Category: Current Affairs (Page 6 of 6)

Who could not be moved by the plight of the three brave women who related their story on The Late Late Show (20 April 2012)? To be told that their unborn babies were incapable of living outside the womb. That they were incompatible with life. I can’t empathise with something so fundamentally horrific. It is tragedy on so many levels that my imagination fails me.

There is however an aspect of their story that I can grapple with. Due to the morality of others, they were forced to leave the country to seek terminations. You see Ireland is very strict about some things. What individuals may or may not do with and/or to their own bodies, is right up there at the top of things the State feels obliged to legislate for.

This arrogance did not form in a vacuum. As a former outpost of orthodox Roman Catholicism, the hierarchy of freedom in Ireland, was clear to all. At the top were good middle-class Catholic men, who were free-ish, then there were all other men, after them were foetuses and at the bottom were women and children. Don’t forget that until 1990, a husband had unrestricted access to his wife’s body and children of single-mothers were treated as State/Church property.

Thus the State has a long history of thinking itself enjoined to tell people what they could do with their own bodies. That habit of power is as difficult for citizens to break as it is for politicians to give-up. So we remain a nation which exports women who wish to have terminations. An anachronistic position protected fiercely by a loud and powerful minority.

Now I’ve explored my thoughts on abortion in an earlier post, so I am not going to dwell too much on the rights and wrongs here. Suffice to say, I am pro-freedom of choice. In saying that however, this particular case, is not a clear cut argument for abortion on demand. It is not even a cause célèbre for abortions that protect the lives of women. This is specifically about women who are carrying foetuses which will not survive.

We are in good abortions versus bad abortion territory. Abortions to end ‘real‘ suffering versus ‘social‘ abortions. It is a distinction I find nauseating, but for some it is a real moral line in the sand. I had assumed three sides to the freedom of choice debate, those for freedom, those against freedom and those who had yet to decide. Apparently there is a fourth side; those who want freedom for some, in particular situations, sometimes, here’s a list of hoops the women must jump through, etc.

One would have to be a cold cold bastard to have the capacity to feel any kind of moral superiority over those women, but those bastards exist. People who would call these women murderers. Others that speak of ‘perinatal hospices’ and think this sufficent. These are scary people and worse, they have a crawling body politic on their side.

There can be no compromise in this. It is freedom or nothing. Women are given full autonomy, or their bodies remain subject to the morals of others. But there is nothing to stop those who support freedom, to be a bit cold in their efforts. Just because I am a liberal does not mean I have to be nicey nicey all the time. Incremental steps are the key to freedom more than a revolution will ever be.

So I will wholeheartedly support the efforts of those who are campaigning for ‘good’ abortions. Let’s get that door unlocked. Let’s help the politicians eventually do the right thing, by helping them first do the easy thing, legislate for women who are forced to travel to the UK as their unborn babies are incompatible with life. It’s not heroic, but freedom is more important than heroism.

Eamon Delaney’s article can be read here

When I read Eamon Delaney’s article, my first reaction was to dismiss it as mere professional contrarianism. It may not be an honourable living, but beggars can’t be choosers in this economy. I was content to file it under risible cant and leave it at that. Unfortunately I read it again and then a third time. It was then that the truly pernicious nature of his article struck me. I invite you to read the article and substitute Black or Jew or Traveler for the word gay. I think you would agree, that if Mister Delaney was to have written this article, about any other minority, he would now be facing serious legal and professional difficulties.

It is an article that does not merit attention but I do think it demands close reading, because there is the horrible possibility that Eamon Delaney is an honest man who truly believes what he is saying. Amazing as it may seem to me, but an adult may actually believe these things. That scary notion struck me hard and causes me to have to respond to this vicious little tirade. I know that in writing a reply, I may be accused of drawing undue attention to a mediocrity, but I cannot help thinking that parsing the words and sentiments, that are contained in this article, is a necessary exercise.

Of the litany of truly silly things that Eamon Delaney allowed his brain to think and his fingers to type, I have chosen to focus on seven of the more egregious sentences. I cringe in embarrassment every time I read them and I feel sympathy for Mr Delaney, as I have come to fear that he may believe what he emoted. Perhaps however, he should leave the whole conservative demagoguery thing to his betters. For all of John Waters and David Quinn’s faults, they cannot be accused of being unlettered dilettantes, writing above their ability. At best, this piece appears to be an amalgam of lines that did not survive the journey from a first draft to a second draft, in a David Quinn article.

✛

“Increasingly, it seems as if the homosexual community has forgotten that it is the minority.”

Brevity they say, is the soul of wit. The Bard said that, so it must be true. So why use fifteen words to paraphrase the most succinct, ‘uppity niggers?’ Just say, ‘uppity fags.‘ Possibly Mister Delaney is paid by the word and as someone who has padded out an essay or two, I understand the temptation to over word a simple point, just to achieve a word count. Unfortunately, we live in an age of limited attention, so I fear he risks his message being lost amidst the plethora of stimuli and bile that will be competing for the brian-space of his target audience. So I would suggest that Mister Delaney be brave, avoid unnecessary verbiage and above all else. be pithy. “Uppity fags‘ are being uppity.

“the growing appetite for more and more rights and privileges.”

The real strength of this line is that it reinforces the central message of the piece, while appearing to be wholly reasonable. Who would not be exasperated by ‘uppity fags’ wanting to be just like us normal folk? I think Mister Delaney’s target audience would embrace this phrase. Also equating rights to privileges allows the ignorant, to believe that the gays want more than what the good normal people have. That this is a crass canard is immaterial, the point is to get that impression out there. When a reader of the article, chooses to kick the head in, of an ‘uppity fag‘ it would not do to o’er burden them with facts. If simple verifiable facts were brought into play, I fear Mister Delaney would run the risk of appearing to be just a hateful little man.

“want to increasingly change mainstream culture to suit them.”

I think this may be my favourite phrase of them all. It’s actually perfect. Mister Delaney has managed to turn a truth i.e. a persecuted minority want their persecutors to change so that the minority are no longer persecuted, into something wrong and threatening. He could have said that homosexuals should change so that they can enjoy the rights, that the rest of us take for granted, but the PC Brigade would have lost their minds over something like that. No, what he appears to have done is condemn the gays for fighting their corner and give the reader the impression, that the very act of standing up for itself, marks the gay community as intent on turning us all into hot-pants wearing ‘fags.’ I’m sure there isn’t a battered wife in this country who hasn’t been blamed, by their husband, for the beating he is giving her.

“Many gays want to have it both ways.”

This short sentence is remarkably efficient. It is everything the first quote is not. It is a mere eight words that manage to create an image, in the mind of the reader, of that thing they hate and fear most, gay sex (but only as practiced by men, the other kind of gay sex isn’t really real and exists merely for masturbatory purposes) while simultaneously allowing the reader to conveniently forget that heterosexual hedonism is nighty splattered all over our streets. It makes the reader feel virtuous while simultaneously paints a picture of sex crazed fairies. The pièce de résistance however is the introduction of the idea of bisexuality. And everyone knows that the bis are the agnostics of sexuality, hated by all sides. I wonder if Mister Delaney was mindful when he wrote this. It would be a shame if such a gem had just accidentally spewed from the large intestine of his imagination.

“it makes many of us uneasy and impatient with the idea that raising a child is totally equivalent to a child being raised by its natural parents.”

One can’t go far wrong by issuing a call to reason. By sharing and thus validating an unease that exists, about children being raised by the gays, this offers succor to all those who feel all icky about the gays anyway, but lacked the wherewithal to express that unease in an acceptable way. Of course, that this unease is a result of smallness and should cause one to reflect on one’s own prejudices, is not important. Instead, make what sounds like a reasonable appeal, ‘won’t someone please think of the children‘ and leave it at that. A lettered conservative would have quoted statistics here. They are not hard to find, they use the same ones ad nauseam, about children doing best in two-parent families. Perhaps though, Mister Delaney knew that not one single piece of scientific data exists, that shows children do less well with gay parents. I’m going to credit him with that knowledge and for correctly steering clear of the science and sticking with base emotion. It is enough that one doesn’t agree with something for it to be wrong. It’s an unanswerable argument really.

“Oh, please. What about breastfeeding.”

Again with the lesbians are not real. Wonderful. Gay men are bad, gay women are for wanking to. This is pitch perfect playing to the gallery. Reducing fatherhood to mere sperm donation, does not take away from the assertion that only breastfeeders are good and worthy parents. It’s an argument that may turn some women off, but I think it can be safely assumed that men, single men, childless men, men who weren’t breastfed, men who are unlikely to have ever witnessed a child being breastfed, will wholeheartedly agree with the idea that only breastfeeding mothers are acceptable caregivers for the children these men will probably never have and certainly will never see. Despite whatever misgivings I may have about Mister Delaney, he does deserve special applause for being the first (I think) to use breastfeeding as a stick to beat the gays with. Much more imaginative than the usual ‘god hates fags.‘

“There is also the danger that this insatiable demand for more and more recognition and identity (gay quotas?), will eventually alienate mainstream opinion and undo some of the valuable gains made in this country by, for example, David Norris and others, in eliminating prejudice and discrimination.”

I did a speed-reading course once and the only thing I remember from that class is that when reading a newspaper article, only go for the first and last paragraphs. In them are to be found the most salient points of the article. The rest is mere explanation. I think Mister Delaney has demonstrated that most graphically in this article. The opening gambit was a warning to ‘uppity fags‘ to mind themselves or else, and the ending carries the very same warning. Mister Delaney also introduces a key word, ‘insatiable.‘ A word that will elicit, from the reader, the idea of fags being impossible to ever satisfy. This is followed by the pretense of ever more reasonableness, a mention for celebrity fag, David Norris. This thesis of reason, is then hammered home by stating that ‘prejudice and discrimination have been eliminated.‘ One could not be anymore reasonable. That the contention is demonstrably false, does not prevent Mister Delaney hammering home his point and cloaking the reader in the warm embrace of pious self-righteousness. The fags aren’t locked up anymore, what the hell are they still going on about?

✛

I envy the level of freedom enjoyed by Americans to say whatever they wish to say. I only wish that same freedom was enshrined in our Constitution. Then I read Eamon Delaney’s article and I am moved to think that we may have much more freedom than I had previously assumed. The article, though vile, has not however, diminished my belief in free speech. What the article has done, is highlight, most clearly, that the corollary of free speech is an attendant responsibility on those who hear or read the kind of asinine calumny that Eamon Delaney vomited into our consciousnesses, to respond. Some may say that to respond gives undeserved fuel to the ghastly and harmful sentiments expressed by Eamon Delaney and his ilk, but the alternatives are to have our freedom of speech circumscribed by an elite or to allow the harm caused by Eamon Delaney go undone.

I for one, prefer to attempt, in my little way, to amend the damage that Eamon Delaney’s article will undoubtedly cause and in doing so, hopefully be a part of a process that sidelines the kind of willful stupidity that his kind peddles as informed opinion. And that damage cannot be underestimated or understated. As liberal as I am, I still would not like to have a child of mine, realise that he or she is gay. The world we live in, even our Western World, is not yet very forgiving of difference. It is undoubtedly better than it was twenty years and even ten years ago, but when one reads articles, in broadsheet newspapers, that call for continued discrimination against gay people, then we have to admit that our enlightened age, remains quite dark in places. The most galling aspect of Eamon Delaney’s vituperous rant is that he is not just attacking gay rights, he is attacking the rights of gay people to achieve the rights he takes for granted. Such an attack must be answered.

It must be answered, because no minority has ever been granted equality without that minority first demanding it. Without that constant struggle for equality, without that incessant clamour for rights, no minority would have ever risen above the status of subject people. No minority should ever have to make itself so virtuous that every individual of that minority is saintly in their behaviour. No minority should have to change for fear of offending the prejudices of the majority. And no minority should ever have to be grateful for the fact, that they are no longer considered criminal.

So I urge everyone to read Eamon Delaney’s article and to get their friends and families to read the article and then to discuss it. Discuss it at length and then point out the fallacies, the ill-informed opinion, the prejudice, the failed logic, the lack of science, the unreason and then get angry. Get angry because every child that is gay, is at risk from people like Eamon Delaney. Every gay child is at risk from the kind of bullying that Eamon Delaney’s vicious words inspires. Every gay child faces a life of second class citizenship, because people like Eamon Delaney can’t understand why gay people should even be complaining about being second class citizens. Every gay child is at risk because the poison words of Eamon Delaney are as nectar to hateful people who want nothing more, than to have their inadequacies and prejudices confirmed by a man writing in a big newspaper.

If revenge is a dish best served cold, justice should be clear blue ice and if ever a country has demanded justice in vain and is now prepared to settle for vengeance, it is Ireland. We are victims of the greatest confidence trick of all time. We were told we were rich and we were told that all that was required of us, to enjoy those riches, was to borrow, borrow, borrow. Now we know we were tricked, but we are not offered succor, not offered recompense. Instead we are expected to pay, in full, the cost of other people’s deceit.

What is now being offered to us, is the opportunity to enjoy some semblance of revenge, on those who foisted this financial disaster onto us. We have been asked, by our politicians, to remove any and all of the constitutional restraints, that would check their pursuit of those, who we all blame for this devastating recession. It is a tempting proposition. Who wouldn’t feel glee, watching Bertie Ahern’s home being raided? Who wouldn’t feel joy at Bertie Ahern losing the protection of the tax-payer funded barristers that shield him from our rage? Who wouldn’t feel righteous, when witnessing him being torn to shreds by eager politicians?

Every fibre of my being is screaming at me, to vote for any measures that will see Bertie Ahern face our wrath. All that I must do, is forego the protections afforded me, by The Constitution. All that I need do, is vote yes to the Thirtieth Amendment to our Constitution and our politicians will have the kind of untrammeled powers necessary to pursue all those who it deems expedient to destroy. All I need do, is give to the class of people that led my country into financial oblivion, even more power.

Though they may taste similar, this is a recipe for vengeance, it is not the clear blue ice of justice. If in our haste to savour the cold satisfaction of revenge, we empower our politicians to deny justice, then we will be trusting our politicians to never vent their spleen on us. We will be trusting our politicians to always act wisely, charitably and honestly in their enjoyment of these vastly increased powers.

I for one have learned the hard lessons taught by Bertie Ahern, I will not be trusting politicians again.

I have written in that past, about my becoming increasingly uninterested in the upcoming Presidential Election. My ire however, was so raised by the entry of Martin McGuinness into the contest, that I moved, to again engage. Fortunately, it would seem that Mister McGuinness’s efforts to subvert history will come to naught and while I will occasionally retweet links to articles that highlight his criminal past, I am no longer concerned with who our next President will be. I am though, concerned with trying to decide who I will vote for. I am so underwhelmed by the remaining candidates that it is proving more than a little difficult to arrive at an order of preference.

There is an argument to be made, that in this instance, the logical thing to do is simply not vote. I really wish I could embrace that view. My problem is that I love voting. Every time I step into a polling booth I experience a thrill of nascent power, of relevancy and of privilege. The problem with being an untutored reader of history is that I see the stories, not the themes. I see the grand sweep of time and I see the tiny blip of history where people get to decide their own leaders. That I live in that infinitesimal oasis, fills me with joy and causes that spark of excitement in the pit of my stomach, when I am afforded the opportunity to have my say. Thus I must vote. Thus I must attach an order of least bad, to these people seeking to be my President.

I am then, embarrassed to admit that I had singularly failed to take note of the two Constitutional Amendments which are being subjected to referenda (or referendums) on the same day as the Presidential Election. I was rescued from my insensibility by the many worthies of the twitterverse, who have recently begun a campaign of awareness raising. To them I say thanks. I fear I may have continued to self-indulgently obsess about who I should vote for, right up to casting my votes, in these referenda, in blithe ignorance.

It is particularly galling to me, to have required someone else to remind me about the referenda. Constitutional amendments are several orders of importance, above mere elections. As for a Presidential Election? No comparison. A Constitution is that document that legally defines what we are, how we govern ourselves and it is that precious thing which protects us from witless populism and self-serving politicians. It is so important that we do not allow politicians to even interpret it, never mind amend it. That is not to say, our Constitution is perfect. This atheist would like to see all references to divine beings deleted. The very fact that we are voting on the twenty-ninth and thirtieth amendments also indicate that our Constitution has required certain improvements (or, according to how one has voted, it has been damaged) over the years.

The process of changing our Constitution is relatively simple. The politicians propose a change, we vote yes or no to that change and if yes, the judiciary interpret that change. I’m one of those who think the voting part to be the most important element in that process. So here is my attempt to decide how I should vote in the impending referenda.

Amendment 29 – the proposed change to Article 35, Section 5.

Existing text:

The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.

Proposed text:

5.1 The remuneration of judges shall not be reduced during their continuance in office save in accordance with this section.

5.2 The remuneration of judges is subject to the imposition of taxes, levies or other charges that are imposed by law on persons generally or persons belonging to a particular class.

5.3 Where, before or after the enactment of this section, reductions have been or are made by law to the remuneration of persons belonging to classes of persons whose remuneration is paid out of public money and such law states that those reductions are in the public interest, provision may also be made by law to make proportionate reductions to the remuneration of judges.

Without even looking at the text, I was going to vote yes to this. We are in a recession, so everyone should suffer a little, especially those who are paid so well from the public purse. Section three did appear to exercise some commentators so I have reread it and reread it, ad nauseum. I can only conclude that one would have to be somewhat cynical to find a problem here. Judges will be linked to a civil service grade and will enjoy or endure the salary vicissitudes of that grade.

Annoyingly however, I am a cynic. There needs to be mechanism for imposing the harshness of our economic woes on our judiciary, but I am uncomfortable, in the extreme, with the prospect of politicians doing that imposing. Any prospect of politicians having recourse to bringing pressure to bear on judges, fills me with extreme disquiet. I will not pretend to have a better or safer way to reduce the salaries of our judges, but I must believe that a better way can be found. I think that at least one layer of independent adjudication (on remuneration) must exist, as a buffer between the politicians and the judges. Yes, I know, I appear to be advocating for the creation of yet another quango. I make no apologies for that. This amendment clearly makes it too easy for politicians to alter the pay of judges.

The independence of the judiciary, is a cornerstone of liberal democracy and while it is unlikely, in the foreseeable future, that politicians would attempt to undermine this, the principal should still be maintained, jealously guarded and zealously enforced, in case of the unforeseen. So I will be voting no.
Amendment 30 – the proposed change to Article 15, Section 10.

Existing text:

(1) Each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official documents and the private papers of its members, and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties.
Proposed inserted text:

2 Each House shall have the power to conduct an inquiry, or an inquiry with the other House, in a manner provided for by law, into any matter stated by the House or Houses concerned to be of general public importance.

3 In the course of any such inquiry the conduct of any person (whether or not a member of either House) may be investigated and the House or Houses concerned may make findings in respect of the conduct of that person concerning the matter to which the inquiry relates.

4 It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest for the purposes of ensuring an effective inquiry into any matter to which subsection 2 applies.

Again I’d have voted yes to this, without even reading it. Who hasn’t been dismayed by the exorbitantly expensive, too long delayed and ultimately toothless Tribunals of Enquiry that we have had to endure these last few decades? I was taken by the image of Bertie Ahern being hounded by a pack of poll aware politicians. It is an image that fills me with glee. To see that man stripped bare of his delusions and arrogance is a spectacle I would pay good money to enjoy. The innumerable bankers, developers and sundry others who destroyed our country would provide ample appetisers, but it is seeing Bertie destroyed, that I want most.

Yet the price demanded, to indulge our sense of vengeful outrage is shockingly high. The inserted text grants unprecedented powers to our politicians. This amendment will allow a government to pick their target, decide the grounds on which to attack their target and to prosecute that target in almost any way they wish. A government will be able to ride roughshod over the opposition, be inculcated from Judicial intervention and be free to destroy whoever they deem fit to destroy. It’s a McCarthyite Charter, pure and simple.

If I want Bertie subjected to this form of ‘stocks‘ am I in danger of suffering a similar fate? I can’t escape the conclusion that this amendment has the potential to be the most dangerous and the most pernicious assault on our freedom, by our politicians, since the foundation of the State. That our elected representatives should have some powers of investigation is obvious. That our elected representatives should be allowed to decide for themselves what those powers should be, is frankly terrifying. The public annihilation of Bertie Ahern and his coterie of self-serving sycophants, handlers and ‘digger-outers‘ is not worth the risk that power happy or vengeful politicians could sit in judgement of me.

Imagine the idea of being cross examined by a self-righteous politician. No thank you. I will be voting no.

I was in Croke Park in 2002 when DJ Carey scored that point. More precisely I was in the upper tier of The Hogan Stand, directly in line with DJ Carey, when he took that score. I remember my eight year old self crying like a baby when Seamus Darby scored that goal, which robbed Kerry of the unique 5-in-a-row. And I remember when my local club Lixnaw, won the Kerry Hurling Championship in ’83, for the first time in 29 years.

Those memories and many others are why I am filled with gratitude to and admiration for the GAA. Though I don’t love the GAA. It is conservative to its very core. I won’t condemn them for this, as their conservatism clearly works. They continue to thrive and maintain a presence in every parish and village in the country.

Every decision of note in the GAA has to win the support of at least two-thirds of the organisation. It is as close to consensus as is practical in the real world and arguably an insane level to fix on, in an organisation of the GAA’s scope and size. The results however speak for themselves.

I do not participate in its running because I would quickly go insane at the pace of change in that body, despite all the evidence pointing to its efficacy of this slow pace. I thought they would never allow Soccer and Rugby to be played in Croke Park and was angry that they maintained that stricture for so long. When however, they did change this rule, they did so while maintaining the unity of the GAA and more than this, they embraced that change with a professional enthusiasm that was inspirational.

There is one gripe that I have with the GAA however. When I attend a big game in Crole Park, there will be politicians there as Guests of the GAA. Nothing wrong with that. It’s a symbiotic relationship and open for all to see. What vexes is their requests for the spectators to stand in respect for these politicians. Standing for a mere politician? One stands for the President. She is the titular leader of our country. Of course one stands for her. One however does not stand for a Taoiseach. There is no logical or moral reason to stand for a servant.

We chose a parliamentary democracy so that we would not have to endure leaders. Soldiers and sheep need leaders, citizens need law makers and administrators. We did however retain the notion of a Head of State, a position of prestige and ceremony, but wholly stripped of any real significance beyond symbolism. It’s a bit nineteenth century, but most countries have them and it appears to work, so we may as well continue with it.

I must admit however, that my refusal to stand for politicians, was influenced by Bertie Ahern. I remember harboring dark thoughts about what I would do if he was ever elevated to the Aras. At best I could never go to any event he was due to attend and as the evidence of his infamy grew, I even contemplated emigrating.

Fortunately however, his reputation has been so marred by his time in office, that the risk of him ever becoming our ‘Leader‘ has all but disappeared. With that distraction removed then, I had to begin the process of deciding who I would dislike least, to stand up for. I quickly narrowed it down to two men, Senator David Norris and Pat Cox.

As the campaign developed, Pat Cox failed to get the Fine Gael nomination and I grew more enamoured with the idea of someone very much outside the usual world of politics, so I chose Senator Norris. And I was especially attracted tot he idea of a defeat for the conservatives. Then the controversies began.

He appeared to be somewhat ambiguous about the sexual mores of the majority of Irish Citizens. At the time I wrote a blog supporting his right to ask uncomfortable questions and my support for him became exclusive and clear. My only concern was that the antiquated and politician ridden system of gaining a nomination, would stop him standing. It was proving very much a close run thing. Fine Gael, the newly largest party in the country, was blocking him, but there were elected representatives who feared the process would lose all credibility if Senator Norris was kept out of the race.

Then a new controversy erupted. In 1997 Senator Norris wrote a letter, to an Israeli Court, pleading for clemency, for his former Partner Ezra Yizhak. Mister Yizhak had been convicted of the Statuary Rape of a 15 year old boy and Senator Norris sought to mitigate this crime and to help Mister Yizhak avoid a custodial sentence. The letter highlighted Senator Norris’ position as an elected representative in Ireland. When the letter was revealed, Senator Norris’ support crumbled and he withdrew from the race.

Was he wrong to write that letter, was it the correct decision for him to withdraw and would I have voted for him if he had somehow managed to still gain a nomination?

In his position, I would have written that letter. I say that without hesitation or demur, though I do not offer that as a justification. I merely wish to highlight that there is nothing I believe in so profoundly, that I would not betray to save a loved one. If Senator Norris had attempted to intervene in the case of a murderer, as one of his opponents had done, then perhaps he would still be in the race. He however tried to save a man who was guilty of rape, statutory rape, unlawful carnal knowledge, sexual misconduct. A man guilty of sexual abuse, pedophilia, pederasty, corruption of a minor, sodomising a boy, raping a child, inappropriate contact. The form of words we choose to describe what Mister Yizhak was convicted of, more accurately describes our opinion of what happened, rather than the reality.

In defending Senator Norris in the past, I argued for nuance in our attitudes to sex and sexuality. I hold to that plea. The age of consent in Israel is presently 16, it was 18 at the time of the conviction. Thus now when someone is 15 years and 364 days old they are not allowed to have sex, but add one day and they are somehow ready. That is patently illogical. Having sex however with a boy who is 15 years and 364 days old, consensual or otherwise, is wrong, especially if the person is an adult.

A nuanced approach says that some 15 year olds are ready for sex and some 18 year olds are not. On paper, that is a perfectly defensible position to take. Of course it immediately begs the question, how do we assess and police this wonderfully liberal attitude? It would be impossible. That is why an arbitrary age is picked and in some jurisdictions with a relatively young age of consent, there are provisos in place, to limit this sexual activity to peers. I wish I had made that point clear in my previous post on the subject, but at the time it was all theory.

So a crime was committed against a child/minor/boy and Senator Norris, in his letter was less then sympathetic to the victim/participant. At worst this was callous, at best it may have been an oversight inspired by concern for a loved one. Ultimately however he behaved in the tradition of Irish politicians i.e. abused his position plus he overlooked the possible consequences of Mister Yizhak’s actions on the youth/young man.

For that I would not have been able to vote for him in the Presidential election. For that my respect for him and the wonderful work he has done on Human Rights is diminished. For that I would no longer have been concerned if he had failed to get a nomination.

For that he would have made a worse than unsuitable President. After the election I face the prospect of having to stand for a man or a woman, who to say the least, leave me cold. Three of them I would disagree with on political and philosophical grounds and the fourth, I wouldn’t even recognise if introduced to me. If however I find myself in Croke Park with one of them, I will stand, though it may be with gritted teeth. And I will stand because of the good work that Senator Norris has done in the past. He was one of those campaigners that helped and cajoled this conservative country to a position of respecting the rights of minorities.

With his help, this conservative people is moving towards recognising the benefits of inclusiveness and plurality. The pace is maddening, the characters involved flawed and the fighting sometimes bitter, but to quote William Quill; “…I am glad that we are now in a cultural position where this is unlikely to have any serious effect on the debate for equality in marriage or elsewhere in law, as it might have done a decade ago…the progress in this regard should continue along strongly.”

I hope that Senator Norris recognises this and in choosing to leave the field, he accepts that forcing men and women, who he has grossly offended, to stand for him, would have been a bar to this progress.

On 13 July of this year, The Cloyne Report was published. In essence this report shows that the Catholic Church failed to protect children from harm, between the years 1996 and 2005. That the Catholic Church failed to protect children is not a surprise, the surprise are the dates involved, 1996 to 2005. Perhaps 2011 is a little early to use the phrase ‘last century‘ to describe archaic ideas, but if some of us had given credence to the excuse of ignorance, which Catholic apologists had used to explain away their Church’s behaviour, then 2005 wholly demolishes this ugly attempt at misdirection. There are no more excuses left for the Catholic Church.

Any organisation that routinely interacts with children should have a Child Protection Policy. I would suggest that if you have children involved with an organisation, enquire about their Child Protection Policy. If they don’t have one or the staff are unfamiliar with it, ask why.

Best practice would have these Policies based almost wholly on Children First (1999 and 2010) Guidelines. This policy provides front-line staff and management, of any organisation, with an easy to follow guide on how to protect children and how to report instances of suspected abuse. Put simply if a member of staff has a suspicion, they pass this information to their supervisor, who is responsible for ensuring that the suspicion is reasonable, if the suspicion is reasonable, the HSE and/or Gardai must then be informed. The supervisor establishes only if the suspicion is reasonable, establishing guilt or otherwise is the job of the HSE and Gardai.

What the Cloyne Report shows is that this Policy was adopted by the Catholic Church and then it was wholly subverted. Instead of a Children First Policy, it became a Catholic Church First Practice. In response to this betrayal of trust by the Catholic Church, the Government is now keen to make reporting of suspected abuse mandatory. The discretion that organisations had, will end. Childcare professionals will have to endure investigations when subjected to malicious and nuisance accusations. Careers will be unnecessarily harmed, even ended and lives put in danger. A man accused of murder can still buy his newspaper, but a man accused of sexually abusing a child is a walking target. Yes, allegations should be seen as nothing more than an occupational hazard, but an allegation of sexually abusing a child, can lead one to despair.

When I began my Child Care career in 1994, I was taught that children never lie about sexual abuse. I left Child Care in 2004, utterly exhausted by the measures required to protect oneself from false allegations. I do not resent those requirements, because the best child protection practice, exactly mirrors that which is required of staff to protect themselves from false allegations. Allegations will of course still be made, but if everyone has followed the prescribed protocols, then that allegation can be quickly assessed as either credible or malicious.

Thus a well run establishment provides a safe environment for both service users and staff. Though that fear of a false allegations remains with me, despite being seven years out of the Child Care field. I still get a knot in my stomach when I see unaccompanied males with children.

An added, if invisible, layer of protection for children also exists, culture. During my career I met no fellow professional who felt any loyalty to their employers, be they the Health Boards, charities or Private Providers. Our loyalty was to the provision of care.

This exists in Catholic organisations as well. These organisations persist because of faith, but not, any longer, with the specific aim of transmitting that faith. This allows staff to support service users in whatever faith (or none) that they entered the service with. The service user is the centre of policy and best practice from the HSE or even from outside the country is accessed and incorporated into the policies of the Service.

These policies may not have a statutory footing, but they are part of many child care professionals‘ contracts of employment. It is of course far from perfect. Even through the Boom years, when millions of euro was thrown at Child Protection, Child Services remained under resourced. Mistakes continue to be made, but today, when the State or organisations who operate under the auspices of the State get involved in a child’s life, that child is physically and emotionally safer from those Professionals, than they have ever been in the past.

The problem in the case of Cloyne was not Catholic organisations, largely staffed with lay people, who see their prime responsibility as been their service users, the problem is the Catholic Church itself interacting with children. The prime motivation moving the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. Since its inception it has put its needs first. It sees itself as God touched. It has spilled blood on an epic scale and still maintains its visage of pious saintliness. That it would confuse the rape of a child with a PR problem is unfortunately a limitation in their morality they may never overcome. And so we must look at Mandatory Reporting.

Few in the frontline of childcare will welcome Mandatory Reporting, but the job is hard anyway, being made that bit more impossible will just have to be borne. Those who work voluntarily with children in sporting clubs, youth clubs etc may however find the risks impossible to bear.

Is there an alternative? I don’t think so. There is no democratic way of ending all interaction the Catholic Church has with children and if the Catholic Church is habitually untrustworthy, then child protection policy must be so stringent that even that institution is forced to put children first.

Now should this extend to ending the toleration that the State gifts to the Church’s belief in the specialness of Confession? No. I rarely go more than 500 words without mentioning that I am an atheist. I can work that fact into almost any subject and this atheist does not favour a legal attack on Confession.

When a Catholic Priest takes a confession, he is taking part in a ritual, where he is acting for and as Jesus. Confession is one of seven sacred rituals or Sacraments, where the Priest becomes the magical conduit of divine power. So even though a serial child rapist may make a confession to a Priest, that Priest genuinely believes himself bound by magical fiat to keep that child abuser’s secrets

This pathology may appall us, but to attack it head on would prove counter productive. A sensibility so warped cannot be healed. The only people who would benefit from the encroachment into centuries old tradition, are the fundamentalists who know that the Catholics who still believe this nonsense, will renew, retrench and enrich their organisation.

There is only one way to deal with this belief system and that is education. The State must gradually ease our education system out of the grasping fingers of the various religions. Simultaneously it must add to the curriculum, of all primary schools, a basic grounding in philosophy. Then as part of the Leaving Certificate Cycle, it must teach the dogmas of all the major religions. Only when the majority of Catholics realise what it is they are actually expected to believe, will the practice of keeping a child rapist’s secrets, eventually disappear.

In the interim however, spare a thought for those thousands of Social Care Workers, Social Workers, Community Workers, Nurses, Teachers and Special Needs Assistants who’s working environments are about to drastically deteriorate. And spare a thought for the coaches and volunteers and neighbors and, foster parents and unfortunate parents who will have to face interventions in their lives that they wouldn’t ordinarily have to endure. And finally spare a thought for the Priests who still believe that their relationship with Jesus is more important than the safety of a child. It is hard to imagine how horrifyingly lonely a man must be, to embrace a morality so irredeemably corrupting and unnatural.

In October of this year, we will get to exercise that rarest of Irish electoral experiences, voting in a Presidential Election. It has been so long since we last did this, there are some who have forgotten how we choose our President. 14 years is indeed a long time between elections. Simply put, we get a ballot paper, like in a General Election and we number our preferences, just as in a General Election.

The only difference, is the level of difficulty in getting one’s name onto the ballot paper. In a General Election, one can be nominated by a political party, one can pay a several hundred euro deposit or one can get 30 fellow constituents to nominate you.

To gain a place on the Presidential ballot paper however, one must either be nominated by 20 sitting members of the Oireachtas, gain the support of four of the 34 Local Authorities or self-nominate, if one is the current President or is a former President, who has only served one term.

This October, we will be choosing the ninth person, since 1938, to be the President of Ireland and this person will be the first President elected, while Fine Gael are the largest political party in the country. This new President might also be the first ever Fine Gael President. How it must have rankled with the rank and file of Fine Gael, to have watched Fianna Fáil, all but monopolise this position for the last 70 years. Now however, they will get their opportunity to own the prestige of Presidency.

I for one would not begrudge them it. A few short months ago, almost 4 out of every 10 people who voted, put their trust in Fine Gael to sort out the incredible and disgusting mess left by Fianna Fáil. That’s nearly as many that once voted for Bertie Ahern. Fine Gael have become the largest Political Party, both locally and nationally, the Presidency is surely now their’s to lose?

Unfortunately, Fine Gael appears intent on winning the Presidency at all costs. It appears that they see the Presidency as a bauble for them to claim, another prerogative of the largest party. I thought Fianna Fáil were humiliated at the last General Election because of such presumption. I thought the electorate finally saw that Fianna Fáil had run this country for the benefit of Fianna Fáil. That in treating this country, its offices, resources and people as possessions, Fianna Fáil eventually ran this country off a cliff.

Did not nearly 40% of those who chose to cast a vote, not turn to Fine Gael for relief from this habitual and inveterate contempt. Did we not see in Fine Gael, men and women who were Irish and more, Irish democrats? Men and women who would attempt to save this Republic from the depredations of a felonious and fallacious Fianna Fáil?

Were we naive, we 25% of the electorate, who in voting for Fine Gael thought that they might hold to the high regard in which they were viewed? Or is this merely Fine Gael’s turn in the sun? Do they want the prestige, no matter who they walk over to get it?

As I write this, Fine Gael are bringing all their new found power to bear, to stop Independents running against them in October. Fine Gael control all but 13 of the Local Authorities and the Party has instructed its underlings to vote against all nominations for alternative candidates.

Are Fine Gael wrong to do this? If I was in Fine Gael I’d argue no. The more important question however is, are Fine Gael right to do this? Are Fine Gael right to exercise their legal right to crush opposition before it can even stand against them?

 To answer, one should look to Australia. That country, has as its Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II. Are Australians monarchists? Far from it, they are quite republican. The only reason they continue to retain something as ridiculous as a Queen, is that the people of Australia cannot agree on how to choose a democratically appointed Head of State. In short, they don’t trust their politicians to not sully the process.

The alternative is the German method. Does anyone even now who the German Head of State is? I had to look it up, his name is Christian Wulff. There is no popular vote, he is chosen by politicians and by politicians alone.

So the Head of State can be a prize of birth, it can be the gift of politicians or it can be the democratic choice of the entire electorate. Ireland, in our wisdom, prefers to choose. Unfortunately we did not have the cynicism of Australians, to instinctively distrust the machinations of politicians. Thus our system allows politicians to subvert the spirit of our Presidency. They are busy trying to diminish democratic choice. They are busy converting The Presidency from the jewel in Fianna Fáil ascendancy to a Fine Gael trinket.

In October there is a chance that we will have but two candidates, both firmly representative of our politicians and the politician’s world. I cannot be anything but dismayed at this prospect. When I go into that voting booth, I want to be faced with many and difficult choices. I want to have an active part in choosing the face of Ireland, the pinnacle of democrat representation, the symbolic leader of this Nation. I do not want and I hope many others do not want, to merely be expected to endorse the choices of our petty politicians.

Please join me in urging our politicians to allow us, as wide and as varied a choice as possible.