Order of Business - 7th May 2009

Order of Business - 7th May 2009
Senator David Norris: I wish to make a couple of positive points which will require me to mention names but only for the purposes of identifying specific cases in a positive manner. I very strongly welcome the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Louise O’Keeffe.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator David Norris: Ms O’Keeffe is a remarkable and courageous woman who was let down by the machinery of the State. The State and church engaged in a nasty form of evasion of their clear responsibility to this woman who had demonstrated that she had been abused. I welcome the decision by the Supreme Court to refuse to grant costs to the State as any other decision would have bankrupted Ms O’Keeffe. Yesterday was a very good day for democracy and for the rights of the individual. Senators on all sides spoke out about this case.
RTE, which has been the subject of criticism, broadcasts some wonderful, life-enhancing programmes. For example, its recent documentary about Chuck Feeney, a person of whom we can be extremely proud, was wonderfully positive. Mr. Feeney is a selfless, remarkable man who used the enormous wealth he had accrued throughout his business career to invest positively and anonymously in doing the things the Government should have done, including investing in third level education and infrastructure. The critical matter was that Mr. Feeney examined these projects carefully before——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senators must refrain from referring by name to individuals outside the House.

Senator David Norris: It would be impossible to refer to the example I am giving without mentioning the name of the individual in question. I do not do so in a critical sense.
I think I can refer to another Member of the House by name. I am very pleased my colleague on this side, Senator John Paul Phelan, raised the circumstances facing Protestant schools, an issue I briefly referred to the other day. I hesitate to raise this matter because I come from the Protestant community and I do not wish to be associated with——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The matter has been selected for discussion on the Adjournment.

Senator David Norris: I understand that. I welcome the decision to select it for debate because it has a much more powerful effect if the issue is raised by somebody who is not a member of the Protestant community. This shows the value of the House.
I call for a debate on human rights in the international context, particularly in light of the appalling events in Afghanistan where more than 100 innocent civilians were blown to pieces by United States forces. This is the type of incident I and many of my colleagues, including on the Government side, objected to when the Israelis were implicated in similar activities in Gaza. It shows that even someone like President Obama finds turning around the ship of state a lengthy process.
Tragically, if the United States and the Soviet Union, as it was then known, had made a moral investment and showed concern for human rights 20, 30 or 40 years ago, they might have jointly intervened on behalf of the unfortunate people, particularly women, of Afghanistan.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
Senator David Norris: I ask for a debate on human rights to take into account circumstances analogous to those in Gaza that are still occurring, even under the Obama administration, in Afghanistan where the great powers played out a game, at long distance and to the disadvantage of that country’s people, which inspired the Taliban and resulted in the negative aspects of extreme, fanatical religious positions.