Bacik said:

“I was very concerned to hearreports that comments had been made yesterday in the Dáil chamber whichindicate that a culture of sexism still exists in the Oireachtas. The viewthat such a culture exists is one of the reasons why women remain so under-representedin political life. The report that I authored for the Joint OireachtasCommittee on Justice in 2009 found that ‘culture’ is one of the ‘fiveC’s’ – the obstacles that face women on entry to politics. The otherfour are lack of childcare, cash, and confidence; and difficulties withpolitical party candidate selection procedures. However, the sexist culturethat persists is the hardest obstacle to address.”

Senator Bacik also welcomed MinisterPhil Hogan’s recent announcement that he would introduce legislation requiringpolitical parties to select minimum percentages of candidates of each gender,saying:

“I welcome the announcement ofthis important legislation. Urgent action through statute is required toaddress the practical issue of candidate selection procedures, in orderto increase the numbers of women candidates and increase the choice availableto voters.”

*In November 2009, Senator Baciklaunched the Report of the Sub-Committee on Women’s Participation in Politicsestablished by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defenceand Women’s Rights. This Report received cross-Party support from allthose on the Justice Committee. A key recommendation in the Report wasthe need for legislation to require political parties to select a minimumproportion of women candidates to put before the electorate at local, nationaland European elections. Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan has recentlyannounced the introduction of this legislation.

Order of Business

13^th July 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik: We would all be pleased to see the text of the motion on Palestine to which Senator O’Brien referred. I hope there can be cross-party support for such a motion. I agree with Senator O’Brien’s comments on the power of Moody’s. We all agree that the power of these ratings agencies should be curbed and that they have had an undue effect on exacerbating the financial crisis within the eurozone. We all condemn that.

I call for a renewed debate on women’s representation in politics. We have had the debate before in the Seanad. We held a historic debate in this House during the last session. It was the first ever debate on women’s representation in politics in the history of the State. However, the need for this debate is made more urgent in light of the reports of yesterday’s sexist comments made in the Dáil Chamber. I was greatly concerned to hear reports that comments were made in the Dáil Chamber which indicate that a culture of sexism is still prevalent in the Oireachtas.

… (Interruptions)

…It indicates a culture still exists in which women do not feel encouraged or confident to come forward to enter political life. Members will be aware that in 2009 I authored a report on women’s participation in politics for the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Women’s Rights. It received cross-party support in this House and at the joint committee and it recommended that action be taken to tackle the obstacles facing women on entry into political life. These obstacles were known in our report as the five Cs: lack of confidence, lack of child care, lack of cash, difficulties with candidate selection procedures and a sexist culture. This culture is the hardest to tackle. Clearly, it cannot be tackled through legislation but it can be tackled through all of us, men and women alike, standing up and condemning comments that indicate a sexist culture still exists. I am pleased that the Minister, Deputy Hogan, has announced the introduction of legislation along the lines we recommended in our report in 2009. Such legislation will require political parties to select a minimum number of candidates of each gender at each election. Only through such positive action can we increase the woefully low numbers of people entering Irish political life. Certainly, the comments we heard yesterday do not help the matter.

STATEMENT BY SENATOR IVANA BACIK

Labour Seanad Group Leader
Thursday 16th June, 2011

SENATOR BACIK WELCOMES ANNOUNCEMENT THAT EXPERT GROUP ON ABC JUDGMENT WILL BE SET UP

 
Senator Ivana Bacik today welcomed the announcement that an Expert Group would be set up on the ABC judgment, and called on the Government to ensure that this Group would work within a tight timeframe to report back on the implementation of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the ABC case.

Speaking in the Seanad, Senator Bacik said:
“I believe that it is time we as legislators grasped the initiative on the issue of abortion and ensured that the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights is implemented without delay. I hope that the Expert Group will be established soon, and that it is given a tight timeframe within which to report back.

“I am glad that the Government is submitting an action plan to the Council of Europe today as required, but I am conscious that, as Anne Ferris TD has said yesterday, that for far too long we have neglected the real health needs of women in Ireland and failed to face up to the reality of abortion in this country. The people have voted twice in separate referendums (in 1992 and again in 2002) to uphold the decision of the Supreme Court in the X case, and it is high time that we legislated to provide for the conditions under which lawful abortions may be performed here.”

ENDS

Order of Business

15^th June 2011

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I, too, welcome the allocation of three hours for the Second Stage debate on the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011 and the Leader’s indication that we will have an opportunity to raise several issues with the Minister. One of the issues we must discuss is how to fund the jobs initiative. I welcome Senator Darragh O’Brien’s indication that the Opposition supports the initiative.

Senator Darragh O’Brien:     Parts of it.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     The Senator indicated he supported the concept behind it.

Senator Darragh O’Brien:     The principle, yes.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     He also referred to the changes to the rate of VAT and the travel tax. We must all bear in mind that the Government is between a rock and a hard place in terms of the IMF-EU deal. It is a real difficulty. We need to debate the basis upon which we will fund an initiative, but it is clear that such an initiative is needed and that it is very difficult to identify a source of funding, given the constraints as a consequence of the activities of previous Governments in the last 14 years.

Will the Leader allow a debate on the training of gardaí? This issue will be debated on the Adjournment this evening and several Members raised it yesterday with the Minister for Justice and Equality in the course of the debate on the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998. The announcement that recruitment of gardaí through the college in Templemore will be put on ice for several years is a source of great concern. The Minister said yesterday that his hands were tied by the IMF-EU deal—–

An Cathaoirleach:     As the Senator indicated, this issue will be discussed on the Adjournment this evening. Perhaps Senator Terry Leyden will share time with her.

Senator Ivana Bacik:     I will speak with the Senator. However, the issue deserves a fuller debate. The Minister has pointed out that the IMF-EU deal requires a reduction in the numbers of gardaí. We must examine how best that can be achieved.

I welcome the announcement today that an investigation will be held into the treatment of women and girls in Magdalene laundries. The establishment of an interdepartmental committee is an important step towards what I hope will be fuller redress and apologies for the women and girls who spent so long incarcerated in these institutions. I pay tribute to the Justice for Magdalenes campaign and the individuals who have pushed for this for years.