Order of Business - 15th December 2005

Order of Business - 15th December 2005

Mr. Norris: I join with my colleagues in calling
for a protest to be made about the statement of
President Ahmadinejad but if the protest is to be
made to the ambassador, we will have a difficulty
because he has disappeared. President Ahmadinejad
is somebody who is in touch with a different
reality to that with which most of us are in
contact. I saw him being interviewed recently and
he spoke about how, when he made a speech to
the United Nations — which, in fact, was in some
ways a very fine and interesting speech — he felt
that he was in the grip of some kind of holy emotion,
that a light came around his head and that
all the other ambassadors were frozen in their
seats. This is not the kind of reality that most of
us encounter, but it is what the President said.
I hesitate to come into conflict with my distinguished
colleague and friend, Senator Ryan,
but when he said the Iranian people used their
freedom to elect this man, he is incorrect. They
did not really do so because 98% of those who
put themselves forward for election were ruled
out by an unelected group of clerics. Therefore,
it was not really an exercise of freedom at all. If
an individual within Europe denies the Holocaust,
he or she will face criminal sanctions. We
should protest very strongly.
I strongly support Senator Brian Hayes’s
suggestion that we invite former taoisigh to the
House. There are five of them, Mr. Charlie
Haughey, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, Mr. Liam
Cosgrave, Mr. Albert Reynolds and Mr. John
Bruton. Furthermore, there are spaces for them
here on the Independent benches.
Ms O’Rourke: There are what?
Mr. Norris: If they came to the House, I would
welcome them and think it would be splendid
if
they sat——
Ms O’Rourke: I think Senator Brian Hayes
meant that they would address the House, not
stay for the day.
Mr. Norris: I genuinely think it is a good idea.
This was what the Senate was about in the
Roman period — wise old heads bringing their
experience to bear on politics.
(Interruptions).
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his
point.
Mr. Norris: I ask the Leader to ask the Minister
for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when he
proposes to examine the laws relating to consent.
He indicated that he was troubled, particularly
about a case which came before the courts
recently where a 19 year old boy and a 15 year
old girl engaged in consensual sexual activity and
the 17 year old was convicted of statutory rape.
The judge expressed surprise that the consenting
15 year old girl was not also before the court.
Now it transpires that their parents support the
two young people in their relationship. They have
now moved in together and have had a child.
That suggests to me that what I said a long time
ago should be re-examined. An age of consent is
always arbitrary and perhaps it might be possible
to examine the question of a principle
of consent in troubled cases
such as these, to be decided by a
judge. It is plainly a nonsense to ask why we did
not send the 15 year old girl to prison for having
sex with a man she eventually moved in with, and
whose child she is having. There were similar
cases in the United States. The Minister was right
to isolate this point and I ask the Leader to ascertain
when his proposals will be brought before
the House.