This is what Leo Varadkar is endorsing (though perhaps he doesn't realise it)

I'm not sure if anyone has been following the events in Canada recently, but if you haven't been, let me give you a bit of background. Justin Trudeau, the country's Liberal Party prime minister has a horrendous record on life issues that makes Barack Obama's look like that of Mitt Romney by comparison. In the past, Mr. Trudeau has stated that all Liberal candidates will in future have to support abortion-on-demand, effectively expelling not only any pro-lifers, but anyone has has any concerns at all over abortion. More recently, he has had the audacity to lecture other political leaders, namely our very own Leo Varadkar about their abortion laws, calling on Ireland to recognise abortion as a "fundamental right". Mr. Varadkar, far from criticising this inappropriate interference in Irish affairs, told him about his plans to remove what little protection the unborn have in this country, referring to the Repeal movement as "campaigners for womens' rights". The fact that legal abortion often entails the violation of women's rights to bodily and mental integrity, and facilitates the evils that led to the feminist movement in the first place was left uncommented on.
                                                                                                                            Five months after this meeting, Trudeau has now gone even further. He has now declared that all non-profit organisations receiving federal funding for youth employment will now have to explicitly subscribe to the Liberal platform on abortion. In other words, if you support any restrictions on abortion whatsoever, the Canadian government will not not give you a single penny. To give you an example of how extreme this is, imagine if some right-wing government required any charitable organisations receiving funding from the state to refuse to aid refugees and migrants. The international media would be up in arms (even if the domestic media had been gagged), and there would be calls for sanctions and boycotts would be organised, and rightly so. Why then should Mr. Trudeau be spared the same antipathy, especially since he has gone even further and is ordering charities to violate their consciences if they want aid from his government? Given that I am writing from an Irish rather than a Canadian perspective, I think it is best to direct those wanting further analysis on Mr. Trudeau's actions to Johnathon van Maren's Bridgehead site.
                                                                                But what I am most interested here is Mr. Varadkar's reaction to this. He received a lot of fanfare and a lot of fawning coverage of his visit to Canada. Therefore, there is an onus on him to make a statement that what Mr. Trudeau is doing in Canada will not be repeated here. Thus far, however, he has remained silent on the matter, which simply isn't good enough. Even more importantly, we need to ask ourselves as the Eighth Amendment is placed upon the chopping block: Is Canada really the society that we want to emulate? Do we really want a society where people are expected to conform to the values of the ruling party or risk being ostracised? Do we really want a society which regards unborn life as mere pieces of rubbish which can be annihilated at will? I don't.

1916 Rising was not Pro-Life

Given the week that's in it, I think it's only fair that I start with what has been dominating the news at the moment, namely the 1916 Rising. Anyone who has read my posts on the Irish Catholics Forum needs no introduction to my views on this, and I think that I will probably expand on my views on it this post.

First, a note on the official line in the commemorations. Most of the coverage of the Rising suggests that it was self-evidently a good thing, and for all the talk in the media about "inclusiveness" and the need for balance, it is fair to say that any outlets provided for criticism of the rebels have been tokenistic at best. What is even more concerning is that our Government seems fit to use the military to promote the Rising to schools across the country, in addition to providing each school with a tricolour and a copy of the Proclamation. Surely the whole function of school is to broaden people's minds, not to push a one-sided view of history such as we have seen over the last few months, especially at the expense of the taxpayer.

Perhaps I am being a bit unfair, as it seems that my own view, that the Rising did more harm than good to the cause of Irish independence (a cause I support, though through peaceful means), is not the majority view in the Republic. Indeed, in spite of the courageous stances of Mary Kenny and David Quinn in the Irish papers in the run-up to the commemorations, it seems that most pro-lifers seem to think that it was just as well. Niamh Ui Bhriain's article on the Life Institute website, is an example of this view, but I will get back to that later. I must confess that there seems to be relatively little (albeit slowly growing) questioning of the morality of the Rising in pro-life and Catholic circles, especially given that a glance at the just war theory would seem to indicate that the Rising was unjust.

In order for a war to be just, the Catechism states four conditions that must be met:

1. Grave and lasting damage
2. All peaceful attempts to defuse the situation have failed.
3. A serious chance of success
4. Proportionality (the act cannot exceed that of the aggressor).

It should be noted that all four conditions must be met: if it fails any of these conditions: it must therefore be unjust. Looking at the Rising, only the first point (grave and lasting damage) could reasonably be considered to be met. Even then, this is going as far back as the Cromwellian genocide and the Penal Laws. The efforts to attain efforts peacefully had succeeded in achieving Home Rule, which as the history of Australia and Canada would show us, would eventually have lead to independence. So the Rising seems to fail the second condition then.

As for a serious chance of success, even Pearse admitted that the rebels had no chance of victory, and their main aim was to radicalise the Irish nationalist movement through their "blood sacrifice". They succeeded, but only with the help of the heavy-handed manner in which the British dealt with the Rising, going as far to execute an already injured man who had to be tied to a chair. Even though they certainly succeeded in that front, that in itself does not excuse the immense damage done to only to the cause for independence, but also to the city of Dublin, and most importantly to the families of loved ones who were caught in the crossfire. As pro-lifers, surely the welfare of the last category should be of particular concern to us. Unfortunately, it seems that this has been lost in the euphoria of the occasion. This also fails the final condition of proportionality, as the evils created by the Rising, not just by the rebels to the fair, far outweighed anything good that may have come out of it.

That said and done, I now return to Niamh's blog post. Rising aside, it is a very strong piece and her comments about the ultimate inhumanity of the pro-choice position are well-made. After all, every single one of us owes our existence to the fact that our mothers brought us to term, often in very painful circumstances. She is also on the mark as regards the need to change the culture back to one which values life and doesn't merely see it as an inconvenience to be discarded on a whim. Where I disagree with her is that I'm not sure the rebels are a good example of the type of society we should be encouraging. Sure, the Proclamation contains positive language about individual rights and freedoms. But I take the view that actions speak much louder than words, and the actions of the rebels are not exactly life-affirming. One need only look at the shooting dead of unarmed police officers, the children caught in the crossfire, the fathers and sons indiscriminately shot by the British (yes, the rebels are at least partially responsible there, since they would have lived had they not resorted to arms) to verify this. Pearse's glorification of blood sacrifice and his desire for bloodshed as expressed at the outbreak of WWI should really be raising alarm bells in the minds of pro-lifers as to whether the rebels are a suitable role model for the pro-life movement. The fact that many others wrote similar things around that time is irrelvant: it was still objectively wrong and the actions of others does not lessen the gravity of what they did.

People might wonder if I do not believe that we should look the those who occupied the GPO, then who do I think is suitable. I would suggest John Hume, who in the face of discrimination by the majoritarian government in Stormont, sought to improve the lot of northern nationalists through solely peaceful means when it would have been all too easy to turn to the gun. Though he did not go to the lengths of those in 1916, he achieved far more with far less bloodshed, and indeed his legacy lives on in the devolved power-sharing administration that now exists in the North. It is his determination and persistence in the face of adversity that we should emulate at a time when we are coming under increasing pressure from certain quarters, including the departing Government. We would do well not to emulate the recklessness of the Rising, lest we end up causing more problems than we solve. Of course, given the sanitised version taught in Irish schools, most Irish people tend to project their own beliefs on the the Rebels (look at the Prime Time special last week, where the new proclamation included "bodily autonomy" - that's abortion to the rest of us), and this is probably the case with Niamh's piece. Feel free to disagree, I just feel that given the dearth of non-eulogical commentary on the Rising, an alternative position deserves to be put out there.