SIO133: Jen Keane on #IStillBelieveHer and #Repealthe8th

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:29 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Serious Inquiries Only, this is episode 133, I'm your host Thomas Smith, and today I've got something that I think is incredibly important. I want to say from the outset that this is obviously not an easy topic, it involves a high profile rape case in Ireland, and it was something that as an American I had no idea was happening at all, but the verdict was handed down and some people got in contact with me and had posted interested about the reaction, what they were going through as women, and it was really some gut-wrenching stuff, especially once I looked into the details. Joining me today to talk about it, to discuss it, break it down for us, is Jen Keane. She's based in Ireland. She is a feminist, and actually she had a thread that went pretty viral in the wake of this trial, where she talked about when she herself was on the jury for a rape trial.

0:01:22 Thomas: So she's got experience in that as well. Well, let's go over to Jen, and she's going to break down what went on for.

0:01:29 Clip: We're grateful to the jury for reaching what was a common sense verdict of not guilty on all counts. Paddy has been consistent in his denials and in his account. Consistency had never been a feature of the complainant's evidence long before she entered the witness box. So these acquittals should come as no surprise to anyone. Paddy leaves court for the last time today, as he entered it almost ten weeks ago, an innocent man.

0:02:04 Thomas: I'm joined by Jen, also goes by ZenBuffyOnline. Jen, how are you doing?

0:02:09 Jen: Hey, how are you?

0:02:10 Thomas: Good, although I've been reading a little bit about some of the things we're going to talk about, so I'm kind of a littlebit in a state of rage. I don't know about you.

0:02:17 Jen: Yeah, it's been an interesting couple of weeks, and most particularly an interesting couple of days since that case that we're gonna talk about returned its verdict.

0:02:29 Thomas: Yeah, we Americans had some things happening in 2016, so this is kind of something that I certainly missed when it happened. And so, yeah, can you set this up for us? What happened? What's

0:02:41 Jen: Sure, so what's I feel it's important right at the outset to just say a couple of things. Firstly, really this case happened in Northern Ireland and And I think maybe sometimes there's a distinction there that people that aren't from Ireland aren't necessarily clear on. And it's only important because we have a different court system in the Republic of Ireland than they do in Northern Ireland. And some things happen differently in those courts. And I'll talk a little bit about that also.

0:03:06 Thomas: Could you give us the quick basics of what the difference is,

0:03:09 Jen: Sure. So in the first instance, probably the most significant difference is that in the Republic of Ireland, trials of this nature, being rape and sexual assault, um, are held in camera, which means they're in a completely closed court. Only the only people that will be in that courtroom are the the legal teams, the jury, the judge, etc. Uh, there probably will be a report about it afterwards, but that report will be kept anonymous unless a victim chooses to waive their anonymity. Um, so what you may see about a case, if it's tried in the Republic of Ireland, is some months after the verdict you'll You'll see a report which does not name the person who has been convicted, and it may discuss that they have been sentenced and give some vague details about the case.

0:03:55 Jen: But there would be no instance where someone's name would be public or publicised to the degree that it has happened in Northern Ireland, where not only was the case not in a closed court, but they actually had a public gallery. So members of the public could come in and watch the proceedings.

0:04:11 Thomas: Yeah, that's interesting. I asked my, of course, lawyer friend, Andrew Torrez, and it seems to be that that's how it works in the U.S. Most courts are open unless there's some, you know, reason that they need to seal it off if there's any danger or something or, you know, mob case or something like that. But so that's kind of interesting that there's that distinction. But this case took place and was highly public, right?

0:04:28 Jen: Yeah. Yes, it was. Yeah. It was highly public because of some of the people involved. So again, for, I suppose, the non-Irish listeners, rugby is an extremely popular sport in Ireland, popular to play and popular to watch. And following the Irish national rugby team is very, very popular. We, in fact, just had a huge win of a big tournament called the Six Nations. It's a very, very prominent sport in Ireland. And the reason the case got so much publicity was because two of the people who had been accused of the crimes were, or are, still rugby players. They are part of the Irish national rugby team.

0:05:19 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. So it's like our NFL or NBA over here where it's a high profile. Are these pretty, pretty famous faces? Like people would recognize them. And like even before this, people would have recognized them anywhere or.

0:05:30 Jen: I would think so. So possibly one of the rugby players, Paddy Jackson, slightly more than Stuart Olding, but as in Paddy, Jackson might be more well known to people who are not into rugby as much or just casually interested, whereas both of the guys would have been relatively well known if you were at all interested in sport or rugby, which a lot of people are. So because of that, once once their names were associated with the case and once the The case started and once it was in the media, there was heavy, heavy media interest for the entire duration of the trial, which was itself actually exceptionally long with, I believe, a relatively precedent setting length of time for the alleged victim in on the stand herself also.

0:05:39 Thomas: Gotcha. Yeah.

0:06:12 Thomas: Yeah. So tell us about the, I guess, alleged incidents. I don't know, we have to use that language, I suppose. But talk about what's alleged to have occurred.

0:06:22 Jen: Sure. So, look, what's alleged to have happened is that a woman attended a party after being out for the evening at Paddy Jackson's house. Um, had some discussions with uh, Jackson and some other people while at the party. Apparently there was some um kissing, which no one disagrees was consensual, and that that happened. What allegedly happened later is that when the woman went up to, uh, went upstairs to a bedroom, that she was followed by Jackson and some of his friends and that she was raped and sexually assaulted by these gentlemen. So in one case, that she was sexually assaulted, raped from behind. In another case, that she had been forced to perform oral sex and that another person had come in and exposed himself to her and attempted to join in. So this is what the the woman has alleged happened.

0:07:22 Jen: That point, she apparently left the party. She was very upset. A taxi driver that had brought her, she had been brought by a friend of Paddy Jackson, and a taxi driver that had bought her home has testified that she was very upset. And the next day she texted one of her friends to say that she had been raped by some guys from Ulster Rugby Club and that she wasn't going to go to the police because she didn't see that it would go very well, her going up against the might of Ulster Rugby Club. She was convinced to take a case and she did go through the process. But last week, after nine weeks and two days, the verdict returned was not guilty on all counts.

0:08:10 Jen: So there were four people involved, two sort of bigger names being the two rugby players, Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding, and two of their friends. And all four defendants were cleared of all the charges at the trial following deliberation. So in some cases, that was charges of both rape and sexual assault. In other cases,that was chargesof sexual assault or concealing information after the fact. So

0:08:36 Thomas: Yeah. And it's interesting, you mentioned that the taxi ride, I was reading about and it's almost like there was a friend, I think you mentioned it, but it was like he was trying to manage the this situation in a weird way, that he kind of knew something happened and was checking in with her and like, oh, it's okay, I'll get you home, that kind of thing. Was he involved in, was he charged with anything, or was that just a witness?

0:09:01 Jen: He was charged, I believe, with perverting the course of justice and withholding information in the aftermath of the incidents. So both Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding were charged with rape and sexual assault. There's another another man that was charged with sexual assault exposure. And then the fourth was charged with perverting the course of justice by withholding information. This is the guy who was attempting to manage the situation, as you put it, which I think is, I an apt description of what allegedly happened. That's Rory Harrison.

0:09:32 Thomas: Yeah, and I've seen these WhatsApp messages that I guess, now were these widely publicized during the trial? Is this something, I guess if it was evidence and the trial was open to everybody, then I guess they would have made the rounds on the news.

0:09:48 Jen: They were. Again, and I think particularly the WhatsApp messages are a a real point that stuck, I guess, in the public consciousness right now. They were public. They were very much discussed in the media. They're very much discussed on social media, and snippets of them were shared. Entire transcripts of all of the WhatsApp messages that went into evidence were eventually released in the media. But they formed a of a large part of the case and were a pretty big focus point during the case where these WhatsApp messages, both both sent to groups and sent individually between some of the guys involved and their friends. The reason they formed, I suppose, that very important point is they were pretty derogatory towards women. And they discussed the alleged incident.

0:10:36 Jen: Very, very offensive, often crude, and very upsetting language. Language.

0:10:42 Thomas: Yeah, I'm trying To decide. I mean, I can link it here, but I think it's worthwhile, especially if you're somebody who, I don't know, agnostic about this kind of thing. I think it's worthwhile to get a sense of what these people were saying. And you can contrast what the victim was saying, which was essentially, I got raped last night, and she was texting her friends and saying, I don't want to, it's not worth reporting it because nothing's going to happen, and like it's not as big as something we see all the time, and then contrast that with the messages between and among the rugby players, which were really uh just really gross, you know, just as Though they just Yeah, go Ahead, yeah.

0:10:43 Jen: Yeah.

0:11:25 Jen: They're They're Pretty awful. Um.

0:11:27 Thomas: Um, I think that's that's important. That, what was, I mean, was this major news? Like, what, what was it like when these messages were revealed? What was, you can, you speak about that at all? Yeah.

0:11:37 Jen: So It's it's been, um, I feel a very mixed response, uh, both to the messages and I suppose to the trial in general. But they kind of, they mirror each other a little bit. On the one hand, you have people who say things like, well, that's just how lads talk to each other, that's juste banter, um, that's, you know, that if you went through everybody's WhatsApp groups, sure, they'd all have messages like that in them.

And on the other hand, you have people saying, well, look, this is not how you respect women. This is not how you speak about and to women. And like it or not, you're representative of our country if you're playing on a national team. And it's distressing to feel that someone who would, would represent me and my country in that jersey, would feel that way about me as a woman who lives in Ireland. So there's a real kind of dichotomy of opinion, um, there, with, as I said, some people thinking this is fine, that's just how people talk, and other people saying it's just, just because lots of people talk like this doesn't mean that that's okay, that's pretty awful language that you've used about this this woman and other women in general in this this WhatsApp group.

0:12:50 Thomas: And so just to speak about what the defense was, it's what I'm gathering, and, and you know, chime in, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm gathered that the defense was, she, uh, I guess was doing these things consensually and then regretted it, or I saw one thing that was like, was worried she was being filmed, and so therefore, like, changed her mind or something, and then, you know, as a result of that decided to, um, I guess, accuse them of rape when really it was consensual. Is that, is that what the, what you're gathering from the defense?

0:13:26 Jen: So there's a few points that were kind of contested. One was that, I mean, primarily this is and was a trial about consent. One or two of the points were actually contested on physical evidence also, as in Jackson, for example, denied having sex with her at all. He said he, he didn't have a condom and therefore he didn't have penetrative sex with her. So there were one or two instances where they actually denied the act in addition to the consent. But primarily, this was a case about consent, because by and large, the guys did not deny that sexual contact had happened. And yeah, primarily, the defense seems to have focused around the idea that the woman in question and had consented, um, that she didn't scream or shout, that, um, in one particularly vile, multi-layer vile, in my opinion, uh, statements that the house was full of lovely middle-class girls and they would have done something if they'd heard her shouting because she was being raped. I Yeah, I I like I

0:14:27 Thomas: Wow. So If they Were, if they're a lower class, wouldn't, uh, no One would have cared, but since it was middle, is that what we're to believe, I guess, but

0:14:32 Jen: I Guess. So, like I said, it's it's multi-layers of of awful in my opinion, but um, yes, the defense seems to primarily have focused around the idea that she did consent, or, you know, and regretted it afterwards, or didn't want it to get out that she had done these things, and and therefore didn't make it clear to them that she didn't want this, and uh, that she had consented, um,

0:14:59 Thomas: And, and just to, just make sure We get all all the details in, so she had had quite a bit to drink, um, and Her, and I, I think what's so heartbreaking among a million things about this was, she did say, okay, I consensually kissed, I forget which, which one of them, but then she, she wanted to leave, you know, from from her account, she was like, I don't, you know, the tone of this party is weird now, I don't really want to be here, but she, I guess, left her handbag upstairs and then returned To get her hand bag and then that's when she was, you know, essentially jumped in a way by two, and then the third one that came in. And I think another thing that the defense, from what I'm seeing, zeroed in on, was a few inconsistencies in her story, you now, which, I mean, it seems weird, like, if you rape someone when they're drunk, it doesn't seem like, just, just because you can't remember it all clearly, therefore no crime, you

0:15:00 Jen: Yes. Yeah. Yeah.

0:15:59 Jen: It's it's very tricky, um, I I, I actually, I spoke a little bit about this myself on Twitter, um, about the issues that, well, not the issues, but about how a jury has to come to a verdict and about this Idea of reasonable doubt. It's not uncommon for someone who's been in a traumatic situation to have some inconsistencies in their recollection simply because, you know, perhaps they've been, they've been through a trauma. Typically cases, any court case takes some time to get to court. No one is, you know, being immediately shepherded to a police station and then immediately in front of judge and jury mere days or hours after an incident allegedly happens.

0:16:11 Thomas: Yeah,

0:16:52 Jen: This was in 2016 that the alleged incidents happened or, you know, allegedly happened. So it's also been some time since the incidents allegedly occurred. I touched a little bit on reasonable doubt there. Um, inconsistencies in the story probably were touched on in order to introduce that reasonable doubt and emphasize that because ultimately as a jury member, um, you're dealing with a case like a rape or sexual assault or really any criminal case as opposed to or distinct to a civil case when you're dealing with a criminal case, um, balance of probabilities isn't good enough. Guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. And that means that if someone can introduce some doubt somewhere, then you have to give the benefit of that doubt to the accused.

0:17:39 Jen: So if at some point someone can say, oh, well, what about this over here? Or, well actually you said that you sent that text on Tuesday, but your phone says you sent it on Wednesday, then. You can start to introduce inconsistencies, and these may all add up to a jury essentially returning a verdict of not guilty. Um, I feel also it's important to point out at this point, and I'm definitely not the first person to have said this, that it is possible for you as a jury member to believe that the alleged victim is being truthful, believe what they have said happened, but still return a verdict if not guilty because of reasonable doubt and because of problems with evidence. And this is probably the reason why we see so few convictions in rape trials, even, you know, so few of them even get to court, and then so few convictions on top of that.

0:17:51 Thomas: Right.

0:18:34 Thomas: Yeah, gosh, it's a tough thing. I mean, I guess if we forget all about this and just pretend we're talking purely in the abstract, and you say, should someone be convicted based on one person saying they did something? Just not even talking about what it is. And you think, well, I could see problems with that. But then you look at reality. Then you jump into reality and you say, well, this happens all the time, and it's always going to be someone just saying this happened to me. Like, there's not going to be, I mean, it's, it's, unless, unless we have surveillance at every corner of the world or something, you know, we've got the 1984 in everyone's house. Like, you're not, you're not going to have those witnesses. You're, you're just going to have someone's word for it. And if there's always going to be this standard that you need beyond any shadow of a doubt Well, yeah, the person could always be lying, that's always gonna be something you could say could be a possibility. So how in the world do we balance those things? Yeah, what do you, have any thoughts on that?

0:19:36 Jen: I think it's really difficult because, I mean, on the one hand, it's not that you would necessarily want the burden of proof for a crime to be less. You don't want to put people away willy nilly and have people's lives sent off track because they've been sent to jail for something they haven't done. But on the other hand, it's very difficult when you come to this particular kind of case.

So in a lot of cases, for example, a lot other serious criminal cases, things like physical assault or murder, there's often physical evidence. So I can say that someone hit me, they can say they won't, but if there's a big photo of me with a giant bruise on my face and a CCTV footage of them hitting me, then, you know, they've got a hill to climb. The tricky part with a lot of rape and sexual assault cases is that people might not necessarily deny that physical activity has taken place, which means that you can't necessarily simply say, yep, there's physical evidence of sex, therefore there was rape, because a lot of the time what's contested is consent, and we You know, we don't all have a 1984 secret mirror camera in our room, so

0:20:43 Jen: That's very tricky.

0:20:28 Thomas: Right. Right. Right. Yeah. I mean, Tricky because in this case, she did have some of that evidence. I mean, from what I've read, there was some vaginal tearing. She did get the rape kit thing, you get that done, and there is evidence, but then, as you're saying, they still can just say, well, that happened during the course of of consensual sex, I guess.

0:21:04 Jen: Um, and then you're into the story, as I said, of trying to prove consent or lack of consent as opposed to trying to improve the physical physical activity. It's a very tricky one, as I sad, it's not that you want people to be convicted on less good evidence, but certainly, um, it does make things very difficult to see how you would ever secure a rape conviction.

And it does, it's very eye-opening, when you, when you are on a jury, when you see how this evidence is presented, when you understand more about what that burden of proof is, uh, it suddenly becomes obvious to you why there aren't so very, very many convictions. And I mean, it's worth noting also that reporting a rape or sexual assault doesn't necessarily even mean that your case will go to court. I mean, of all of the reports, the police will examine all of that evidence, and if they think there's enough to secure a conviction, they'll send that on to, in the case of Ireland, it would be the DPP, the Director of Public Prosecutions. In the case Northern Ireland, I think it's the Crown Prosecution is the term. And then they would review that.

And of those cases that are even sent forward to that level, they might only choose a certain number that they feel they can secure a conviction of. So if you can imagine, there's a drop off in the number of cases incrementally before they even get to court, and then they still, you know, may fall at that final barrier. You know, with with all of that, you end up understanding why a lot of people are reluctant to report.

0:21:51 Thomas: Right.

0:22:35 Thomas: Absolutely. Yeah. And you can understand why in her messages to her friends the next day, it was, yeah, I'm not going to bother their big rugby players. Nobody's going to take my side. And somebody did, it seems like, convince her to report it. Also seeing that that was part of the defense was like, this only even and went to trial because they're famous and they've been kind of targeted in a way, you know, what do you make of that argument?

0:23:00 Jen: I don't think that's the case, um, simply because, as I said, have seemed to have a very odd, not very accurate idea of how a case ends up in court. And as I said there, I mean, just because you report something happening to the police does not necessarily mean that that will go anywhere. And in a lot of cases, it won't. So sure, that people will argue. And I know that, you know, the legal team have said they were being made an example of. But obviously, enough people in enough steps of the chain felt that there was sufficient evidence that this needed in court, you know, even when, when it gets to court, the judge can at that point say this evidence is rubbish, there's not enough, we're throwing this case out. So the fact that the evidence went all the way to the end, the trial went all the way through, and that it got to a verdict.

0:23:47 Jen: To me, that sort of says that it wasn't necessarily just because of who they were. It got all theway through all of those steps and it still made it to court. So somebody everywhere along that chain felt that the evidence was compelling enough that it deserved a day in court. Court.

0:24:01 Thomas: Yeah. And what an ordeal for the victim too, I mean, to say the least, I meant to go through all of that. I mean pretending she's just making it up, like all that she had to go though. I can't imagine that being a choice anyone would make. It doesn't make any sense to me.

0:24:17 Jen: It doesn't Make any sense to me either. It's, again, I suppose, worth noting that while it would have been a closed court in the Republic of Ireland, where nobody except for the handful of people in the room would have seen the alleged victim, the situation in Northern Ireland is that the public gallery is separated from the courtroom by some glass, but it's, it's not soundproof, it just sort of slightly muffles the sound. There was a curtain between the alleged victim and the defendants, but she was shown on camera in the courtroom. So anyone who was in the gallery at any point during that will have seen her face and may even know who she is.

0:24:18 Thomas: Yeah.

0:24:59 Thomas: Do you think, that part of it aside, which obviously is very Very difficult. But just in terms of the public interest, do you think, are you glad personally that it would be open versus closed? Because I mean, if this is a not guilty verdict, no one ever hears about it. No one even knows, I guess, that these famous people are charged. A better outcome? What are your thoughts on that?

0:25:21 Jen: Don't know that it's necessarily better that it was public. I think the fact that it was so public has probably made it very difficult and will make it very difficult for that woman in the future. With that said, it hadn't been public, there perhaps would not have been the response that there has been in terms of people having conversations about consent, people talking about how we can better educate people about consent. There's even been a push to review how we conduct sexual assault and rape trials here in the Republic of Ireland as a result. And if that case had been private, possible that none of this would have happened, because really the only people who would have known perhaps about these difficulties, about the problems, et cetera, would be the handful of people who happened to end up in one of those courtrooms, you know, either as maybe a witness or a jury member because no one else would speak about it.

0:26:09 Thomas: Yeah. You mentioned that fallout and that reaction and what's been happening. Can you talk about that? And I've heard some accounts of when the verdict was announced. And boy, that sounds like there was a real difference in the experiences between men and women in Ireland in that instance. Can you talk about that?

0:26:16 Jen: Yeah.

0:26:36 Jen: It's been been interesting. Uh, arguably I would say this has been a bit of a local Me Too movement, um, because while it's possible that individually people were aware that, you know, maybe a friend was raped and there was no conviction, or a friend was right and it never went anywhere, this was a very public, uh, portrayal of what happens essentially privately in our courtrooms all of the time in Ireland. And to that end, given some of the physical evidence that was there, given the WhatsApp messages and the perceived attitudes towards women, um, that were displayed during the trial, think a lot of people were very, very surprised by the not guilty verdict, um, and as such they, they kind of took to social media to that.

0:27:24 Jen: On the flip side, as you said there, a real diversity of experience, because great many people also celebrated the verdict and said that it was, you know, great. There were cheers, there were claps, et cetera, not in the courtroom, but only because the judge had warned that anyone doing that would be absolutely thrown out immediately and held in contempt. But afterwards, you now, know, I saw people tweeting saying that they were in lunchrooms and work where guys clapped and cheered when they heard the verdict on the radio and stuff like that. I can't imagine being in that situation myself. I think I would have found that very difficult. So there's been a real, yeah, there's been a real diversity of experience. There's been a lot of talk on social media. There have been a couple of hashtags that have been consistently trending in Ireland for the last couple of days, most notably being hashtag I believe her and hashtag I still believe her. Those have actually even to potentially some legal action on the case of Paddy Jackson. So I'll be a little bit careful in discussing that area.

0:28:26 Thomas: So he's going after people?

0:28:28 Jen: He's filed at least one, one lawsuit, and his lawyer has said that, uh, he will pursue anyone who is using the hashtag. Now, I would take that with a grain of salt, because I think it would probably be very difficult to pursue everybody who has tweeted with that and unfortunately Uh, if he was hoping for a chilling effect, uh, the next day probably the second most trending hashtag in Ireland was hashtag sue me, Paddy. So it hasn't, if it was hoping for a chilling effect, it hasn't quite worked in that way.

And a lot of people have kind of rallied around this, I believe, her hashtag, because they just can't believe the language that was used to speak about this woman and about women in general by these men who are respected sports players, or were, in some cases, depending on your attitude there, who would be looked up to as role models, as idols, by young people.

Um, and also there's been a lot of disgust at the willingness of people to just brush this off as fine, as locker room banter, as this is just how guys talk and that's fine because, because they all do it, I think

0:28:43 Thomas: I would think so.

0:29:34 Jen: Because it's been so public, it's really just, just crystallized that in a lot of people's minds that this is something that really happens, that these text messages really were sent, and that if this is something that's happening all over the place, then maybe we need to look at that.

0:29:50 Thomas: That attitude. I mean, the fact that it's, It's, is just my impression, but it's not as though anyone's, that I've seen is saying anyone should be arrested for how they're talking, but the fact that they're talking like that about a rape is just truly horrifying. I mean, they're absolutely oblivious to the fact that she did not give consent and indeed said no, and they're still talking about it like it's a conquest. I mean that's pretty, it's really troubling reading those messages. I think people should, and I'll include the link to give people an indication of what we're talking about. But yeah, no, that must be a very difficult thing to have seen. And I was absolutely shattered by the reactions I saw where women were saying, yeah, all the men in my office just cheered the verdict. I just can't imagine. That must felt horrible.

0:30:43 Jen: As you said, no one is saying let's arrest them for those WhatsApp messages. People can use offensive language in conversations that they have privately, and I accept that those conversations are private, and I'm sure that everyone has said things in private that they wouldn't be thrilled to see discussed on a national and international stage. With that said, it does speak to an attitude towards women which is disappointing to see, and, And in my mind, regressive. I thought we had, as a nation, slightly moved beyond this.

0:31:19 Jen: But the response to the trial, the response, those text messages, the fact that they, those text messages were there, tells me that maybe we haven't, because the response from most of my female friends was that's horrific. The response from, to be fair, a lot of my male friends, my personal friends, was that's horrific, I can't believe they said that. But unfortunately the response from a lot of, uh, other men on social media and in other locations was, yeah, great, that's super, um, those text messages are fine and it's great they've been found innocent, super duper, uh, let's move on. In some cases just really, really awful, uh, messages were tweeted, actually saying things like, now let's, uh, let's name the women and name the, the woman and ruin her life, uh, come on and throw the kitchen sink at me, feminazis, come at me, by, um, I believe it was a footballer, um, in the immediate aftermath of the verdict, which sort of speaks a little bit to that locker room, uh, that locker room kind of banter attitude, which has really become a bit of a, a flashpoint in Ireland at the moment.

0:32:32 Thomas: All you need is a, is a politician to run on that. And then he could be president like, like Trump here. So that's, that's scary. Or do you already have that?

0:32:40 Jen: Well, our president is, a it's a little bit different to the presidential situation here, thankfully, um, and I, I don't see this particular footballer running for president anytime soon, um,

0:32:51 Thomas: That's what, that'S what we said. That'S what WE said. No, I'm just kidding. But yeah,

0:32:52 Jen: Yeah. That's true, that's, we should never say never because we might, we end up regretting our nevers, um.

0:33:01 Thomas: We did. Definitely. And it's, it's a weird thing where, you, I've noticed it here too with Me Too. I think I've said it before, but I'll run it by you and see what you think. I mean, I think that it seems like progress is being made in some ways, especially in the US with just all of the abusers that have kind of been outed and shown to be the abusers. But then it's also like there's, it's like a tale of two cities. It's like there are two Americas. There's one that's realizing this is a problem and saying, oh, okay, maybe we had the wrong idea about consent and whether you can give drunk consent, and weather just not screaming or not saying no is consent.

0:33:47 Thomas: And people are having some realizations and some healthy progress there. And then there's like another side, there's another, well, I was going, going to say half, but I don't know what the proportions are. But there's another side that's just obstinate. That's just like, no, that's ridiculous. They're stuck or they're regressing. I guess I used to think of progress in these things as kind of a societal thing where we tend to trend upwards in certain manners, but it's almost like one group of people is maybe be making progress. And then another is just staying still and regressing. And it sort of just depends, you know, on, like, overall, it doesn't really mean that on average, we're getting any better.

0:34:35 Thomas: Is that something that seems to ring true with you? What are your thoughts on that?

0:34:41 Jen: Yeah, I think that absolutely rings true. Um, is often it's very reactionary, or rather you make some progress, and, um, you know, there's that old chestnut that when you've had a lot of privilege, sometimes progress feels like, uh, oppression. Um, people, people react to that. I mean, it's, it's, you know, it's a convenient throwaway phrase, but it is also the truth. What you have are people who, when you discuss the gender pay gap, talk about how token women are taking their jobs, with, of course, the fundamental underlying assumption there being that they were their jobs to begin with, um, and that A woman would only possibly get those jobs because of her gender, as opposed to that she was qualified.

Um, you have people talking about, um, for example, in Ireland at the moment, reproductive rights, rights, where on the one hand you have people saying, "Yep, we respect women and their right to choose," and on the other hand, people who think that women will just casually choose to have a termination because they're going on holiday and want to look good in a bikini, and that's a legitimate argument that's been made.

Um, it's very difficult sometimes to see how we as a society can progress past that when there is such resistance. I think, most particularly when it, it comes to consent, though, the difficulty is that we haven't always necessarily done a very good job of teaching people about consent, and most people tend to think of it as something that's really

0:35:14 Thomas: Right. Yeah,

0:36:07 Jen: Boring, or something that would maybe, like, interrupt the, the sex or sexual contact that you're having with a partner, but, like, you'd have to sort of stop and boringly get out a document and both say, "Yes, I consent to this," "No, I don't consent to that." And I don't know that that assumption is really being challenged at that younger age when we're teaching children about sex and giving them sex education. Um, we're not really challenging that idea that consent has to be some sort of a boring roadblock in, in kind of your, your path of sexual exploration, when, in point of fact, it can't be as simple as, you know, saying to a partner, you know, "Can I touch you there, can I do this, can I doing that," that doesn't have to be all stop unless they say no, of course. So what you, what we're growing up with now is, uh, a generation of people who have smartphones, who have access to the internet, and as such can consume pornography and other sexual information at an earlier age, completely unsupervised.

0:37:06 Jen: And on the other hand, we have a sex education curriculum, which hasn't really caught up with the times and still just presents consent as this basic, "If someone says no, no means no." No. It doesn't really discuss that consent can be as, you know, not necessarily screaming and shouting no, but it could be being frozen in fear. It could be simply not responding enthusiastically, and that it's, you knows, it's a conversation.

I think, because of that, when we have these conversations, these Me Too conversations, these conversations about these WhatsApp messages, some people, it has to be prompting a self-examination of behavior and perhaps a worry that they themselves have strayed across that line in the past, and maybe a fear or an unwillingness to accept that, which, I mean, I get that it's not easy to look back at your own past and think, "Oh my god, I was an absolute dope," you know, that time, or even to look back at your past and think, "Oh my God, I really, actually, I pushed someone into something that they didn't want to do, and that was wrong." That's, that's a hard thing, thing to do, to look at yourself, to look at things that you've done, to say, "You know what, that was, that was wrong, I shouldn't have done that, I absolutely should not have done." And these conversations sometimes prompt those examinations. I guess people are a bit reactionary when they come up, they don't want to have them, they don't want to do that examination because they're a bit worried about what they might find.

0:38:29 Thomas: That's well said. While I have you here, I did, you mentioned it actually, actually, but I did want to take the chance to talk about Repeal the Eighth. It's something that I've heard a little bit about, but I don't know the details. Do you want to talk about that?

0:38:42 Jen: Ireland, we have constitution, like pretty much everywhere, um, and our situation is that constitutional amendments can only be inserted or repealed after we have a referendum. So everybody all piles in and votes yay or nay on a given thing. Uh, in 1983, some people, a slim majority of people it should be noted, uh, voted to insert Article 40.3.3 into our constitution, which, uh, enshrines in our constitution the equal right to life of the unborn and the woman. What this effectively does is it makes, uh, any kind of abortion more or less illegal in Ireland under any circumstances, circumstances.

Um, it also has, we've seen far-reaching effects, uh, for things like consent and pregnancy, back to that fun consent word again, um, you know, medical consent and pregnancy, and refusal of consent in pregnancy, and the treatment of women where, for example, uh, they have fatal fetal abnormalities developed during the pregnancy, etc, etc. Um, we've had a number of cases in the past that have tested this law. Um, you'll hear it referred to as kind of like an alphabet list of cases, which is awful but true, because, uh, as per my earlier comments about a lot of our cases being held, uh, in private courts, most of these women are just referred to by letters. So Miss

0:40:08 Thomas: Oh, right.

0:40:09 Jen: X, Miss ABC, Miss Y, etc, and we have a whole alphabet of women who have essentially been failed by our country and either had their choice, or their medical treatments, or, um, their procedures in general, be impinged upon by the Eighth Amendment. So after a lot of campaigning, after many successive governments essentially kicking the can down the road, we have finally come to a point where the government have really had no choice but to call a referendum on this topic.

So, um, I'm not sure precisely how many days, but on May 25th anyway, um, Ireland is going to the polls to vote on whether or not to repeal the Eighth Amendment, which is that 40.3.3 amendment, and replace it with text that basically says that the government may legislate for the regulation of termination of pregnancy. Um, obviously this is hugely significant for women in Ireland, um, because that amendment has been in place since 1983, which essentially means that, um, no one of an age where you would typically be able to reproduce as a woman has ever had a say on this issue, myself included. Um, at the moment, uh, you can get a termination in Ireland under, under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, and an important distinction there is life, not health.

So a handful of terminations have been carried out where there was a risk to the life of the mother. This was brought in as a result of the X case, or a case where Miss X versus the state. There's been a handful of terminations carried out under that, but that provision is life, not, not health. And as such, we've had a number of cases where a woman's health has been at risk, but not her immediate life.

0:40:11 Thomas: Hmm.

0:41:54 Jen: And she's been forced to travel. Ireland is so close to the UK, and because abortion is available in the UK, essentially, whenever we say the phrase "Ireland is abortion free," you can imagine a tiny little asterisk on the top right corner there saying that it's not abortion free, we just outsource our abortions to our next nearest neighbor, and we do that for anyone who can afford to do that, and if you can't afford to do that, then you don't really have any options. You can try and illegally import abortion pills, but there is the chilling effect that you might be sentenced with up to 14 years in, in prison for attempting to terminate a pregnancy in Ireland.

0:42:17 Thomas: Right. Wow.

0:42:38 Thomas: So how much support does this have? I mean, how realistic are the chances here, do you think?

0:42:44 Jen: So the polls have indicated well so far, but not necessarily the majority that I would like yet. There's a lot of people that are very undecided. And unfortunately, there's a little bit of a gap between the two. A lot of misinformation in the campaign at the moment. So I know that Cambridge Analytica have been in the news a lot recently. Recently.

0:43:01 Thomas: Yeah.

0:43:01 Jen: The reason I bring them up is because some of the pro-life groups in Ireland have apparently hired some people with dealings with Cambridge Analytica and some other similar organizations to target advertising and run their campaigns in Ireland, which should tell you a little bit about the quality of the information that those campaigns will probably be contributing.

0:43:11 Thomas: Oh, wow. Yeah. So is this, sorry for not understanding or immediately grabbing hold of how it works there, but is this something that's on a ballot coming up? Is this something people are trying to get to a ballot measure? How does it work exactly? Exactly, okay.

0:43:37 Jen: So this is on a ballot. So there have been years of campaigning to get it there. It is finally actually there, um, so on, may on the May 25th date is the date that we will go to vote, so there will be one question at that time, which is, do you want to repeal it and replace it with that new text, yes or no?

Um, whenever we want to have a referendum to change our constitution, essentially the government has to bring a referendum bill, they have to bring that through the two houses of government, everybody has to agree, and then they can hold a referendum, they set a date, and once they set an date, you can officially start campaigning for a yes or no vote on that given topic.

So we've had a couple, we had one a couple of years ago, for example, to uh legalize same-sex marriage, uh which passed, to change the presidential eligibility age, which failed. Um, so this is already on the ballot, um, as such, and the ballot will happen on May 25th, so the campaign now is to campaign for a yes or no, in my case a very firm yes, um,

0:43:39 Thomas: Oh. Wow. Okay. Okay. Right. Right, is it, uh, how is, how is turnout usually for these things?

0:44:45 Jen: It has varied, um, I think a lot of people are comparing this to same-sex marriage referendum, which happened because that had, I think, the largest turnout, um, in the history of referenda in our state, um, was a huge push to get young people registered and get them voting, uh, there was a huge push with Home to Vote, where people who had perhaps emigrated but weren't yet off the electoral register, because you're eligible for a certain amount of time after you leave to still vote, um, but you obviously have to physically be here, there's no option to postal vote, so there was a large push for people to come home to vote to say yes, um, and so I think there's a lot of push to kind of, that feeling again, into it, get a lot young people involved.

As to how the outlook is, I mean, as I said, there's some polls indicate support, there's a fair bit of misinformation about what the government is proposing, and the tricky part is that there's the constitutional issue and the legislative issue, so if we repeal this from the constitution and say, yep, the government can legislate, a lot of people who

0:44:56 Thomas: Wow, oh.

0:45:52 Jen: Maybe would have said yes, I want to repeal the eighth, are now questioning the legislation that the government are proposing, um,

0:46:00 Thomas: So, that so are you saying it doesn't necessarily solve it, yet they would still need to pass a law that that's going to enact it in some way, or make it the practical application of it, okay?

0:46:05 Jen: Yeah. So just repealing the eighth itself won't really, like, sort of, with a, with a magic, uh, a magic bullet, just fix everything, um, the, the situation is that essentially repealing the eighth is necessary for any change, even the, even the more restrictive changes that some people support. So, for example, a lot of people only support abortion in Ireland in the cases of rape or incest or fatal fetal abnormalities. So for them, some of the proposed legislative changes have been difficult. So I think there's a lot of good conversations to be had with undecided people, which hopefully won't be too scuppered by misinformation. But we do have, have a very big problem in Ireland with misinformation, outside funding, and potentially even outside influence on our referendum campaigns, particularly, most particularly, on this issue, which is obviously, worldwide, typically a very contentious issue, Ireland being as it is, historically a very Catholic country.

0:46:12 Thomas: Right.

0:47:08 Thomas: Well, That must be very tough for you, I can't imagine what misinformation, information would be like. My deepest sympathies.

0:47:17 Jen: Yes. Something that you would have absolutely no idea about, sure.

0:47:22 Thomas: Yeah, no, no. Wow, you're telling me people don't just know, they don't just read for themselves and know what everything is? Well, thank you for the breakdown. I certainly will be rooting for that yes vote. It sounds like it's coming up real soon, a month and a half or something like that. So we'll keep an eye on it. And thank you so much for discussing what I know was a very difficult topic. But yeah, is there anywhere you want to point anybody to find you online, find your work,

0:47:53 Jen: I'm horrifyingly easy to stalk online because I basically have the same username for everything, so you can find me, uh, on Twitter at Zenbuffy, or I have a website which is zenbuffy.com, um, I mostly tweet about this kind of stuff, about science, about politics in Ireland, um, about medicine, sometimes about cake, um, and other random topics, tap dancing, uh, so yeah, you can find me at Zenbuffy.

0:48:19 Thomas: Maybe sometime to get us in a better mood, we'll have to do a cake and tap dancing podcast and then that'll be an easier recording, I think.

0:48:28 Jen: Well, you never, you never can tell, tricky to get those mics pointed directly at the shoes.

0:48:33 Thomas: Yeah, you could just talk about it. You don't have to demonstrate for us. Thanks so much. I know that's, yeah, a heavy topic, but just so mind-blowing. And this Me Too movement, you know, it's hopefully with the use of the internet can be a worldwide thing, but obviously lots of challenges along the way.

0:48:53 Jen: Yeah, well, I certainly hope that what we're seeing is the start of a push for change and a lot of eyes being opened in Ireland, and if it takes some hard conversations to have it happen, then I fully intend to keep having those hard conversations.

0:49:07 Thomas: Excellent. Thank you so much!

0:49:08 Jen: Thank you.

0:49:20 Thomas: Thanks again so much to Jen for coming on and breaking that down for us and talking about Repeal the 8th. Really, when I saw some of the accounts that I've seen about how women felt in offices where men cheered at this particular verdict, it just reminded me so much of, I mean, you probably know what I'm thinking of the Mythicist Milwaukee where the tweet, I read the tweet and people cheered it. It just reminded me so much of that. And perhaps that's why it really resonated with me. But honestly, men, I mean, put yourself in the place of women in a workplace who hear men cheering about a not guilty verdict on this particular case. I mean cheering for it. It's like, how would that, how must that feel? It's really incredible.

0:50:06 Thomas: Well, at any rate, as you'll notice, this is now essentially a Thursday show. Serious Inquiries Only is going to be every Thursday for you. And I plan on releasing extra episodes for patrons only, to try to split the difference between the two a week versus one a week. And we'll come somewhere in the middle, on average, between one and two weeks. So that first bonus episode, I anticipate being out probably, I don't know, Monday, something like that. And it will feature some comments. I might talk about AACON with Hugh Laurie. That was really interesting. I have some observations on that. And I've got a lot of listener voicemails and questions and those sort of things to talk about, all kinds of stuff. So it'll feature that. It'll also feature the Jake News as a segment during it, but it'll be a bonus episode for patrons only.

0:50:54 Thomas: And that's again on either patreon.com slash seriouspod or on seriouspod.com support. Either or. It's all the same. Just one involves a middleman and one doesn't. Thank you so much for listening, and I will see you next week or sooner if you're a supporter. Either way, thank you so Much.