The public is evenly divided on whether or not we should change our Good Friday drinking laws according to a new poll published today. The poll, commissioned by The Iona Institute, was conducted after the Government announced it would change the drinking laws to abolish the prohibition on selling alcohol in pubs, clubs, hotels and restaurants on Good Friday. Conducted by Amarach Research, the poll found that 51pc of the public supports the move and 49pc are against it. Opposition to the move is strongest among 18-24 year olds at 58pc. Women are also more likely to oppose the move. Fifty-four percent of women are against changing the drinking laws on Good Friday while 56pc of men support the proposal. Commenting on the poll, Dr John Murray, Chairman of The Iona Institute said: “Given that the public is evenly divided on the issue of the Good Friday drinking laws, shouldn’t the Government think twice before giving in so completely to the vintners and restaurateurs? He continued: “Not every day should be equally commercial. This principle is widely recognised in many parts of Europe, including Germany, where shops are prevented from opening on Sundays. The German Government has not given into pressure from commercial interests on this matter nor has the fact that the reason for closing shops on a Sunday has a Christian origin inclined the Government there to open them in reaction against that fact. Other countries like Austria and Norway and parts of Italy, Spain and France also close their shops each Sunday”.

The Supreme Court has decided that a polygamous marriage from another jurisdiction should not be regarded as valid here in Ireland. However, the Court did concede that the man’s marriage to his first wife should be regarded as valid. In a case concerning a Lebanese man with two wives who is now resident in this country, the Court said that polygamy violated the principle of equality and to “give legal recognition to such a structure would be to give legal effect to discrimination and subordination in a relationship where the principle of equality should show sway”. Nonetheless, while a man’s first marriage should be regarded as valid, the court called upon the Oireachtas to consider legislating for the fact of any subsequent wives and any rights and duties that might thereby accrue from that relationship.

The leader of the Liberal Democrats in the UK has resigned following an election campaign dogged by questions about his faith. Tim Farron is politically liberal, yet also an evangelical Christian and he was repeatedly asked by media on the campaign trail whether he thought abortion and gay sex were sinful even though he supports both abortion and gay marriage. After a poor showing by his party in the election, he submitted his resignation, citing difficulties with faith in particular: “To be a political leader – especially of a progressive, liberal party in 2017 – and to live as a committed Christian, to hold faithfully to the Bible’s teaching, has felt impossible for me”. Even though he steadfastly kept his religion out of his politics, he said he found himself “the subject of suspicion because of what I believe and who my faith is in”. He concluded: “we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society. That’s why I have chosen to step down as leader of the Liberal Democrats.” The former Liberal Democrat MP, Lord Alton of Liverpool, also released a statement where he lambasted the party for its intolerance of faith.  “It is ironic that a Party, which I joined as a teenager, because of its belief in conscience, human rights and free speech, has morphed into something so narrow and intolerant…that its leader has been forced to choose between his Faith and his Party.”

A Swedish midwife has filed a case against Sweden with the European Court of Human Rights after Sweden failed to uphold her conscientious objection to abortion. Mrs. Ellinor Grimmark was fired from her job as a midwife when she refused to participate in abortions. She took a case in Sweden but lost and is now appealing to the European Court of Human Rights. Robert Clarke of ADF International, who are providing legal counsel, said Sweden has failed to protect this midwife’s fundamental right to freedom of conscience guaranteed by international law and this case, “could determine whether people who value life at all stages of development will be able to pursue a medical career in the future.”

In his opening address to Dáil Éireann as Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar promised that there would be a referendum on the pro-life amendment in 2018. Among a slate of appointments he announced that Minister Simon Harris would remain as the Minister of Health and that he would be “responsible for bringing forward legislation to allow for a referendum on the Eighth amendment in 2018”. The future of the pro-life amendment was the subject of extensive discussions at the Citizens’ Assembly which recommended that abortion be legalised on widespread grounds. The political means to effect that change is soon to be considered by a Joint Oireachtas committee which will make recommendations to the Government.

The UK’s Supreme Court has ruled that the National Health Service in England is under no obligation to pay for abortions undergone by Northern Irish women in hospitals in England. The judgement acknowledged that under devolution, separate authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for providing free health services to those usually resident there. It stated that the health secretary was entitled to restrict access to NHS abortions “in line with this scheme for local decision-making”. The judgement added that the UK Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt was “entitled to afford respect to the democratic decision of the people of Northern Ireland not to fund abortion services”. A spokesperson for the Iona Institute welcomed the judgement saying Northern Ireland “should be proud of its life-saving abortion law”. Only 3pc of pregnancies in Northern Ireland end in abortion – taking into account those who travel to Britain for abortions – versus 20 percent in Britain.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has said that Ireland violated the human rights of a woman by not enabling her to abort her child who had been diagnosed with a life-limiting condition. The woman then had to travel to Britain for the abortion and the committee felt this amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that the State had inflicted on her. The committee ordered the State to pay compensation to the woman and to provide psychological treatment to her. It also said Ireland needs to prevent similar situations from happening again by changing its laws on abortion. In response, the Pro-Life Campaign lambasted the UN committee for lacking fairness and impartiality. Cora Sherlock of the Pro Life Campaign said: “The UNHRC is behaving like the international wing of the Irish abortion lobby. They have taken to attacking Ireland’s pro-life laws every few months but have never, for example, expressed a single word of concern or criticism at the barbaric abortion practices in countries like England and Canada where the ghastly and gruesome practice of denying medical attention to babies born alive after botched abortions is tolerated and routinely happens. Any committee that turns a blind eye to such horrific abuses is in no position to lecture Ireland on its laws.”

Ms Sherlock continued: “The UNHRC is effectively saying that unborn babies with a life limiting condition are worthless and undeserving of any protections in law. I sympathise greatly with the woman at the centre of today’s case and all families who receive a diagnosis that their child has a life-limiting condition. The UN however has no right in the name of human rights to make a value judgment on which lives are valuable and which ones are not. Either we protect every human life or we end up protecting none.

“We like to think of the UN as an honest defender of human rights. The UNHRC is trading on this good name to confer undeserved legitimacy on their own ideological demands. Today’s remarks from the UNHRC is not a court ruling. Ireland is perfectly entitled to determine its own laws in this area and it is outrageous for the Committee to interfere in Irish democracy by ordering us to introduce a procedure which ends human life.”

In a forceful op-ed in the Irish Times, a moral theologian has urged the Sisters of Charity to reject any deal with the National Maternity Hospital that would lead to the destruction of innocent, unborn life. Fr Kevin O’Reilly said that, while the Sisters may intend that all human life should be respected at the new hospital, nonetheless it is entirely foreseeable that abortions will eventually occur there. He urged the Sisters then to reject the deal so as to take a stand for life: “Reason informed by the Gospel of Life calls the sisters’ representatives to display courage by withdrawing from any deal that is ordered to the destruction of innocent life. Experience of the Cross will be the sisters’ reward in this life. We ought never to forget, however, that in the Cross is our salvation.”

The Government have decided to lift the prohibition on the sale of alcohol on Good Friday from all premises selling alcohol. Previously, they had offered their support to a private-members bill that would have lifted the ban for pubs and off-licences. Now, however, they will support amendments to that bill that would also lift the ban for restaurants, hotels and clubs. Moreover, by amending that bill, rather than including the policy change in a broader bill dealing with all aspects of the sale of alcohol, they expect the proposal to become law well in advance of Good Friday 2018.

A leading psychiatrist has complained about the working of the 2013 abortion act, saying the process to certify abortions puts an unfair burden on psychiatrists. The act allows abortion where a pregnant woman is at risk of suicide and requires a psychiatrist to certify that the woman is suffering from suicidal ideation. John Hillery, president of the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland, said the Act brought psychiatrists “a step away” from what they are trained to do. Speaking in a personal capacity, he said psychiatrists were trained to “assess mental illness and treat mental illness”, while the Act required them to make decisions about whether a suicidal pregnant woman should have an abortion. “It’s really putting it back on psychiatrists to decide something that should be decided by wider society” which then put psychiatrists in the “firing line” when people disagreed with their decision, he said.