DUBLIN: The rival sides in Ireland’s decades-old battle over abortion made their final pitches to voters on Thursday, the eve of a referendum on liberalising one of the world’s strictest bans on terminations.
Voters in the once deeply Catholic nation will be asked on Friday if they wish to scrap a prohibition that was enshrined in the constitution by referendum 35 year ago, then partly lifted five years ago for cases where the mother’s life is in danger.
Opinion polls have put those who favor changing the law in the lead. The two most recent surveys on Sunday showed the “Yes” side pulling slightly further ahead.
“This is a once-in-a-generation decision for the Irish people,” Prime Minister Leo Varadkar told reporters.
“It is an opportunity for us to change our country. If there is a ‘Yes’ vote, Ireland will still be the same place, just a place that is a little bit more compassionate, a little kinder and a little more understanding than it has been.”
“Yes” campaigners are urging voters to repeal the eighth amendment of the constitution, which equates the right to life of the mother with her unborn child’s.
They argue that with over 3,000 women traveling to Britain each year for terminations and others ordering pills illegally online, abortion is already a reality in Ireland.
The “No” camp has seized on government plans to allow terminations with no restriction up to 12 weeks into a pregnancy if the referendum is carried, although that is not on the ballot paper.
They have suggested in recent days that if the referendum is defeated, the constitution could instead be amended again to allow for abortions in “hard” cases such as rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality.
Varadkar and others say this is impossible — citing advice from Ireland’s Attorney General — and have accused their opponents of trying to dupe voters.
“If we ... vote ‘No’, no doubt this will come back in a year or two and then we can look at the hard cases, but not a carte blanche free-for-all for up to 12 weeks,” said Mattie McGrath, an independent lawmaker and prominent anti-abortion campaigner.
“If ‘No’ carries, the people will have spoken.”
Most polls will open at 0600 GMT on Friday, although voting was already under way on Thursday on remote west coast islands.
Some expatriate Irish were flying home from as far away as Bangkok, Los Angeles and Sydney to cast their ballots in a country that does not allow those abroad to vote via post or in embassies.
Those away for less than 18 months remain eligible to vote at their former local polling station.
The hashtag #hometovote was one of the top trending issues on Twitter on Wednesday, as it was three years ago when Ireland became the first country in the world to adopt gay marriage by popular vote.
Online comments suggested most of those heading home planned to vote “Yes.” Many posted photos of themselves wearing sweatshirts bearing the “Yes” side’s “Repeal” slogan.
“For me, I felt a moral obligation to come back,” said Ciaran Gaffney, 22, who forked out nearly 1,000 euros to return to the southwestern city of Limerick from Buenos Aires and bumped into four other returning voters on his flight home.
“As soon as the referendum was called, I just booked the flights there and then. My generation, my peers, are the ones who are going to be affected. I’m extremely excited to go into the polling booth and put that ‘X’ into the Ta (Yes) box.”
Campaigners make final pitches on eve of Ireland’s abortion referendum
Campaigners make final pitches on eve of Ireland’s abortion referendum
- Prime Minister Leo Varadkar: “If there is a ‘Yes’ vote, Ireland will still be the same place, just a place that is a little bit more compassionate, a little kinder and a little more understanding than it has been.”
- Some expatriate Irish were flying home from as far away as Bangkok, Los Angeles and Sydney to cast their ballots in a country that does not allow those abroad to vote via post or in embassies.
Top UN court to hear Rohingya genocide case against Myanmar
THE HAGUE: Did Myanmar commit genocide against its Rohingya Muslim minority? That’s what judges at the International Court of Justice will weigh during three weeks of hearings starting Monday.
The Gambia brought the case accusing Myanmar of breaching the 1948 Genocide Convention during a crackdown in 2017.
Legal experts are watching closely as it could give clues for how the court will handle similar accusations against Israel over its military campaign in Gaza, a case brought to the ICJ by South Africa.
Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims fled violence by the Myanmar army and Buddhist militias, escaping to neighboring Bangladesh and bringing harrowing accounts of mass rape, arson and murder.
Today, 1.17 million Rohingya live crammed into dilapidated camps spread over 8,000 acres in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh.
From there, mother-of-two Janifa Begum told AFP: “I want to see whether the suffering we endured is reflected during the hearing.”
“We want justice and peace,” said the 37-year-old.
’Senseless killings’
The Gambia, a Muslim-majority country in West Africa, brought the case in 2019 to the ICJ, which rules in disputes between states.
Under the Genocide Convention, any country can file a case at the ICJ against any other it believes is in breach of the treaty.
In December 2019, lawyers for the African nation presented evidence of what they said were “senseless killings... acts of barbarity that continue to shock our collective conscience.”
In a landmark moment at the Peace Palace courthouse in The Hague, Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi appeared herself to defend her country.
She dismissed Banjul’s argument as a “misleading and incomplete factual picture” of what she said was an “internal armed conflict.”
The former democracy icon warned that the genocide case at the ICJ risked reigniting the crisis, which she said was a response to attacks by Rohingya militants.
Myanmar has always maintained the crackdown by its armed forces, known as the Tatmadaw, was justified to root out Rohingya insurgents after a series of attacks left a dozen security personnel dead.
‘Physical destruction’
The ICJ initially sided with The Gambia, which had asked judges for “provisional measures” to halt the violence while the case was being considered.
The court in 2020 said Myanmar must take “all measures within its power” to halt any acts prohibited in the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.
These acts included “killing members of the group” and “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
The United States officially declared that the violence amounted to genocide in 2022, three years after a UN team said Myanmar harbored “genocidal intent” toward the Rohingya.
The hearings, which wrap up on January 30, represent the heart of the case.
The court had already thrown out a 2022 Myanmar challenge to its jurisdiction, so judges believe they have the power to rule on the genocide issue.
A final decision could take months or even years and while the ICJ has no means of enforcing its decisions, a ruling in favor of The Gambia would heap more political pressure on Myanmar.
Suu Kyi will not be revisiting the Peace Palace. She has been detained since a 2021 coup, on charges rights groups say were politically motivated.
The ICJ is not the only court looking into possible genocide against the Rohingya.
The International Criminal Court, also based in The Hague, is investigating military chief Min Aung Hlaing for suspected crimes against humanity.
Another case is being heard in Argentina under the principle of universal jurisdiction, the idea that some crimes are so heinous they can be heard in any court.
