Matthew Taylor
Opinions Editor
If there is one thing to Youth Defence’s credit, it is that they have succeeded in drawing attention to an issue too often overlooked by the Irish public; that of abortion. It is an issue so complicated and divisive that there seems to have been a political and cultural consensus to totally ignore it so as not to hurt anyone’s feelings or cause any embarrassment. God only knows that my own attempts at raising the issue at home or in the midst of verbal joust have been ill fated, usually met with stony silence and reproachful looks. And so I say bravo to Youth Defence for driving the proverbial fox from its covert through its controversial billboard campaign.
My Facebook wall has of late been clogged with the righteous anger of members of Trinity’s vanguard of feminism, DUGES (Dublin University Gender Equality Society). For those of you acquainted with this organisation and its almost infamous Facebook group, you can recall the slew of Irish times article reposting and links to illuminating catchphrases such as “VAGINA: Can’t say it? Don’t legislate it”. The idea of vagina legislation certainly gave me pause for thought. As did the poster “Abortion tears her life apart; there’s always a better answer”, whose addendum has caused (at least I think) most of the problems. I’m not sure what the specific critique of this slogan is. Are they disputing that abortion tears someone’s life apart? You don’t often see women skipping in and out of family planning clinics without a care in the world. Abortions do tear women’s lives apart. Whether as a result of a rape-pregnancy, choice or the necessity of termination through medical complications, abortion is something which is a product and cause of great emotional distress. Women who have had them are often plagued for years, justly or unjustly by fears, traumas and guilt. This is indisputable. Do they get over it? Yes, but that wouldn’t really make for snappy advertising. Is there always a better answer? From Youth Defence’s point of view there is, an opinion which they are wholly entitled to express as openly and loudly as they like. Are people of a pro-choice bent entitled to kick up a fuss? Yes, but it seems to me that contacting the Advertising Standards Authority and the Department of Communications is an attempt at censoring the voices of those with whom they do not agree and it is this that I find irksome. The ASAI’s point of view was made perfectly clear by a statement released by the authority’s director Frank Goodman, which stated “If this was a fundraising drive, we’d look at it. But it’s expressing a point of view on a matter of public interest”.
If I were the director of a pro-choice activist organisation (which I think we can all be glad I’m not), rather than spending all day belly aching I would set up my own ill informed and vaguely offensive billboard campaign as it is my right to do. Better still, set up a poster campaign which aims to inform and influence the public toward a more pro-choice collective mindset. We must have a public debate on the issue of abortion, which has largely been swept under the carpet by successive governments with less collective integrity than Garret Fitzgerald had in a single lock of his untamed mane. Freedom of speech does not exist so that people can express universally held views in their indoor voice. It exists to protect those who wish to loudly and openly express views which are challenging and often unpopular. Despite the most virulent opposition of some, Youth Defence is entitled to express its views on billboards which it has paid for to express its views. The campaign to silence this campaign is exemplary of the hypocrisy of some modern social liberals. Abortion is an issue which cannot simply be argued for by saying “VAGINA: Can’t say it? Don’t legislate it” because that is a gross oversimplification. We need that which we are not getting; a level headed and reasonable re-examination both of the issue of abortion and of the legislation governing it. It is inhumane that victims of rape or women with life threatening complications as a result of pregnancy should have to flee our shores like criminals in order to terminate those pregnancies, but we should be able to discuss this civilly within the public sphere. Both Youth Defence and the anti-Youth Defence are bringing this issue into the lowly bowels of rhetorical disruption which have historically and perpetually ruined thoughtful argument. If either side had even the slightest concern for those opposing them we might be able to get something done, but I have my doubts about the plausibility of that scenario. The issue of the Youth Defence billboards has been little more than an entertaining sideshow, devoid of substantive debate on the important issue which lies at its heart. If we are to pretend, as we have now for 20 years, that we are a liberal society, we must reopen the book, and start a new page and a new debate on the issue of abortion; medical and moral, civil and constructive. Only then will we be getting somewhere.
