Eamonn McCann: More reproductive rights for women in Sierra Leone than Ireland

If Edwin Poots had said in the parliament of Sierra Leone what he said at Stormont on Monday, somebody, quite likely Isatu Kabia, would have bitten his head off. Or at least given him a clip on the ear.

Joining in the praise for Fermanagh MLA Arlene Foster on her first day as First Minister, Poots said: "In congratulating Arlene on her elevation to the post of First Minister, I should say that it is the second most important job that she will ever take on.

“Her most important job has been, and will remain, that of a wife, mother and daughter. Family will always come first. I know that that will be the case with Arlene, and it should be the case.”

The only way he could have been more patronising would have been by gushing “Good girl” and giving her a pat on the head.

Challenged afterwards that his remarks had been sexist, Poots seemed genuinely perplexed. He had once said as much about himself, he pointed out – that family meant more to him than political advancement. Which is fair enough. If Foster had made the remark about herself, nobody would have had a right to object.

It may be that the former minister for health just doesn’t get that there’s a difference between telling a woman and telling a man, as they take on a public position of considerable responsibility, that their real job is still to look after spouse, parents, children.

For all the manifold deficiencies of Dáil Éireann, any TD who had dared greet Joan Burton’s elevation to the Labour leadership in the same terms as Poots’s welcome for Foster would have been drowned out by raucous laughter and howled outrage. Sure, a couple of TDs may be of the same mind as Poots but they would have the sense to keep their lips zipped.

Less controversial

The Poots approach would have been less controversial in the 19th century. Certainly, he believes with a passion that it would be wrong to tamper with the Offences Against the Person Act (1861) – the Act which still governs the law on reproductive rights in the North. In contrast, it has just been gotten rid of in Sierra Leone. On December 8th last, on a motion by Kabia, the parliament in Freetown voted to strike down the Victorian measure. The preamble to the proposed Act identified the principles which were to govern drafting of a new law: “To prevent maternal death and injury, safeguard reproductive rights and determine the circumstances under which pregnancies may be terminated.”

Walkout

Kabia had first introduced her Bill five days earlier. However, a walkout resulted in the speaker ruling that the session was inquorate. On the second occasion there was a quorum when parliament opened, as well as a large number of women outside, some with placards. The Bill was passed.

Thus, there could not be a repeat in Sierra Leone of the case which came before Belfast Magistrates’ Court on Monday last in which a 21-year-old woman from Co Down was accused of procuring her own abortion by taking the drugs Mifepristone and Misoprostol, “contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861”.

She becomes the second woman awaiting trial in the North in relation to “abortion pills”.

The other is a Belfast woman accused of obtaining the pills to administer to her daughter. Both women, if convicted, face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. (The equivalent tariff in the Republic is 14 years.)

The fact that the two cases have reached court confirms that, at least in the North, and perhaps soon in the South, the battle over “abortion pills” is becoming the new front line in campaigning for reproductive rights.

Hundreds of women in each jurisdiction have obtained and used the pills. The authorities on both sides of the Border know this. They are also aware that, again in both jurisdictions, scores of women have signed documents “confessing” that they, too, have used the pills or helped another to use them or imported them for use by others.

Yet the only two cases which have come to court involve women who have not proclaimed their “guilt” and appear not to have been involved in any reproductive rights campaign. That is to say, women who appear to have had only personal reasons, and no political motive, for taking the action they did.

There’s something strange and unsettling about this selection by the authorities of cases to be taken forward.

In the meantime, all who believe in equal rights can take heart from Kabia’s determination that the women of Sierra Leone should no longer have to live in a world dominated by ideas and assumptions from long, long ago, before electric light bulbs, the big bang theory or votes for women.