💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › louise-tierney-bigots-send-for-sherrif.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:13:28. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Bigots send for sherrif
Author: Louise Tierney
Date: 1993
Language: en
Topics: Ireland, abortion, student unions, Workers Solidarity
Source: Retrieved on 13th October 2021 from http://struggle.ws/ws93/spuc40.html
Notes: Published in Workers Solidarity No. 40 — Autumn 1993.

Louise Tierney

Bigots send for sherrif

THE FIGHT between SPUC and the student unions over the provision of

abortion information has entered a new phase. SPUC’s solicitors, are now

seeking costs from the student unions for the earlier stages of the

case. This is despite the fact that the legal case is ongoing. In fact

this is the first time in the history of the Irish state that one party

has been awarded legal costs over the other while the case is still

being disputed. Talk about impartiality!

What this means is that SPUC will be able to use this money to fight the

later stages of the case, as well as providing resources for its other

anti-choice agendas, while the student unions will be left stuck for

cash if not financially insolvent. All this for fighting for a woman’s

right to choose.

The sheriff has been called in to collect the amount involved, ÂŁ29,000.

At the time of writing he has sent several final notices and even made

appointments to collect the money. The last one of these was on August

30^(th) at the Union of Students of Ireland (USI). Having been given 24

hours notice the students assembled journalists and photographers to

cover the story. That morning USI received a phone call asking if they

had any assets of value in their office. When they replied that they had

not the sheriff said he wasn’t coming.

RELUCTANT STATE?

This would seem to indicate a reluctance on the part of the state

authorities to test the public climate. Nonetheless the students

response to all of this has unfortunately been quite weak. Given the

current weakness of the student movement it is possible that they will

decide to pay the money involved. In the absence of a large campaign of

support, not to pay the money would inevitably mean the loss of the

student unions through the legal liquidation process.

However they have not decided to fight in any meaningful political

manner. The “X” case was successfully fought by spreading the campaign

to as wide a number of people as possible. The students appear to be

concentrating their efforts on raising money through reliable but narrow

channels.

The three student unions involved have combined to set up a student

trust with the sponsorship of noted liberals like Nuala O’Faolain and

David Norris. While these individuals can be quite good at raising money

within certain sectors, e.g. university lecturers, they do not see any

necessarily to spread the political campaign to the widest number of

people.

COURTS OR CAMPAIGN?

With many trade unions supporting a woman’s right to information,

arguably the most effective way to do this is to work on trade union

involvement. This can be done by providing a model motion for union

meetings, putting posters on union noticeboards pledging support to the

students, asking union executives to distribute information packs to

members. In this way political support and money can be raised to

support the students and to solidify support for a woman’s right to

information when the government brings in its legislation next year.

After all a majority of the country’s population voted for a woman’s

right to have information and to utilise that information by travelling

abroad for an abortion in last November’s referendum. SPUC is seeking to

penalise organisations for fighting for these rights. The courts are

unlikely to be responsive to polite liberal appeals, having imposed the

costs in the first place. More recently they refused to lift the

injunction on the Well Woman Centre and Open Door Counselling which

prohibits these organisations from providing information.

The more support the students gather now against this penalty for

providing information, the stronger the pressure will be on the

government to provide a broad framework for the provision of

information.