This is an extract from an article by @MEneaney which was posted in @lustforlife recently. The article discusses mental health stigma in the workplace and asks anyone who feels like they have been singled out to get in touch with Mary. Mental Health is an area we are only beginning to explore in Ireland and a difficult topic to discuss. Mary intends to present her finding to the Oireachtas Committee on Mental Health so please help bring this discussion forward as it may help someone you know.

The issue of depression and associated stigma in the workplace is a difficult one to address but it is one that has to be addressed if the rights of those who declare a mental health difficulty are to be safeguarded.

To apply stigma to an employee who discloses that they have suffered from depression is to mark them as being distinctly different from their colleagues. It is a most damaging and soul destroying experience for any employee. For any employee who has or who has had a battle with depression, it is a frightening prospect and there is little doubt that it serves to compound the stigma. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. There is a reticence among people to inform their employer about anything relating to mental illness and statistics would suggest that this reticence is justified.

It would seem that mental illness is possibly the last remaining taboo in Irish society and it would follow that this transfers into the workplace. If employees are obliged to disclose their medical history, it would seem that those who had experience of mental illness are left to ponder the implications of disclosure.

The results of a survey carried out by St Patrick’s Mental Health Service is no surprise to those who have been labelled or fear being labelled. The isolation and loneliness associated with mental illness was reflected in the fact that 25% of the respondents reported that they would tell no one if they were experiencing suicidal thoughts, 38% would not tell their partner if they were taking anti depressants; and 36% would not tell their partner if their child was being treated for depression.

In relation to the employment setting, 31% reported that they would not feel comfortable explaining to their boss that they need time off due to a mental health difficulty, 29% did not think someone who experiences panic attacks could be head of a company and 73% believe society views those who receive in-patient care for mental health difficulties differently. Imagine if there was evidence of similar attitudes in relation to cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease. What if employees who disclosed any of these illnesses were clearly labelled and pointed out? It would, of course be deemed incorrect and unacceptable on every level. Why is it acceptable in relation to mental illness?
​
Picture is from website of @davidshrigley

You’re a decent reasonable pro-life man and a close female relative or friend asks for your help with the expense of a journey to England.

She’s pregnant. She doesn’t want to be pregnant. She wants to have an abortion. She has thought about it a lot and her mind is absolutely 100% made up, so nothing you can say will change it.

If anything your reasonable arguments will just cause her even more distress and you obviously don’t want that because you aren’t some kind of monster. You’re just a Reasonable Man, with reasonable beliefs that just happen to coincide with your deep Catholic faith.

If you aren’t prepared to help she’ll still have the abortion, but it’ll take her several weeks to save the money. Several miserable weeks during which the foetus will continue to develop and the required procedure will become more and more complex and invasive.

As you continue to wrestle with your conscience you might not feel that you can personally justify the idea of ending the life of an unborn child, but can you justify the idea of forcing a person you love to go through pregnancy and childbirth against their will?

Are you aware of the health risks? The months of nausea, the vomiting, the anemia, the pelvic floor damage, the scarring, the physical pain of giving birth… And of course, the rarer, but very real and life-threatening risks – eclampsia, blood-loss, cardiac problems.
Are you prepared to accept those risks on someone else’s behalf? Is that reasonable?

Would you simply tell this person whom you love that you’re simply not prepared to assist with the procurement of an abortion, as it goes against your strongly-held moral beliefs?

Or would you as a Reasonable Man calmly and rationally accept that it is not about you and give her whatever help she requires, especially if it means that the abortion will take place at an earlier stage of the pregnancy?

For most of us a debate on the moral rights and wrongs of abortion is always worth avoiding. For a start it all hinges upon when you believe the clump of cells… foetus… unborn baby… whatever you want to call it, becomes an actual human person whose right to life matches that of an already-born woman. Suggesting that it happens at the point of conception is no better than suggesting it happens at birth or at some other arbitrary point in between, like when scans reveal that the clump of cells from certain angles has taken on the vague appearance of a person whom we’re all agreed is the absolute spit of his grandad.

The debate about the circumstances under which abortion should or should not be legal is a far simpler one, based around practical questions rather than ethical ones.
Pragmatism is why it’s legal in just about every civilised society in the world. It has long since been proven that banning it will not prevent it from happening; it just means it’s more likely to happen dangerously and without medical supervision. Only in countries like Ireland, where religion held undue influence over the state and its people for decades does it remain illegal. Even in Ireland, in our own typically Irish way, we’ve been oh-so pragmatic about it too, steadfastly looking the other way as thousands of Irish women have their abortions in the UK every year.

It’s important not to think of the referendum on repealing the Eighth Amendment as merely a ‘what are your views on abortion?’ survey. You can remain personally opposed to it in all circumstances whilst also taking the pragmatic view that it should not be criminalised and that if it’s going to happen, it should happen safely. A vote to keep the Eighth Amendment is not a vote against abortion. It’ll continue to happen just not safely and legally in this country and all those Reasonable Men who call themselves ‘pro-life’ will be happy to continue looking the other way.

Repeal
​
This post was written by Ray McGrath (@RayMcGrath) and first featured on his wonderful site ray-mcgrath.net It’s an engaging address to any reasonable prolife men out there and refreshing to see men looking to directly communicate with other men on the issue. 

Less than a week away and a lot of my male friends have told me they don’t think they’ll be voting on Repeal the 8th. Some have told me they’re pro choice but don’t believe it’s something we should have the right to choose, ie they say they’re prochoice but anti abortion and are thus confused and opting not to vote.

I don’t know how such an important issue has managed to pass them by and I’m a bit disappointed. My male friends and thousands of other Irish men have simply ignored the real life stories of the women and their partners who’ve had to travel to the UK and further a field for a medical termination of pregnancy.

I know some of my male friends have seen the ‘No’ posters and have concluded this referendum is about babies, they’re simply not aware it’s a referendum about women’s rights and consequently the greater freedom of the Irish people (both women and men).

Amidst the struggle with trying to inspire some of my male friends to vote, and quite frankly to vote ‘Yes’ I came across a wonderful post by Áine Mulloy (@AineMulloy ) called ‘Where Are The Men in The Fight to Repeal’.  This is a shortened version of her post but follow the link for the full story:

I know many guys who are pro-choice. Sometimes they are vocal about it, but often only when asked. When it comes to social media, encouraging people to vote, sharing content, or marching they are notable by their absence. Now that’s not to say that all men are like this (#notallmen) but it’s noticeable. It’s clear there’s a sense that this is a women’s issue, a thought piece, some abstract notion that doesn’t impact men, and therefore it’s not their place. And this is a problem. In order for the 8th to be repealed, we need the support of men.

When writing this piece, I reached out to several men – but only one replied. Writer and weekly columnist with avondhupress.ie, Donal O’Keeffe shared some of my same observations. “A recurring comment I’ve heard from a couple of men is that the Eighth Amendment doesn’t affect men, and therefore men shouldn’t have a say in the upcoming referendum. I understand the point they’re making, but with respect, that’s like saying heterosexuals should have abstained from voting in the marriage equality referendum. That’s not the way democracy works, lads, and it’s not the way universal suffrage works either.”

And this seems to be the problem. There is a disconnect. In many ways men aren’t directly impacted, so it’s merely something to be thought about and cast aside. It’s not a constant lurking weight hanging over their heads.

This may seem dramatic, but it’s not. Ask around. Ask the women that you are friends with how they’d feel if faced with an unplanned pregnancy. It’s a topic that’s constantly discussed by women, as we know we’d bear the brunt. Women are the ones who are questioned by pharmacists, and doctors. Women shell out for pills, and implants, and coils, and whatever else.

Our bodies get poked and prodded; our consent can be stripped by the State. Medical information withheld and blatant lies told to our faces. We’re the ones who stress after every encounter. Meanwhile the 8th does impact us all. There’s a very real imbalance at play here. The worst part is that this imbalance is enshrined in law.

There needs to be an acknowledgement from everyone that it’s not up to the constitution to decide what happens to another person when they seek healthcare. Staying silent on this issue, or worse, not voting on the issue asserts that you are happy to be stripping people of the power to make decisions about their own healthcare. This might seem harsh, or unfair, but it’s true. By staying silent you are effectively supporting the status quo. The status quo is dangerous.

You don’t need to be pro-abortion, to be pro-choice. And the 8th doesn’t just impact on access to abortion. It’s much wider than that. If we want people to be able to be actively involved in their own healthcare, and for healthcare professionals to be able to do their jobs safely then we need the 8th Amendment to be repealed. In order to do that, we need the voices of men alongside the voices of women.

Repeal the Eighth.

Áine Mulloy is a co-founder of GirlCrew, she has some great posts about Repeal on her site which are well worth checking out, and since sharing this she has also written another great follow up post called ‘An Open Letter to Undecided Men – and Those Voting No’. 

In Ireland, as everybody knows, if you need an abortion you have to go overseas to get it. The Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast can only perform simple abortions and legally, in Northern Ireland, only when the life of the woman is at risk.

In the Republic of Ireland, abortions for molar and ectopic pregnancies are routinely performed – but the hospitals and the government carefully don’t refer to them as abortions.

The antichoice brigade call themselves “prolife”, because they are against ending foetal lives safely and legally. They tell themselves stories about how women don’t need abortions: they use phrases like the “abortion industry”, assuring themselves that women who say they are happier and healthier for having had an abortion are deluded, or lying.

There is considerable evidence that the Irish healthcare system will not provide abortions to the women who need them for health reasons because the stigma against referring for abortion is so great.

If the woman can travel to London, a doctor will simply advise her to do so. There is a systematic culture of denial among Irish prolifers that there is ever any need for a woman to have an abortion to preserve her health or save her life.

In December 2010, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that if abortion in Ireland is allowed when a woman’s life is at risk, then the Irish government must make it possible for a woman to have an abortion. The court said the Irish government had failed to properly implement the constitutional right to abortion if a woman’s life was in danger.

Since then, prolifers in Ireland – possibly funded by American right-wing campaigners who find the Irish ban on abortion a convenient talking point – have been insistently and sometimes very publicly arguing that there is absolutely no need for any change: no matter how much heartbreak, trouble and expense the ban places on women who need abortions, there are to be no abortions in Ireland.

John Fleming, Bishop of Killala, wrote:
The key moral issue, therefore, for Catholics is that the life of the unborn can never be taken intentionally. Our Catholic faith has a very clear view on the dignity of the human person, human rights and, in particular, the right to life.

For Christians, our bodies are not our own to do with them what we will. Our bodies come from God, are created in God’s image and destined for eternal life with him in heaven. This is our faith and this is what distinguishes us from those who do not share our faith.

From the moment of conception each of us has developed as a human being, not into a human being. The child in the womb is not a “potential” human life, but a human life with potential.

The Diwali festival in Galway was cancelled the same year Bishop Fleming wrote this, out of respect to the woman who choreographed the dancing and who would have danced to celebrate the festival, Savita Halappanavar.

Savita Halappanavar, 17 weeks pregnant, died of septicaemia in hospital under prolife care. Looked after by prolife doctors and nurses who did not want to save her life because that would have entailed killing the foetus that was dying inside her.

After the 31-year-old dentist was told that she was miscarrying, her husband reportedly said that she had asked for a medical termination a number of times over a three day period, during which she was in severe pain.

But he said these requests were denied because a foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told at one point: “This is a Catholic country.”

Medical staff removed the dead foetus days later after the heartbeat stopped but Halappanavar died of septicaemia on 28 October 2012.

Praveen Halappanavar said:
“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.

“Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby. When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning Savita asked if they could not save the baby could they induce to end the pregnancy. The consultant said, ‘As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can’t do anything’.

“Again on Tuesday morning, the ward rounds and the same discussion. The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita [a Hindu] said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic’ but they said there was nothing they could do.

“That evening she developed shakes and shivering and she was vomiting. She went to use the toilet and she collapsed. There were big alarms and a doctor took bloods and started her on antibiotics.

“The next morning I said she was so sick and asked again that they just end it, but they said they couldn’t.”

Savita Halappanavar died because she was denied an abortion: because she was in hospital in prolife Ireland, in the country where – as Bishop Fleming says – they have such a clear idea of “the dignity of the human person, human rights and, in particular, the right to life” that when the foetus’s heart is still beating inside a pregnant woman, she must be left to die in intensive care, in a prolife hospital, since Catholic ethics would not permit killing the foetus to save a woman’s life.

“I still can’t believe she’s gone,” said Mr Halappanavar.

“I was with her those four days in intensive care. Every time they kept telling me: ‘She’s young. She’ll get over it’. But things never changed, they only got worse. She was so full of life. She loved kids.

“It was all in their hands and they just let her go. How can you let a young woman go to save a baby who will die anyway? Savita could have had more babies.”

“What is the use in being angry? I’ve lost her. I am talking about this because it shouldn’t happen to anyone else. It’s very hard. It has been a terrible few weeks, very hard to understand how this can happen in the 21st century, very hard to explain to her family.

“If it had happened in the UK or India, the whole thing would have been over in a few hours. We just pray now, wherever she is, she is happy.”

If you’re a man, think about your mother, sisters, wife, girlfriend and female friends. Would you prefer they die rather than have access to an abortion? Because that’s what this is all about.  In this progressive European country, successive governments have steadfastly refused to introduce legislation that would allow women, who would otherwise die, access to life-saving medical treatment. Elsewhere in the Western World, such an odious public debate, displaying such a disgusting disregard for the lives of women, would be treated with the contempt it deserves.

It’s Twilight Zone stuff — especially when one considers that a majority of the Irish people endorsed the very limited terms of the X Case in a referendum in 2002.

So why do I still call them prolife?

Because that’s what they call themselves. It is bitterly ironic that they name themselves prolife and campaign to have women die, but I will continue to use their name and require them to call us prochoice.

Prochoice is pro-life however ‘ProLife’ is not Pro-choice. The spectacle of doctors and nurses standing by while a patient under their care slowly dies should horrify anyone. Ireland’s health service executive and the University Hospital ordered investigations into how this was allowed to happen, but we all know, John Fleming, Bishop of Killala, gave the answer.
 
This post is part extract and slightly edited from edinburgheye.wordpress.com
The original post was written by Jane Carnall (@EyeEdinburgh) and was published on the 14th of November 2012, originally titled 'Why do I Still Call Them Prolife?' 

​Jane is an advocate for LGBT rights as well as covering topical political issues such as Scottish Independence and Brexit.
​
The cover art is called ‘Sleepless’ by Kostas Skopelitis (@kskopel863)

This post was contributed by Mark Hoskins (@MarkHoskins)

My name is Mark and I’m a nicotine addict. I started smoking in 1994 at the age of eighteen. I’d had the odd drag of a smoke from friends while drinking. One night I found a packet of matches and, in the mood for a smoke, I bought ten Marlboro red. I was hooked more or less immediately, and now,  twenty years later, I’m still hooked, I still need to get my nicotine fix. Whose fault was it that I started smoking? Ultimately I made the decision, so it was my fault. But you know, to paraphrase Marx, we make our own decisions but not under conditions of our own choosing. As much as I like to think I’m exercising my own free will when I make a decision, like anyone else, the images that I am bombarded with on a daily basis, have to have some effect.

All Oasis needed was cigarettes and alcohol, Alex James played bass with a fag hanging out of his mouth, Jimmy Cooper in Quadrophenia had a smoke with the bottle of Newcastle Brown he nicked at that gaff party, and so on and so forth. Teenagers are impressionable. These were the people I admired. These were the people whose style I emulated. I’m not blaming Oasis or Alex James or a fictional mod from the original movement for my nicotine addiction, more so the effects of decades of marketing that convinced us that smoking is cool. Cigarette advertising is banned in the EU now, but the residual effect of those decades and the billions spent lives on. The images of the past from films and music videos are still with us. At any rate, in the USA in 2011, $8.4 billion was spent on cigarette advertising and promotion.

Even where the tobacco corporations can’t advertise, they use their money to employ lobbyists who make sure their interests are always represented by some high level politicians. Tobacco, which is estimated to cause 5 million deaths world wide every year, does not generate the same outrage, for example as drugs like ecstasy, cannabis and LSD, which have been shown to be less harmful in many studies. The lancet medical journal estimated 114,000 cigarette related deaths in the UK per year, compared to 27 ecstasy related deaths, one cannabis related death (the annual cannabis related death must qualify for some kind of Darwin award) and no deaths related to LSD use. In fact, the annual figure for smoking related deaths surpasses the number for ecstasy, cannabis, LSD, cocaine, heroin, ketamine and a host of other drugs combined. Clearly there is something wrong with drug policy in most parts of the world.

In the last couple of years however, a ray of hope shone through the clouds of cigarette smoke for hopeless nicotine addicts like myself. Electronic cigarettes, vaporisers and other smoke free nicotine delivery devices meant that we could get our hit without all that carcinogenic smoke. We could feed our habit while lowering our risk of getting cancer. Of course, we’re still not sure what the long term effects of vaping are, but can it be worse than something that causes five million deaths per year? Well, it doesn’t involve smoke, so unlikely.

The vaping bug spread among my circle of friends pretty quickly, now almost all the nicotine addicts I know are doing it. If that trend is duplicated among wider numbers (and you see a lot of people using the devices around), then tobacco corporations and tobacco related tax revenue must be taking a big hit. In the UK at least, it is estimated that out of 10 million smokers, 1.3 million have made the switch to vaping. At that rate, the tobacco industry would be wiped out in a few years. Is it any wonder then, that electronic nicotine delivery devices are the source of the latest manufactured moral panic?

The EU have been discussing banning refillable devices like the one I use and despite the fact that there are no secondary effects, vaping will be banned indoors in New York from the end of this month. The argument is that e-cigs will get new users addicted to nicotine and later, encourage a switch to analogue smokes. Given the UK stats and anecdotal evidence, that is ridiculous. It is smokers who are switching to vaping. By all means, take some action to prevent new users getting addicted to nicotine in the first place, but come on, don’t take away the only hope of millions, maybe billions of people from kicking their unhealthy and expensive smoking habit.

There are issues that need to be dealt with around e-cigs. This is a public health issue. The products we use to replace smoking should not be controlled by private corporations whose bottom line is profit. The tobacco corporations, whose market share is shrinking should not be allowed take control of the industry. Overall though, any sensible drug related policy has to focus on harm reduction, so smokers should be encouraged to make the switch. People like me should not be punished for decisions we made when we were impressionable teenagers. We’re addicts and if vaping is taken away from us, we’ll be back on the fags in the time it takes to run to the local shop.

Mark has been keeping a wordpress blog since 2014 called Self Certified. His bio description reads; I’m an anarchist gene pool libertarian communist writer, philosopher, and activist. I’m also influenced in part by autonomism, council communism, situationism, social ecology, feminism, existentialism, structuralism, and post-structuralism 

The following article has already been shared hundreds of times on Twitter but if you haven’t read it please be aware it contains graphic content and disturbing imagery that will haunt your mind.

These two real life stories tell the harrowing ordeal of concealed pregnancies which both ended in tragedy, the stories were compiled by Polly Molotov (@NursepollyRgn) with the intention of creating awareness around the issue of safe and legal abortion and to open further discussion on the need to Repeal the 8th amendment.

What prompted these women to bravely share their stories was the results of the 8th Committee, as both women had followed the Citizen’s Assembly and the 8th Committee.  Both women’s lives have been deeply affected by crisis pregnancy and these crisis pregnancies were induced by their socioeconomic positions. Both women listened to the results of the Citizen’s Assembly where 72% voted that socioeconomic reasons should be grounds for legal abortion, however this motion was voted against by the 8th Committee.

The two women that contacted me did so privately, they are anonymous, I do not know their real names nor do I know exactly where they are from. They both found themselves pregnant. Both were terrified. Neither of them could afford to continue with their pregnancies or indeed raise children on their own. Both were let down dreadfully by men that they trusted. They were also both living in their parent’s houses at the times they became pregnant. So, it being 24 & 21 years ago, both women did all that they could in panicked attempts to raise funds to travel to have abortions.

Neither had the means.

Sadly both women concealed their pregnancies, not seeking medical or professional help, in fact neither spoke to anyone about their stories until they contacted me. But, the two men knew. Concealed pregnancy is not a new thing in Ireland, it has gone on for generations, indeed I myself was one of those girls who concealed as long as was possible (5.5mths). One would think that concealment of pregnancy would be disappearing in this day and age however it most certainly is not. A recent study by Sylvia Murphy-Tighe and Joan Lawlor shows us that despite the public knowledge of heartbreaking stories including those of #AnnLovett and #BabyMaria (2015) and #BabyAllannah (2016) Irish society is still what it is that women & girls still conceal their pregnancies.

I have been asked by both women to tell their stories and will attempt to do so in a true and compassionate manner, these women have carried such an amount of trauma and guilt and have felt such shame that it must have been unbearable. I am truly honoured that they felt they could trust me with this, it may take some time to complete their stories. Please bear with me. Their stories are not ones we read about all the time, but their voices need to be heard, their stories are the silent ones, the ones not spoken about but vitally important to hear.

The first woman who contacted me, she was 22 and going out with an older man, when she told him she was pregnant he told her to ‘get rid of it’ and never contacted her again, she couldn’t contact him either, in her words ‘he vanished’, she worked in a poorly paid office job, she lived in her parent’s house with her brothers and sisters, she never attended a doctor, never went to a hospital, she tried to figure a way that she could keep her baby, her parents were unwell, money was scarce. She simply could not see a way to continue with her pregnancy so she tried to raise the money to travel to have an abortion. However due to bills at home and costs of medications for family members she found that this too was impossible. So she soldiered on, she wore clothes to hide her figure and strapped herself tightly to conceal her pregnancy. She went to work every day, she pretended to be fine, morning sickness she felt it was never ending but she pretended it away. She knew how many weeks pregnant she was, she knew the date she conceived. She had tried hot baths and gin and throwing herself down stairs early on but nothing had worked.

This woman went into labour, she was approximately 37 weeks pregnant. She went about all of her duties, work, family etc and never let on. Didn’t allow herself to cry out in pain, didn’t allow herself to panic. She said she felt she was going to die. On the Saturday morning, she said it all became too much, she locked herself into the upstairs toilet (having completed the morning duties required of her) she was in her own words ‘about to shout out for help’ when, sitting on the toilet, screaming silently into the bath towel, she delivered her baby, she fainted immediately.

When she woke on the floor she was confused and didn’t know where she was for a moment and then she remembered and jumped up and lifted her baby out of the toilet. The baby was not breathing. She sat & held her baby for a long time. She had to wrap her baby girls body in newspaper along with the placenta, she never cut the cord. She cleaned the bathroom, cleaned herself, knew she was dreadfully torn, but she had to pretend she was fine. She kept the body hidden for a week, until she thought of what to do.

She took a train and left her home county and had to leave her babies remains in a random bin, she said she couldn’t bury it in case anyone or any animal found it. She traveled home and pretended it away. To this day she lives in fear every time someone knocks at her door, scared that her secret will have been uncovered, terrified of being in trouble with the guards. She has lived with this for years. It is beyond heartbreaking.

The second woman who contacted me, her story was similar. She dearly wanted to have her baby, she told her boyfriend, however this did not go well, he was married, she was destroyed on hearing this and so found herself having to deal with the prospect of raising a baby alone.
 
She too lived with her family, again no money to mention. Her family were deeply religious, she dreamt of running away and raising her baby alone, however having no money meant this was impossible. She worked in a bar part-time and tried to save the money to travel for abortion but it was simply way beyond her means. So she too concealed it. She dreamt that things would work out despite being unable to tell her family. In her estimation she was approximately 32 weeks when she discovered her family were going away for a weekend in about a month’s time. She realised if there was to be any hope for her baby and herself in not being discovered that this was when the baby needed to come. So she went to the library, she researched anatomy and physiology and came up with a plan to induce her own labour, by breaking her own waters.
 
(She told me the exact method she used, I won’t reproduce it here as it wouldn’t be fair to anyone reading it and I also have her permission not to include it in her story).
 
Her family went away those weeks later and she was prepared. She went into labour, she had towels and sheets and baby clothes and a plan, she was planning to leave her baby at the local hospital in the middle of the night. She laboured for 24 hours, alone, and delivered her baby, a baby boy, he wasn’t breathing, he was blue, she tried to resuscitate him, she just wanted him to be ok, however despite her desperate attempts he never took a breath. She delivered her placenta and cut the cord, washed him and dressed him and sat with him.
 
She took a photo of him on an old ‘film cassette’ camera and hid the roll of film. She too had to dispose of her babies remains, she said she walked for miles until she found a skip that was full, she had to climb into it to place him where she hoped he wouldn’t be found.
​
She too had to clean up her house and herself and pretend like nothing had ever happened. She describes the fear as all consuming. It’s truly unbelievable what these women went through and what they have lived with for so long, all alone. Both of these women went through this in the nineties, and never spoke to anyone about it until 2018.
 
Imagine how lonely and isolating and terrifying that must have been. Both firmly feel that had it happened then today they would have travelled, but both are so angry that anyone has to travel. Their stories are part of who they are, it shaped who they became. There are many stories like theirs. Many sad sorrowful stories that will never be shared because people are afraid. Both women spoke of how afraid they were every time there was a news story regarding ‘human remains found’. They both live in fear of a knock on the door, terrified they will be found out, terrified that people will know what had happened them. Both so bravely now want people to know what happened to them, they want others to know that they are not alone. They want their voices counted amongst all of the other brave voices that have shared their remarkable stories.
 
We called it ‘a silent solidarity’.
 
They truly are remarkable women. I’m very proud that they were able to speak through me, their trust is something I’m humbled by. Their strength is humbling too. Both went on and met people, one wasn’t able to have any more children but had step children and her life in her own words ‘was exactly what she had hoped’. The other woman went on to have two more children and has never told them her story, her husband knows and has been nothing but a tower of strength to her.
 
The one that took the photo? She years later plucked up the courage to get it developed and she treasures that photo, keeps it hidden but looks at it often, she showed it to me.
 
None of this should have happened to these women. No one should have to live with such massive secrets and also guilt and shame and trauma. We need to build a kind and compassionate and caring society where none of this has to happen again. With the 8th amendment in place though these and stories like them will keep happening, they have always happened. We only hear about the ones publicised, I can guarantee that there are so many more.
 
Prior to writing this I contacted a colleague, Jeannine Webster @flowepower66 for advice on the telling of such powerful stories. We both know cases, we are just two people. I dread to think how many more there are. It really does not have to be like this. The Citizen’s Assembly was very clear in their recommendations, their recommendations are what it necessary to make certain no one is left out of this process. The recommendations are required to prevent people from having to endure such suffering again. Yes we have a referendum coming but we must work to ensure that no person in any situation is left out, we must learn from the mistakes of the past and build a kinder more open and compassionate place for us all and for those coming behind us. Many thanks to the two remarkable women who so bravely allowed the telling of their stories, their voices will count in the shaping of a better country for all of us. Repeal The 8th.
 
Picture provided by Sarah Woods (@SLWCartoons)

A lot of people asking me about Nick Rabbitts (@Nick468official ) article in the Limerick Leader.

The article was called “Original Opera Plan in Limerick Had Provision For Housing”, a mouthful title for a juicy story.

Nick was very kind to offer to share the story with TCV to highlight an atrocity in local government which cost Limerick City 160 apartments. The journalist isn’t at liberty to speculate how this happened, such is the drawback of print media but if you have any theories please feel free to leave a comment.

The original plans for Project Opera included 161 housing units in the scheme, the Limerick Leader can reveal.

Amid persistent calls for residential units in the €150m project, it has now come to light that days before securing funding to buy the site from Nama in 2011, council bosses outlined plans for 59 units in existing buildings and 102 new homes.

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act to the Limerick Leader show the ‘preliminary capacity study’ prepared by the city’s senior executive architect Seamus Hanrahan outlined the proposal, with former city manager Tom Mackey adding the site could “comfortably accommodate” both social and affordable housing.

Plans were also in place for a “large department store” with its main entrance at the Ellen Street-Michael Street junction.

Instead, a fresh blueprint unveiled for the €150m proposal earlier this year by Limerick Twenty Thirty – a public body which has taken over the running of the site from council – showed three towering office blocks, but only limited commercial space.

Crucially, no residential units were included, bringing about opposition from many quarters, including from the Limerick Chamber and homelessness charity Novas.
Councillors were due to debate the future of the site at a meeting on Tuesday morning.
Cllr Cian Prendiville, who has campaigned for housing in the €150m plan says people must “demand” these units are built, adding: “I think people deserve to know when was this U-turn made and who agreed to it?”

Back in 2011, the old City Council was given €12.5m funding from the Department of the Environment to buy the Patrick Street site after plans for a shopping centre fell through due to the economic downturn.
​
A letter from Mr Mackey – dated October 28, 2011 – seeking funding under the department’s regeneration budget stated he believed the Opera Centre offered opportunities to deliver both social and private housing “which will increase demand in the city centre”, as well as providing “new civic spaces which will entice people back from the suburbs to the city centre.”

“In order to achieve this, in the current economic climate, Limerick City Council must have control of the site to ensure it is developed efficiently and effectively to address the need for social and economic regeneration of Limerick City,” he added.

Reacting, Cllr Prendiville said: “Somewhere between 2011 and today, the council gave up on this plan for the city centre to be a place to work, socialise and live. Precisely at the time when a need for social housing and affordable mortgages was growing, the council turned its backs to provide 160 apartments on the site.”

"It's either us, or chaos!!" a man shouts from the podium
"Chaos, chaos!" the crowd shout back
"Doesn't matter, that's us too." He chuffs

So opens the Twitter account of @hiredknave one of the internet’s best kept secret writers, but I’m willing to blow the lid on his cover by sharing some of his work here.

Richard wrote three great posts in the last ten days alone, all worth checking out, but the one I’d like to share with you is called ‘A note on impartiality in reporting on the 8th Amendment’.

A crucial piece in considering the wording used by established media and an example of why it’s hard to re-educate the conservative majority when introducing fundamental changes in an effort to create a socially balanced and equal society.

A referendum on the repeal of the 8th Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland is to be held this year. It is likely, as with previous referendum campaigns, that a great deal of attention will be devoted to the matters of ‘fairness’, ‘impartiality’, ‘objectivity’, and that broadcasters, particularly the State broadcaster RTÉ, will devote equal airtime to voices for and against.

If an article in the constitution is the subject of a referendum, it follows, in the interests of the ‘impartiality’ regularly cited to ensure that both sides are given equal hearing, that the assertions of that article should not be reported as valid.

Some people will argue that the article is valid and others will argue that it is not. So, having regard for the declared need to ensure ‘impartiality’, it follows that a broadcaster should not do anything to give the impression, from its own coverage, that the article is valid. Or not valid, for that matter.

Yesterday afternoon RTÉ Radio 1 ran a news report during its Drivetime programme on Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin’s speech in support of repealing the 8th Amendment.

Introducing the speech, household name Eileen Dunne referred to “the 8th Amendment that recognises the equal right to life of the mother and her unborn child”. This is a paraphrasing of the wording of the amendment. It is also -perhaps coincidentally- the exact wording used on the Wikipedia article on the 8th Amendment (as of today).

Given that the amendment in question will be under consideration for removal through a referendum, you might conclude that impartiality means not taking a stance on whether the right mentioned by the text, or the categories associated to that right, exist in fact. Some people think the right exists, others do not.

If we say “the 8th Amendment recognises the equal right to life”, which is what RTÉ News says, then we are tacitly proposing that this equal right to life actually exists, and that the 8th Amendment recognises it. Hence its removal would not remove this right from existence: it would simply remove it from the constitution.

If we refer to “mothers” in this way,, we are tacitly proposing that anyone who is pregnant is a mother, regardless of whether they want to be or not.

If we refer to the “unborn child” in this way we are tacitly proposing that anyone who is pregnant ought to be considered as carrying an unborn child, regardless of whether they wish to give birth to a child. Or in other words, the question of whether they are going to give birth to a child is not a matter for whoever is pregnant.

The point is that the validity of what the constitutional amendment says is being contested by a referendum, but RTÉ in this instance (and I would venture that this happens regularly, not only with RTÉ) has effectively reported that what the constitutional amendment says is valid, and in so doing has conveyed the political perspective that informs this constitutional amendment as simple fact. Such reporting cannot be considered impartial.

Later on in the Drivetime programme, RTÉ played a 42-second recording of Micheál Martin’s speech and a one minute long recording of Fine Gael anti-choice TD Peter Fitzpatrick’s malign drivel.

(Richard concludes here but if you've any further thoughts or examples of impartiality in the media please leave a comment). 

This is a painting by the talented Stephen Johnston called 'Jennifer' which was shortlisted for the prestigious Hennessy Portrait Award 2016.

There is a striking contrast here between age and youth, sharp blue eyes and golden waves adorn the detail of aging beauty.

This post originally featured with a story about peace and hope in Northern Ireland but was sadly removed due to a difference of opinion with the writer over the image used. Unfortunately compromise could not be reached on this occasion but talks are on going. 

The following post is by Tony Groves aka @Trickstersworld who co presents the @EchoChambersPod as well as featuring prominently on other sites. Originally titled Money Problems I kind of half got permission to edit it so if you like what you see check out the original at echochamberpod.com along with some other great posts from inside the mind of Ireland’s best pod cast. 

Money is not a problem. A simple sentence, repeated over and over by Housing Minister after Housing Minister. Five words designed to give the impression that the Government are throwing all the necessary resources at tackling the housing crisis. Money is not a problem.

Maybe money should be a problem. In fact, given Fine Gael’s self-styled nonsense about being the party of the fiscally responsible, money should be placed at the very centre of the housing crisis.

I’ve been lucky to sit down and chat with a host of experts on the housing crisis, all of whom agree on one thing. Fine Gael aren’t putting the resources into the right areas. The economic reality is that this government, the one so obsessed with the Debt to GDP ratio, are burning money.

Take the homeless hubs, or as Mary McAuliffe calls them The Poor Warehouses.

The average cost of housing a family is €69,000. Dublin City Council currently have over 950 vacant units in need of a refurbishment. The cost of the refurbishment would be between €30-50k and the works could be completed in a few months.

For €47 million we could give 950 families a home, a permanent home. Money is not a problem.

Instead, in November 2017 alone there were over 1,530 families accessing emergency accommodation. The average time spent in the emergency accommodation system is 3 years, that’s a cost of about €316 million.

€316m to warehouse a national disgrace, or €47m to make a serious effort to address it. Money is not a problem.

If Fine Gael want to be taken seriously as custodians of the economy then they need to address their economic lunacy in tackling the housing crisis. Money is not a problem.

But wait, there’s more. The current crisis isn’t just a homelessness crisis, there’s also a drastic crisis in the availability of affordable housing. Affordable housing should be, by definition, housing that is affordable to the average worker. Taking the latest CSO stats on a double income household and current mortgage lending rules the cost of an Affordable Home should be in or around €240k.

Yet the state are buying homes and selling them to people at a 15% discount of the market value. Given that the average cost of a house in Dublin is €365k this is not affordable housing, nor is it anywhere in reach of the average couple.

This wouldn’t be such a disgusting waste of money if it wasn’t for the fact that, as shown by the Ó Cualann Cooperative, family homes can be built for between €151-168K. That’s affordable housing. It can be done quickly, cheaply and to high building standards. I know, I’ve seen them for myself. Money is not a problem.

The State could do this on a wide scale, but they are married to private developers and the “free-rigged-market”. The money that is not a problem is going to developers, at roughly 2.5 times the cost per unit when compared to the Ó Cualann Cooperative.

Finally, for today, there’s another black hole that is swallowing money that is not a problem. It’s called the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) and it devours over half a billion euro a year. HAP as a temporary scheme is a good idea, as Mel Reynolds told me, “you need to keep the patient alive”. But as a long term strategy it is disastrous, socially and economically.

The average HAP payment is €825 per month. A mortgage of say €190k over 20yrs at 3.5% would have a monthly repayment of €800. Now, if the government wanted to they could borrow money at near 0% rates, build houses, or pay someone like Ó Cualann to build them and rent the homes on long term leases, SAVE the state a fortune in HAP and other rent assistance schemes and still own the underlying asset.

These things aren’t complex. What we are doing now is complex. Fine Gael are supposed to be the party that fixes the economy. But they are burning money by choosing the most costly solutions to the crisis.
​
So listen out for the “money is not a problem” mantra and tell them straight, “no, but it should be, it is the economy, stupid”.

Picture by @Slanecartoons