In June of this year on the birthday of William Butler Yeats I was asked by Sandymount and Merrion Residents’ Association to recite one of Yeats’ poems in Sandymount Green.
I chose “Come Gather Round Me Parnellites” in memory of my late friend Frank Callanan who was a great Parnellite.

The hate crime bill could end up criminalising people because of ill-considered abusive comments made at the time of an offence, when in fact hatred did not motivate their offence; also the ‘other genders’ part of the bill needs revisiting

Myself and Fianna Fáíl have been calling for a while that we need a separate designated public transport unit within an Garda Síochána.

Jim O’Callaghan reacts to #DublinAfterDark documentary highlighting anti-social behaviour.

In recent days we have again seen horrific acts of violence perpetrated with knives.
Unfortunately, the possession of knives has become much more widespread in our society. This is a trend that needs to be reversed through legislative change and education.

You’ll be aware that 25 years ago, the Good Friday agreement was signed. It was a transformative agreement and it was an internationally recognized agreement of importance and it really changed politics on this island for the better.

And although we still have very many ongoing problems with politics in Northern Ireland, those of you here who are my age or older will recall how great things have got since that agreement no longer.

Do we wake up in the morning time, hearing about people being lost, been murdered, have been killed in violence.

And I suppose one of the singular achievements of the Good Friday Agreement is that there’s no acceptance throughout this country amongst all political parties and organizations that violence is unacceptable for the purpose of trying to achieve political objectives.

“My ultimate political aspiration remains the coming together of all the people of Ireland achieved peacefully and by consent.”

A couple of years ago, I drafted a new law about the parole process.
It’s now an operation.
If you or a family member where the victim of a serious crime that resulted in a life sentence, you can now have a say in whether the person who committed that crime should get early parole.
You’ll also, as a victim of crime, get legal aid to support you in that process.
Under the legislation, you, the victim or the victim’s family can make submissions to the parole board so that your voice can be heard when the perpetrators application for parole is being considered.
If you want to be involved in this process, a victim registration form is available online from the parole board.
You should have your say.

Jim O’Callaghan TD 

Today I introduced this Bill to make the international crime of aggression an offence under Irish law.
Although it became a crime under international law in 2010 it has yet to be incorporated into Irish law.
Art 29.8 of the constitution allows the state to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction.

Ashdown Park Hotel, Gorey, Co. Wexford.

Jim O’Callaghan TD 

The Execution of Liam Mellows 

I want to thank the Liam Mellows Commemoration Committee for the great honour of inviting me to address the official commemoration marking the centenary of his death.

At the time of his execution on 8 December 1922, Liam Mellows had been a prisoner in Mountjoy Prison for five months, having been arrested and imprisoned as one of the leaders of the anti-treaty IRA Garrison in the Four Courts.

He was executed by firing squad alongside Rory O’Connor, Joseph McKelvey and Dick Barrett.

Their executions by the Free State Government were in reprisal for the killing of Seán Hales TD by the IRA on 7 December 1922. Even though none of them could have had any involvement in Hales’ killing, the four were selected as representatives of each of Ireland’s provinces, with Mellows’ election for Galway in the 1921 general election qualifying him to fill that fatal role on behalf of Connacht.

Present at the execution was Canon John Pigott, one of the first army chaplains in the Free State Army, who subsequently recalled: 

“In a few minutes we were all in the prison yard and the four, all brave and calm, were lined up before the firing squad. I gave a last absolution and as I was having a final word with Rory and Liam, I saw Liam shuffle the gravel from under his feet so that he could stand up more firmly. I moved a few yards to the right and as I did so I heard Liam Mellows say his last words: ‘Slán Libh Lads’ – his farewell to the firing party. In another instant the sign was given; the volley rang out; the men fell, and Canon McMahon and I anointed them where they lay on the ground.” 

Notwithstanding the killing of Seán Hales on the previous day, the execution of Mellows and his colleagues received widespread condemnation. Later on the day of the executions the leader of the Labour Party, Thomas Johnson TD, questioned in Dáil Éireann whether any member of the Free State Government had any regard for the honour of Ireland or the good name of the state, and stated that he could not imagine that anyone could defend the action, save on grounds of vengeance: 

“You were charged with the care of those men; that was your duty as guardians of the law. You could have charged them with an offence. You held them as a defence, and your duty was to care for them. You thought it well not to try them, and not to bring them to the Courts, and then, because a man is assassinated who is held in honour, the government of this country announces apparently with pride that they have taken out four men, who were in their charge as prisoners, and as a reprisal for that assassination murdered them. These men, unless with the connivance of the government, could not have been engaged in any conspiracy when they have been in your charge for five months….There is no pretence of legality; there is not even the trial guaranteed under the rules authorised. The offence these men committed was an offence committed before July. So far as we know there has been no trial, and these men were executed as a reprisal.” 

The executions not only raised serious questions about the legality of the actions of the Free State Government but also its competence. Cathal O’Shannon, TD for Louth and Meath, challenged the Free State Government’s competence by stating: 

“I say that you are not able to carry on the government of this country. You would not be forced to the necessity, as you call it, of murdering the four men in Mountjoy this morning if you were competent. You would not. Instead of being able to follow up the assassins of Seán Hales and capture and try, and execute them for murder, you would not be forced, if you were competent, to go into Mountjoy and take four prisoners you had in your hands for four or five months.” 

During his contribution O’Shannon specifically referred to Mellows and asked whether any government TD was aware of the impact he had in Ireland during the previous decade: 

“Do you know that there is not a little nipper in the Fianna since 1912 right down to today, from the age of 8 years to 18 or 20 years, who will grow up within the next three years with nothing in his heart but revenge for the death of Liam Mellows?” 

Responding on behalf of the Free State Government, Richard Mulcahy TD, Minister for Defence, said: 

“The action that was taken this morning was taken as a deterrent action, taken to secure that this country shall not be destroyed and thrown into chaos by the toleration of any group of men acting together for the destruction, one by one, or in groups, of those single representative people that are the keystone of our government and of our society here.” 

Kevin O’Higgins TD, Minister for Home Affairs and Vice President of the Government, justified the executions by claiming that there were no real rules of war and that the safety and preservation of the people was the highest law.

Nonetheless, the illegality of the executions was recognised in the official report from the Free State Government which stated that the four had been executed: 

“as a reprisal for the assassination of Brig Hales TD, as a solemn warning for those associated with them who are engaged in the conspiracy of assassination against the representatives of the Irish people.” 

Opponents of the Treaty and members of the anti-treaty IRA viewed the executions as nothing less than murder, a view widely shared by international media. For instance, the New York Nation of 20 December 1922 described them as “murder foul and despicable and nothing else”.

Even that renowned propagandist for the Free State Government, P.S. O’Hegarty, accepted that “these reprisal executions were illegal.” 

Was Liam Mellows a Revolutionary Socialist? 

Unfortunately, the memory and contribution of Liam Mellows in Irish politics have been dominated by the impact his unlawful execution had on Irish politics during and in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Nonetheless, the outrage caused by his execution should not overshadow the political contribution and significance of his life.

As is apparent from the selected writings of Liam Mellows that have been excellently compiled by Conor McNamara in his Liam Mellows, Solider of the Irish Republic, published in 2019, Mellows played a significant role in the struggle for Irish independence and left behind a small but important body of writing that provides us with an insight into one of the most interesting, yet marginal, figures from the revolutionary era.

This address seeks to examine Liam Mellows’ contribution as a prominent and consistent opponent of imperialism, and how his anti-imperialist views were part of an international campaign that correctly and presciently viewed imperialism as the real obstacle to the self-determination of people subjected to colonial rule.

This is the contribution of which Liam Mellows and those who shared his political ideology can be proud, particularly as the negative legacy of empire has become increasingly more apparent in recent times.

The 1916 Rising and the War of Independence constituted a revolution against British rule in Ireland. Although socialists were involved, it was not a socialist revolution. As a country that had not developed an industrial base, it is unsurprising that a conflict between labour and capital was not at the forefront of the minds of those who espoused Irish independence.

Nonetheless, there were many, particularly James Connolly and subsequently Peadar O’Donnell and Ernie O’Malley, who viewed the Irish revolutionary struggle in predominantly class terms. Liam Mellows has frequently been viewed as a revolutionary socialist and, consequently, has also occupied a revered place for many on the Republican left. In part, this is due to the hagiography on Mellows written by the socialist republican C.Desmond Greaves.

However, it is questionable whether Mellows was, in fact, the revolutionary socialist that some have sought to portray. More probably, he was a radical anti-imperialist who viewed republicanism as the most appropriate method of destroying the imperialism he detested and that had created so much of the inequality and suppression of national identity that he witnessed. 

It was only in the last five months of his life whilst a prisoner in Mountjoy Prison that Mellows produced writings that have been interpreted as being the writings of a revolutionary socialist.

The most compelling evidence of Mellows socialist leanings is provided in the article he wrote for the Workers Republic, the newspaper of the Communist Party of Ireland, on 22 July 1922. This article is a scathing attack on the Labour Party, motivated in part by the fact that anti-treaty Republicans believed that Labour’s failure to support their campaign was a betrayal of working people.

His condemnation of the Labour Party for purporting to seek a Workers’ Republic whilst accepting the terms of the Treaty can, no doubt, be read as suggesting that the pursuit of a Workers’ Republic was Mellows’ objective. In criticising the Labour Party, he stated: 

“The Irish Labour Party talked glibly of a Workers’ Republic. It still pretends to have as its objective the establishment of such a State. Veiled threats of a big stick it intends to wield some day are thrown out for the credulous. Professing to be against militarism, its leaders try to delude the movement into believing that at some future date they will head a revolution. 

Labour played a tremendous part in the establishment and maintenance of the Republic. Its leaders had it in their power to fashion that Republic as they wished – to make it a Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic. By their acceptance of the Treaty and all that it connotes – recognition of the British monarchy, British Privy Council and British Imperialism; Partition of the country and subservience to British capitalism – they have betrayed not alone the Irish Republic but the Labour Movement in Ireland and the cause of the workers and peasants throughout the world.” 

It is probably more accurate, however, to suggest that Mellows’ real motivation in writing this article was his abhorrence of British imperialism rather than his devotion to a Workers’ Republic and his disbelief that those seeking the establishment of a Workers’ Republic would align themselves with a treaty arrangement that continued to support and endorse the constituent parts of British imperialism in Ireland. He viewed the Free State created by the Treaty as such a part: 

“It is a fallacy to believe that a Republic of any kind can be won through the shackled Free State. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. The Free State is British created, British controlled and served British Imperialist 

interests. It is the buffer erected between British Capitalism and the Irish Republic. A Workers’ Republic can be erected only on its ruins. The existing Irish Republic can be made the Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic if the Labour movement is true to the ideals of James Connolly and true to itself.” 

The high point of Mellows as revolutionary socialist is his article’s assessment of the significance of the Irish Republic: 

“The Irish Republic represents independence and the struggle has a threefold significance. It is political, it is intellectual, it is economic. It is political in the sense that it means complete separation from England and the British Empire. It is intellectual in as much as it represents the cultural expression of the Gaelic mind and Gaelic civilisation and the removal of the impress of English speech and English thought upon the Irish character. It is economic because the wresting of Ireland from the grip of English Capitalism can leave no thinking Irishman with the desire to build up and perpetuate in this country an economic system that had its roots in foreign domination….The Irish Republic stands therefore for the ownership of Ireland by the people of Ireland. It means that the means and processes of production must not be used for the profit or aggrandisement of any group or class. Ireland has not yet become industrialised. It never will if, in rejecting and casting off British Imperialism (and its off-spring the Free State and Northern Parliament) the Irish Workers insist that a native imperialism does not replace it. If the Irish people do not control Irish industries, transport, money and the soil of the country, then foreign or domestic capitalists will.” 

These writings fit fairly comfortably within a socialist perspective of the Irish revolutionary period and Mellows may have had a late conversion to the socialist cause as a result of his five-month imprisonment in Mountjoy.

What is more likely is that this article illustrates that his longstanding and consistent anti-imperialism was outraged by what he viewed as a Labour Party that was prepared to sustain and support a Free State that he viewed as a creation of British imperialism.

Probably a more accurate assessment of Mellows’ politics is not that he was a revolutionary socialist but that he was primarily an anti-imperialist who was committed to tearing down the imperialist structures that dominated life in Ireland and Europe at that time.

Support for this analysis comes from Mellows himself who was aware that his article in the Workers Republic was being presented as support for a socialist uprising.

In a letter to Seán Etchingham he rejected as silly the suggestion that what he described as these “hastily written outline of ideas” could be branded as “communistic.” 

The International Anti-Imperialism of Liam Mellows 

The consistent and dominant political ideology that is apparent from the writings and speeches of Liam Mellows is anti-imperialism. Although his politics were formed by the actions of the British Empire in Ireland, his detestation of imperialism went beyond that of its involvement in Ireland. At a meeting in New York’s Central Opera House in November 1918 Mellows told the large crowd: 

“The Romanovs are gone, the Habsburgs are gone, the House of Hohenzollern is gone and then it is said that there is peace because the power of the German Empire is broken. But there can be no peace until another Royal House, the House of Hanover – pardon me, I mean Windsor – is gone and with it all the English Aristocrats – the Lansdownes, the Milners, the Balfours – and the power of another empire that rode roughshod over the peoples of the world, the British Empire, 

is gone. When that occurs, the world will be liberated from the foulest tyranny that has ever cursed it, and from its ruins will arise a free Ireland, a free India, a free Egypt, a free Africa.” 

Earlier on his American visit, he gave a speech at the Washburn Theatre, Chester, Pennsylvania on 23 April 1918 where again he sought to internationalise the Irish struggle: 

“The Irish people stand for a cause that is as great as that of any race; a cause as great as that which Belgium stands for; a cause as great as the liberty of Serbia and Montenegro. They stand for a cause which has lived for longer than that of any of these other countries, because Belgium and Serbia have been persecuted for three years, and Ireland has suffered for 750 years.” 

He then positioned Ireland as being integral to the imperial expansion of England. He suggested that Ireland became the jumping off place for the expansion of the British Empire and that the foundations of the British Empire were laid in British policy in Ireland: 

“England has very good reasons for keeping Ireland down. The very future and safety of her Empire depends on her holding Ireland. If proof were needed, we have a very recent statement made by an organisation known as the British Navy League, composed of Officers of the British Navy. In a memorandum presented to the British Cabinet several months ago, they stated that the position of Ireland is vital to England, because Ireland contains 18 harbours, possession of which by England is necessary in order that England control the trade routes of the world. Further on, they state that Ireland is the Heligoland of the Atlantic. You will find therein the reason why England keeps Ireland down; Ireland being the Heligoland of the Atlantic is necessary for England’s own aggrandisement.” 

Mellows’ subsequent opposition to the Treaty was consistent with his anti-imperialist views and was based on his assessment that the Treaty was a product of the British Empire which he viewed as representing “nothing but the concentrated tyranny of ages.” In his speech to Dáil Éireann on 4 January 1922 opposing the Treaty he framed his opposition within a condemnation of the British Empire: 

“Under this Treaty the Irish people are going to be committed within the British Empire. We have always in this country protested against being included within the British Empire. Now we are told that we are going into it with our heads up. The British Empire stands to me in the same relationship as the Devil stands to religion. The British Empire represents to me nothing but the concentrated tyranny of ages….It means to me that terrible thing that has spread its tentacles all over the earth, that has crushed the lives out of people and exploited its own when it could not exploit anybody else. That British Empire is the thing that has crushed this country; yet we are told that we are going into it now with our heads up. We are going into the British Empire now to participate in the Empire’s shame even though we do not actually commit the act, to participate in the shame and the crucifixion of India and the degradation of Egypt. Is that what the Irish people fought for freedom for?” 

Mellows was correct in his criticism and condemnation of imperialism in general and the British Empire in particular because of the oppression, discrimination and racism upon which they were built. In this regard, his political ideology aligns comfortably with more recent historical assessments of the tactics and devastating consequences of imperialism.

Those tactics used in the expansion of the British Empire both before and after the American War of Independence were similar to the tactics that were used consistently in Ireland. An integral part of maintaining imperial control was the use of violence against native populations. In the imperial mindset of Rudyard Kipling these were the “savage wars of peace”. As Caroline Elkins illustrates in her History of the British Empire Legacy of Violence, skin colour became the mark of difference between those in the Empire who were viewed as civilised and uncivilised. She notes, however, that in Ireland and indeed within the Afrikaner population of South Africa skin colour was not the marker of local populations differences. Instead, it was a constructed skin colour: 

“In effect, Britain radicalised the Irish and Afrikaners, equating their cultures to those of brown and black subjects, sometimes using dehumanising language to describe their physical appearances and living conditions, and believing that just like the Xhosa of South Africa or the Chinese in Malaya, the Irish and Afrikaners were “backward” populations that needed to be civilised.” 

Oppression and violence became a central part of the British Empire’s control of its colonies notwithstanding the fact that many of its imperial defenders viewed its mission in a positive light as being a civilising mission. Even if such a benign interpretation is in part accepted, it is hard to avoid the conclusion reached by Elkins when she writes: 

“If Britain’s civilising mission was reformist in its claims, it was brutal nonetheless. Violence was not just the British Empire’s midwife, it was endemic to the structures and systems of British Rule. It was not just an occasional means to liberal imperialisms end; it was a means and an end for as long as the British Empire remained alive. Without it, Britain could not have maintained its sovereign claims to its colonies.” 

In fairness, there was also awareness at the time of Ireland’s independence, including amongst historians, of the oppressive impact of imperialism. Dorothy Macardle concluded her major work The Irish Republic in 1937 by noting how political thought was then advancing in Britain: 

“The exploitation of the weak by the strong has been named by its just name, aggression; the law of the jungle falls into disrepute; a generation of Englishmen with new ideals of State craft is taking the reins of power.” 

This international view of imperialism that was at the forefront of Mellows’ political thinking was influenced, as can be seen in his writings and speeches, by global events, particularly those that occurred after the end of the First World War.

Consequently, Mellows and the Irish Independence struggle receive a more accurate and fairer appraisal when the events of one hundred years ago in Ireland are viewed in the context of those other significant global events.

The Irish independence struggle was not only impacted by global events but also influenced them.

This latter view was recognised by Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, who noted that “if we lose Ireland we have lost the Empire.”

This international nature of the Irish Revolution has also more recently been recognised in The Irish Revolution A Global History where the editors in their introduction note: 

“The Irish Revolution, then, was fundamentally a transnational event. Funds for the Republican movement poured in via the expanse of networks of diaspora nationalism; its leaders, in both their ideologies and their military tactics, were profoundly influenced by experiences abroad; and the violence that defined events in Ireland between 1916 and 1923 emerged against a backdrop of comparable revolutionary and anti-colonial movements elsewhere in Europe and around the world. Despite emerging in such a fundamentally international context, much of the foundation or historiography on the revolution engages only tangentially, or not at all, with its inherent transnationalism.” 

Liam Mellows’ Legacy and Cultural Equality

To where then does the anti-imperialism of Liam Mellows from a century ago direct those who are, or view themselves as, his political successors? What can members of Fianna Fáil learn from the life of Liam Mellows one hundred years after his execution?

We will never know whether Mellows, like so many others who opposed the Treaty, would have continued to align himself with Éamon de Valera after he had left Sinn Féin and established Fianna Fáil in 1926. But we do know that Fianna Fáil was founded four years after Mellows’ death by people who shared his belief that imperialism had inflicted grave damage on the Irish people.

They believed that the Irish people should be entitled to determine their own governance and their own future free from external influence and the societal hierarchy imposed by imperialism. It was this anti-imperialism that was one of the defining characteristics of Fianna Fáil in its early years. 

In trying to decipher Liam Mellows’ legacy it is useful to start by developing an accurate assessment of the international impact of imperialism and the damage it inflicted on many colonised countries.

This damage was recognised very recently by the President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, in his speech to the Houses of Parliament on 22 November 2022 where he noted that the relationship between Great Britain and South Africa was “a relationship that was founded in colonialism and conflict, dispossession and degradation”.

Today, the legacy of imperialism can be seen in many countries whose governance and welfare continue to be damaged by the consequences of imperialism. At the heart of imperialism was the promotion of a political agenda and form of governance that was founded on supremacy and inequality, particularly cultural inequality.

The impact and effect of this cultural inequality in Ireland is now subsiding because as a country it has successfully unburdened itself of most, although not all, of the damaging consequences imposed by imperialism, and has attempted to do so by promoting the principle of equality. 

Equality has a specific legal meaning as is apparent from the status afforded to it in many fundamental legal documents.

The 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted on 9 July 1868, contained an equal protection clause which required that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Weimar Constitution of 1919 set forth individual rights of Germans, one of which was equality before the law.

The Irish Free State Constitution contained no equality provision but Article 40.1 of de Valera’s Bunreacht na hÉireann provides that “All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law”. More recently, equality as a rule to prohibit discrimination was given further recognition in the European Convention of Human Rights that contains a direct prohibition of such discrimination and the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights that contains a Chapter on Equality.

Most of these measures have ensured that the implementation of equality by states is limited to ensuring that the operation of their laws do not discriminate. 

Equality in politics is a more nebulous ideal with an elastic political meaning that focuses mainly on economic equality and/ or cultural equality.

Economic equality assesses the manner by which resources and capital are distributed in order to lessen or reduce differences in wealth. On the other hand, cultural equality seeks to ensure that cultural differences are respected in order to achieve equality.

Consequently, economic equality seeks to achieve convergence whilst cultural equality seeks to recognise and respect divergence. In effect, cultural equality presents the principle of equality in a way that acknowledges and celebrates differences. 

The partition of Ireland in 1921 was an event that most certainly did not acknowledge and celebrate differences. Instead it undermined any notion of cultural equality by dividing people living on the island based on their religious and cultural differences.

It was a crude imperial measure but one that was not unique to Ireland. The partition of India was also imposed by a departing British government as a measure to resolve what it perceived would be internal nativist unrest. It resulted in widespread migration and sectarian violence.

Although today Pakistan and India are viewed as being necessarily separate, this should not prevent an accurate assessment of the reasons behind the use of partition. As Yasmin Khan noted in what was probably the finest work on the partition of India: 

“The partition of 1947 is also a loud reminder, should we care to listen, of the dangers of colonial interventions and the profound difficulties that dog regime change. It stands testament to the follies of Empire, which ruptures community evolution, distorts historical trajectories and forces violent State formation from societies that would otherwise have taken different – and unknowable – paths. Partition is a lasting lesson of both the dangers of imperial hubris and the reactions of extreme nationalism.” 

Partition in Ireland resulted in less chaos than India but it did result in migration and sectarian violence. It also ensured that Ireland did not take a different, and unknowable, path. However, the paths that were taken are known and can be assessed with the benefit of 100 years of knowledge.

Both paths encountered very rough terrain for the first 75 years but any objective assessment of the paths taken must conclude that the path of independence is now a more economically successful, politically stable and culturally diverse path.

Although the risks associated with independence were enormous, the changes that have occurred in global politics during the past century, where cultural equality has overwhelmed imperialism, have empowered and vindicated that path. 

The unknowable path down which the island did not proceed 100 years ago may have included more migration and more sectarian violence.

Today, however, as a result of the diminution of extreme nationalism and extreme loyalism, the motivation and basis for such violence no longer exists amongst the vast majority of reasonable people resident on the island who now overwhelmingly support the principle of cultural equality.

The dangers and fears that prompted the partition of Ireland are no longer present, although the sectarianism that existed on the island a century ago has regrettably survived within Northern Ireland where the external influence of global politics has been slower to penetrate. 

The effect of partition was that cultural inequality was imposed throughout the island because it was believed that an independent Ireland could not accommodate different cultures and religions. Instead, two jurisdictions were created where cultural equality was viewed as being unnecessary. Today, it is accepted that cultural respect and recognition is essential in order to achieve cultural equality.

This was recognised by the Canadian Supreme Court in Andrews v Law Society of British Colombia ISCR 143 where the Court said that “The accommodation of differences is the essence of true equality.” Or as Professor of Political Theory, Judith Squires, has written: 

“Equality now appears to require a respect for difference rather than a search for similarities. It also tends to focus on the importance of equality between groups rather than between individuals, incorporating an analyses of the systems and structures that constitute and perpetuate the inequalities under consideration in the first place.” 

In considering what role equality can play in assessing the continuation of partition, it should be acknowledged that it is extremely difficult to discuss this issue objectively without being influenced by the politics of its imposition.

Similarly, any debate about Irish reunification has, to date, been framed too much in the context of Ireland’s past. Since the negative consequences of our shared and difficult history with Britain are now subsiding and the politics of imperialism have been overtaken by the political imperative of cultural equality, it is now time for those who wish to see an end to partition to frame that issue in the context of the promotion of cultural equality on the island.

In doing so, the negative impact of partition as a colonial measure should neither be ignored nor airbrushed from history, but its relevance for the future should be acknowledged as being limited. Inevitably, there will be groups in Ireland who will continue to see partition through the past rather than the future but that should not dilute the fact that the only legitimate reason to end partition is in order to see an improvement in the lives of people on the island, not to address an historic grievance. 

Promoting Equality through Reunification

Fianna Fáil wants to see a united Ireland. It is the party’s primary aim and objective . Members of Fianna Fáil should not be hesitant or diffident about expressing this political ambition and how they think it can best be achieved.

Frequently in politics the easier and less risky path for an established political party is to seek no change until change becomes inevitable.

That is not a path that Fianna Fáil can follow. As a party that has played a defining role in Ireland’s progress over the past 100 years, Fianna Fáil must be central to the debate about any constitutional change on the island. It is a difficult and complicated issue but because of the terms of the Good Friday Agreement it is an issue that will not fade from the political agenda. If Fianna Fáil fails to lead this debate, it will be dominated by other parties and political groupings whose respect for consent and commitment to cultural equality may not be as inclusive as Fianna Fáil’s.

In truth, Fianna Fáil has a responsibility to all groups on the island, many who would never vote for it, to lead this debate. It also has a duty to its members because a political party that does not campaign for change in order to achieve its objectives will be viewed as passive. 

If Fianna Fáil is serious about seeking to achieve Irish reunification it needs to recognise that cultural equality will be an absolute necessity in order to alleviate concerns that many in Northern Ireland have about a unitary state. Cultural equality in this context will mean that the cultural and religious differences of people on the island will need to be identified as meriting special protection.

Although Ireland in 2022 is culturally, religiously and ethnically much more diverse than it was one hundred years ago, the main resistance to reunification still emanates from those who believe their cultural loyalty to Great Britain and its Monarch will not be protected in any new unitary state.

A clear commitment to protect and recognise such cultural differences will be necessary in order to illustrate the benefits that can arise through reunification and to provide comfort to those who have legitimate concerns about the influence any new unitary state may have on their cultural or religious identity. 

The success of the Good Friday Agreement is that all elected political groups on the island now recognise that any constitutional change in Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland. Fianna Fáil for many decades before the Agreement fully accepted this principle of consent. To date, there has been no majority within Northern Ireland for Irish reunification and this has been and must continue to be respected.

However, if that changes in the future, then a necessary corollary to the respect that peaceful nationalists have shown for Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom is that unionism must respect the wish of the majority of people in Northern Ireland to become part of a united Ireland. It is not a political path down which Unionists wish to travel but in a world where democracy needs to be protected it would simply be perverse if such a mandate from the majority of people in Northern Ireland was not openly respected.

In seeking to persuade the people of Northern Ireland of the benefits of reunification, a guarantee of cultural equality for all groups on the island will ensure that the failure of both jurisdictions in the aftermath of partition to respect the rights of minorities will not be repeated. 

Ireland and its revolutionary struggle was an inspiration to other colonised countries that sought and achieved their independence.

Few have progressed as strongly and successfully as Ireland. More importantly, few have changed as significantly and unpredictably as Ireland.

The imposition of partition a century ago was a response to the politics that then existed in Ireland and the world. But those politics are now gone. The fall of imperialism and the rise of equality, particularly cultural equality, are two of the most significant political changes of the past century. 

Unfortunately, the violence inflicted in the past has cast a dark and influential shadow, but in recent years that darkness has lessened because of the success of politics. As we gather here to commemorate the violent death 100 years ago of Liam Mellows, we should also be positive in the knowledge that next April we will celebrate the Good Friday Agreement where it was agreed that political differences and challenges on this island cannot and will not be resolved through violence but only through respect, debate and democracy. 

It would be an inspiration to many countries that are marred by sectarian violence and political division if the people of a post-colonial country, partitioned through colonial intervention, decided in their collective best interests to reverse that partition and unite again in order to promote and protect their diversity.

Should this be achieved, Ireland would certainly have completed a remarkable and unpredictable colonial journey that concluded with its people being in a stronger position because of their ability to respect diversity and protect cultural equality whilst recognising their overwhelming common interest and similarities.

That would be a unique international achievement. 

Jim O’Callaghan TD 

June 2022

Introduction 

The killing of Ashling Murphy in January 2022 and the unlawful killing of many other women in recent years were not just brutal acts of violence that shocked the nation, they also highlighted the fear that exists amongst women in our society for their personal safety.

These brutal deaths enabled women in Ireland to talk about their fear. More importantly, Ashling Murphy’s death and the death of other women through acts of violence forced society to listen to that fear.

But it should not have required brutal killings for this very real fear to be heard and taken seriously.

These brutal acts of violence have highlighted the need for our society and our political system to address that fear urgently and comprehensively, and to take an honest look at how the system responds and meets the needs of women.

We continue to see, in Ireland and elsewhere, male violence being perpetrated against women, and women being fearful because of the threat of violence.

This is a problem that is not to be measured solely by counting the number of women who have been killed or who are missing. Those events represent every woman’s worst nightmare and they contribute enormously to the general sense of fear.

However the problem extends beyond those harrowing statistics and the unlawful killing of women.

This is a problem that should be measured by the assaults on women, most of which go unreported.

This is a problem that should be measured by the volume – and acceptance of – harassment of women as they go about their daily life, with most of it going unchallenged.

This is a problem that should be measured by the intimidatory control that is exerted over women, most of which remains hidden behind doors or in silence.

We see this manifesting itself most often where a man abuses a woman he is in a relationship with simply because he believes that he should be able to assert control over that woman.

We also see this manifesting itself where some men simply believe they have the right to use intimidation or violence to control or impose themselves on or attack a woman they do not know.

As we stand today, there are some men in Ireland who believe that women should be controlled by and submissive to them, and that violence and coercive control is an acceptable way of achieving those aims. Changing this requires a dramatic change in the views those men have of women and in what they see as acceptable behaviour. This needs to be led by all of us.

What we have done to date to protect women from the threat and fear of violence is not enough. It is unacceptable that many women are fearful of being out in public on their own whatever the time of day or night and in whatever circumstances.

We know that many women and girls face additional barriers and vulnerabilities due to additional social discrimination, for example based on their ethnicity, ability, age or immigration status and this needs to be tackled.

The time is long overdue for this to change. Too many women and too many families have suffered. We need to ask ourselves what sort of a society we want to live in safely, and what is needed to make this happen.

Male violence against women including domestic violence remains extensive in the EU and has also been exacerbated by the pandemic.

The scale of violence against women is great and it comes in different and insidious forms such as domestic violence, sexual assault, rape, sexual harassment, stalking, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, child marriage, prostitution and trafficking.

There are many different types of costs to this: not least that failing to address violence against women including domestic violence costs money – an estimated €289 billion a year.

We know that men are also victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, and our focus here does not come at the expense of their protection and safety.

There are many different factors that need to be tackled and we need a whole of society response where we all play our part – not just a criminal justice response – to ensure that we confront this threat not just to women but to society, and that we ensure that victims of crime access justice and safety.

This document sets out what the Fianna Fáil party sees as needed across the:

• criminal justice and family law sectors;

• supports and service provision, and

• education and culture change.

We need a zero-tolerance approach to violence against women and this will require all of us – as a society – to commit to change. Enough is enough.

Criminal Justice and Family Law Sectors

Tougher laws and sentencing 

There is a small but significant cohort of men in our society who carry out violent acts on others with a sense of impunity. Our society should not tolerate such violence and we need to send out this clear message at as early a stage as possible. 

Part of the solution to this problem is the strengthening of our laws so that all violence is met with a tougher response.

We need to see those convicted of serious violence against women receiving sentences that are longer.

There also needs to be more certainty as to the length of sentence that a perpetrator will receive if convicted of such acts of violence. 

Our political system has the power to introduce tougher laws to deter this type of criminal activity and this needs to happen urgently. 

We need to toughen laws associated with all levels of violence and, in particular, we need to target perpetrators when they start displaying behaviour that is threatening and which may lead to more serious violence unless checked at an early stage. 

Increasing penalties for serious assault or unlawful killing alone will have limited effect. We know that the damage has likely been done by the time those offences occur and the opportunity to divert a young man from violence has been lost.

Also, penalties may well be severe enough in legislation, but not in sentencing practice. 

Tougher laws need to target people who engage in all levels of criminal violence against others, particularly women.

The following changes are urgently needed to tackle this issue through early intervention. 

Legislate against stalking 

The Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person (Amendment) (Stalking) Bill 2021 was introduced by Senators Lisa Chambers, Mary Fitzpatrick and Erin McGreehan in July 2021.

In its 2016 Report on Harmful Communications and Digital Safety, the Law Reform Commission recommended that a specific stalking offence should be enacted and it said that stalking is an aggravated form of harassment characterised by repeated, unwanted contact that occurs as a result of fixation or obsession and causes alarm, distress or harm to the victim. 

This element of intense obsession or fixation, which creates an unwanted intimacy between the stalker and the victim, differentiates stalking from harassment.

The Commission analysed developments in Scotland, England and Wales where specific stalking offences were introduced in 2010 and 2012 respectively and it concluded that the experiences of these jurisdictions strongly suggest that the introduction of specific stalking offences led to an increase in reporting and prosecution of stalking.

The Commission specifically said that stalking as an offence also carries great significance for its victims because of the “hidden” nature of the crime, as well as its aggravated nature compared to the crime of harassment. 

Prohibit sexual harassment in public places 

Article 40 of the Istanbul Convention on preventing and competing violence against women and domestic violence requires countries to take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, should be subject to criminal or other legal sanction. 

At present in Ireland that is not the case. 

Legislation prohibiting sexual harassment should be introduced immediately to ensure that Ireland’s laws are consistent with the Istanbul Convention. 

A person should be guilty of an offence if they engage in any form of unwanted conduct of a sexual nature towards another person and either: 

i. intends to cause that other person harassment, alarm or distress; or 

ii. is reckless whether the conduct has that effect. 

We need to send a clear message to women that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated anymore, and they are supported. 

Such legislation would give statutory recognition to the fact that it is unacceptable intentionally or recklessly to harass sexually another person. 

The introduction of this legislation should be accompanied by a clear public information campaign highlighting the unacceptability of this type of behaviour, where someone can go for help, and the consequences for perpetrators. 

Strengthen bail laws 

In 1996, 75% of voters approved of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution which provided that a court can refuse bail to a suspect where it feared that while at liberty that suspect would commit a serious criminal offence.

We know that a significant percentage of crime carried out is carried out by individuals on bail, including rape and sexual assaults. In 2016 individuals on bail were charged with 24 rapes and sexual assaults. 

Our bail laws need to be strengthened to remove this risk. Those accused of rape or sexual assault or serious assault who have previous convictions for rape or sexual assault or serious assault should be refused bail unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Bail applications are not victim centred, with little or no consultation with victims. Many of the offences committed by perpetrators of domestic violence are summary offences with a maximum sentence of less than 5 years.

Under our bail laws, bail can only be refused for offences where the maximum sentence is greater than 5 years.

We support the proposal made by Women’s Aid in their 2019 Unheard and Uncounted report which suggested that our Bail Act should be extended to cover all offences with a domestic violence motive, including summary offences. 

Tougher sentences for sexual assault and violent offences 

At present the maximum sentence that can be imposed by a court for sexual assault is a fine and/or a maximum term of 10 years imprisonment.

The maximum sentence for assault causing harm is a fine and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years.

The maximum sentence for a threat to kill or cause serious harm is a fine and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.

The maximum sentence for harassment is a fine and/or term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.

Sentences are decided by judges based on the individual circumstances of each case. 

However, it is open to the Oireachtas to set maximum sentences. 

The maximum sentences set out above are too light and, more importantly, courts are handing down sentences that on occasion are inappropriately low.

There needs to be sentencing guidelines to overcome this inconsistency in sentencing.

There also needs to be the collation of more data on sentencing from the courts to give greater visibility on sentencing standards and on the relationship between the perpetrator and victim. 

Our law should specify a threshold of imprisonment that should apply if a person is convicted of any of these offences and has a previous conviction for one of these offences. 

Repeat offending is a clear characteristic of our criminal justice system and if offenders are repeatedly engaging in acts of violence the State needs to ensure that a more severe and tougher response through imprisonment is delivered. 

We are aware, however, that because of the Supreme Court decision in Ellis v The Minister for Justice and Equality, the Oireachtas is not permitted to enact a law that distinguishes, for more severe punishment, a limited group of people convicted of an offence on the grounds that they had previously committed another similar serious offence.

Nonetheless, that decision did not preclude presumptive or indicative minimum sentences.

These should be examined and enacted by the Oireachtas to achieve a more effective response and deterrent against such violent crimes. 

Finally, we also considered applying tougher laws to men convicted of offences against women but believe that such a provision would be open to constitutional challenge because of its potential violation of the principle of equality contained within Article 40.1 of the Constitution.

Improve access to protection orders 

The family law process can be very demanding for those who need to make frequent visits to the court. 

When a victim of domestic violence first makes contact with the Gardaí, a risk assessment should be conducted on that victim, and the risk posed by the offender assessed.

It is vital that this risk assessment does not become a ‘tick box’ exercise, and that adequate training in conducting and interpreting responses to risk assessments be given to Gardaí.

Unless done properly, these assessments could create enhanced risk by creating blind spots to potential harm. 

Consideration should be given to changing our laws to enable the authorities to secure immediate protection for the victim if the risk posed by the offender causes concern and a delay in securing a protection order from the court can have catastrophic consequences for the complainant.

There is provision already under Section 11 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 for the Child and Family Agency to apply on behalf of a party for protective orders. Extending this role to the Gardaí would enable additional protection. 

It is important that immediate action can be taken by Gardaí when safety, barring and protection orders are breached. 

Strengthen knife crime laws 

A society that is prepared to tolerate knife crime by young men will become a more violent and threatening society. 

The number of people treated as in-patients in Irish hospitals in 2019 for knife assault injuries was 9% higher than in 2018. Also, the number of knives being seized by Gardaí is increasing every year which is a sign of increased knife carrying, especially amongst young men. 

Consequently, the penalties for carrying a knife with intent to cause harm should be increased. At present, the maximum sentence for such an offence is a fine and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years. This should be doubled to 10 years.

Increase wrap-around supports during the courts process 

We need to ensure that victims of rape, sexual assault or any assault who make a complaint that is prosecuted in court are always given detailed information about the court process and that they are entitled to legal assistance in respect of that prosecution. 

Work continues around educating the judiciary and associated services about the need for particular sensitivity around cases involving violence against women.

We need to continue to work to ensure that our courts are more considerate and caring for the needs of victims. This has improved in recent years but there is still a requirement that victims and their families are given greater recognition and practical support during the court process. 

More broadly, courts and the judiciary must become more aware of how court processes can be weaponised to extend control over ex-partners in domestic violence cases. All court assessors and experts should be required to have extensive domestic violence training. 

Victim impact statements given in court should be preserved and available – with the consent of the victim – after the trial process so that the narratives of victims’ experiences are preserved. 

Women who are subjected to domestic violence require the protection not just of criminal law but also family law. Many of the facilities provided by the State for the practice of family law are unsuitable and inappropriate for the needs of all users. 

We need a full audit of our courthouses to assess their suitability to cater for domestic violence victims and those bringing applications.

The vast majority are inadequate, and victims have to wait in crowded corridors with their aggressors.

Separate meeting rooms must be provided not only for those applying for orders under the Domestic Violence Act 2018, but also women in court for divorce, separation and child matters in a context of domestic violence.

Coercive control and abuse plays out in all court proceedings if it is a factor. 

Review the civil legal aid system 

We know that many solicitors are not taking on work under the private practitioner scheme, particularly for domestic violence cases. 

A full review of the civil legal aid system is needed to ensure that many victims of domestic violence are not prevented from accessing justice. An increase in funding and expansion of eligibility rules for victims of domestic violence is urgently needed.

Establish a central child maintenance collections agency 

A central child maintenance collections agency run by the State should be established, as part of the commitment to reform our child maintenance system and address key issues as contained in the Programme for Government. 

When a woman gets a maintenance order there can often be non-compliance which can impact upon her and children or she can be ‘targeted’ through this as a continued method of control.

It is then her responsibility to make another application to court to seek further orders because of the non-payment.

This archaic system needs to change so that we have a central child maintenance collection agency that does not require ongoing court applications. 

Comprehensive policing supports 

Allocate Garda staff to tackle violence against women 

Unprovoked and gratuitous violent attacks on people in public places could be deterred and reduced as a result of greater Garda visibility in those public places. It is pointless having large numbers of Gardaí doing administrative work in stations.

That work should be carried out by civilian members of the force, enabling more Gardaí to be out in the community. 

In terms of community supports, the roll out of Small Areas Policing Programme will go towards ensuring that adequate levels of Community Gardaí are in place on the ground. 

Safer public transport for women 

All Irish rail and bus services, including DART and Luas, should also be required to have security provided on their transport systems and a zero-tolerance policy towards any type of harassment of women. 

The establishment of a dedicated public transport Garda division will allow for the effective and timely follow up of all forms of antisocial and criminal activity on public transport, including deterrence. 

Track day to day violence against women  

The daily harassment of women is not acceptable. We need to support the Gardaí to establish a portal where gratuitous acts of violence can be reported.

One of the difficulties with combatting acts of male violence against women is that many bystanders feel very hesitant about getting involved.

They don’t know what to do. An online portal should be available for information to be communicated direct to the Gardaí about acts of violence that occur in the public place.

This will act as an invaluable tool to allow them to investigate and prosecute such offences. 

Unfortunately, there are many public places throughout the country – whether it be in parks or other city streets – where criminal activity takes place openly and without any apparent Garda response.

Open drug taking or fights in broad daylight appear to be tolerated as part of normal society. Such behaviour is not acceptable and there should be no type of criminal activity that can take place with impunity in any public place. 

If men believe that breaking the law can be done openly then they will not regard other laws for the protection of women or the prohibition of violence as deserving of respect.