Arlene Foster against pardon for suffragettes who broke law

Nicola Maria MacRory: If it wasn’t for those brave ladies, Arlene wouldn’t be where she’s at today.

Lucinda Scott: Exactly. She doesn’t deserve the vote — and not a great representative for women with that attitude.

David Mason: Don’t blame them. She’s not their fault.

Peter Lombard: If laws were broken, then there should be no pardon. It would be dangerous, even disastrous, to try and apply the rule of law retrospectively in order to reflect mores of today. It may help to see such criminal convictions as an indictment on society at the time, not the women.

Charles Williams: Peter, when the law was used as a means of oppression and marginalisation of women, they have every right to break it and have it changed. It was the law-breakers that ensured that the law was changed and society and the place of women in it improved and moved on. We owe them a debt of gratitude for their courage.

Peter Lombard: Charles, for the law to work, it must be applied without exception and without favour. Choosing which laws we adhere to and which laws we don’t risks anarchy. As with many social issues, there is a range of views, not least those who objected to suffragettes who risked the lives of innocent people in their endeavours — the dangers of which we here should be all too aware of.

Peter Kieran Ellison: Peter, any examples of this utopia, where the law is applied without exception or favour? Or, as I suspect, is it ideological claptrap?

Angela Rolfe: If this were 100 years ago, Arlene and Co would be selecting and using Bible verses to keep women in their place.

Anne McCloy: Arlene is following in the footsteps of Constance Markievicz, the first woman elected to the House of Commons, elected as a member of Sinn Fein. Suffrage was allied to the cause for Irish independence. Of course, she will not be pardoning 100-year-old crimes against patriarchal oppression. “Id rather be a rebel than a slave (Emily Pankhurst, 1913).”