Category: My Politics (Page 3 of 4)

Imagine if you will, strapping down a baby using a device like the one pictured above. Then carefully but painfully pulling the little toe on its left foot away from the toe next to it. Then, with no anesthetic, cutting that toe off. There is nothing wrong with the toe.

The restrained and non-verbal infant can only scream in pain. It cannot defend itself, it cannot reason with the doctor. It cannot even have the procedure explained or justified to him.

Now further imagine that this painful and unnecessary mutilation was done at the behest of the baby’s parents. They may even be celebrating his mutilation. More often than not though, they have requested this mutilation be done because everyone they know does this to their infant sons. Ten-toed men are so rare they are considered to be gross by many women.

Let’s talk about circumcision.

Parents have to do some difficult things. They have to take their children for vaccinations. They have to hold their baby while a doctor sticks a needle into that tiny trusting child. How incredibly upsetting for a parent that must be. It goes against every instinct a parent has. The parent will only consent to this deliberate infliction of pain because a vaccination has long term benefits for their child.

Imagine again, the little boy strapped down and defenseless, as a doctor or religious representative mutilates it, with parental consent. How do we explain this aberrant behaviour? A normal person, a good parent, could only embrace such an attack if they genuinely believed it to be normal, acceptable, no big deal, consequence free and it was what happened to them as a baby. It could only happen if the parents’ culture normalised such harmful behaviour.

It requires one more element though. The culture must not only deem mutilation to be a good thing, it must in every way objectify children. They must reduce children to possessions. The possessions of their parents, their culture, their society and their god.

In the US, genital mutilation of little boys is all pervasive. What began as primitive religious observance, slowly permeated all of society, became a medical imperative and is now industrialised. It is worth billions of dollars to the medical profession. And to question this elective cutting of little boys is to be consigned to the margins of polite society.

Why is this important? What harm is done?

The harm exists on two levels. For the vast majority of little boys who are mutilated, they will only suffer a significant loss of sensation. A tiny few will suffer catastrophic consequences due to unhygienic conditions or untrained partitioners doing the mutilating. But if done in a hospital, chances are there will be no complications.
The harm done, though significant, is tiny when compared to what a girl suffers when her genitals are mutilated. So why mention them in the same breath?

The majority of practitioners of Female Genital Mutilation are women. They have so successfully internalized the logic of FGM that they willingly inflict this abomination on their own daughters and on the daughters of their neighbours.

One can only hope to understand the normalization and propagation of this pathological cultural practice by reference to our own legitimizing cultural mores. We can only hope to eradicate this vileness by imposing new values, by changing the cultures that harbour FGM.

There are only certain limited ways to do this. We can drop bombs on the heads of every man who supports FGM and every woman who cuts (not likely). We can accept every girl from regions where FGM is prevalent as refugees (I’d support this one). We can link aid to changes in the ‘native’ culture (I bet the cultural relativists on the left will love that one).

Or we can first change ourselves so that we are models and exemplars of a culture that recognises the individual freedoms of children and their right not to be irrevocably harmed.

Now our culture normalises one kind of mutilation because we are used to it, because it’s awkward to take on religious people and because children are the possessions of their parents.

By normalising one form of mutilating children we allow grounds for the justification of all mutilations. We are denying ourselves the moral, intellectual and even cultural high ground from which to attack and destroy the practice of FGM.

How do we hope to take on the practitioners of mutilation in far off countries when we are too afraid to take on our own?

If the anti-fluoride people had come to me and argued that forced mass medication is a heinous imposition, I would have signed up immediately. Especially if they had used words like ‘heinous’ and ‘imposition.’ If they’d then gone on to use the word ‘Orwellian’ I’d now be flogging a calendar featuring my big bare belly and a very small fig leaf. Yes, fluoride made my willy tiny.

I’m big on saying no to being told what to do by those who have the power to tell me what to do. It’s rational to be suspicious of power. Look at what the powerful do with power, the bad bastards that they are. Of course if I’m being really reasonable I’d have to admit that I don’t like people with power because of my conflictual relationship with my father. But as I won’t accept anyone as having the power to deny me the right to base my entire belief structure on unresolved oedipal issues, I shall continue as is.

Perhaps that’s why I think that the day after the scientists prove the existence of a god, they should begin working on a way to kill it. I will still be an atheist the day after the scientists prove the existence of a god. Facts should not get in the way of a dearly held prejudice. The nation-state would fall with such clarity.

So I am, possibly, pathological in my dislike of authority. It led me to support, in principle, the referendums on Dáil Committees and judicial pay, but to vote against them because the wording was a bit too vague in the whole curtailing the power of mediocre teachers department. It’s why I’m in Fine Gael. I don’t particularly like the party, but they annoy me less than the others and no fucking way I’m not having at least a minor say in the laws that oppress, I mean, affect me.

I really should be on the side of the anti-fluoride people. No father I will not eat my greens. Yes father I accept that they may indeed be good for me, that they are rich in vitamins, minerals and fibre. And that they form the basis of any good diet. But father I simply will not be told. No father I will not go to my room, I am 39.

I’m not on the side of the anti-fluoride people simply because the enemy of atheism and secularism is not supernaturalism (well not today at least). The real enemy is woo. Not because woo is wrong. I’m a capitalist for Gandalf’s sake, I believe in all kinds of wrong stuff. If woo were simply and merely wrong, then I could politely file wooists under people who are weird but harmless, like pagans, Garth Brooks’ fans and people who don’t like Lord of the Rings.

The anti-fluoride woo is dangerous. Not dangerous in the sense that if they convince our mediocre teachers to stop adding fluoride to our water, people might die. Poorer children may suffer a deterioration in dental heath, but poor people don’t tend to matter to wooists. Wooism is very much a middle-class disease.

The danger is that reason and science will have been discounted in a major public policy decision. Nonsense populism will have won the day. Even if our mediocre teachers then decided to add fluoride to milk and salt like our European neighbours, the anti-fluoride crowd will, with inflated egos and undeserved credibility, begin looking for the next idiocy to champion.

I don’t want to suggest that the anti-fluoride brigade are as woo wrong as the homeopaths, the chemtrail weirdos, the disgraced anti-vaxers, angel healers, the Elvis is still alive, kidnapped by an alien, tin-foil hat wearing loons that inhabit the Conspiracy Theory hell-pits of the internet. I really don’t want to imply that at all. But according to Neuro-linguistic programming, just putting them all in the same paragraph is sufficient to suggest that they are all in fact, up their own fundaments, speaking through their fundaments and/or are a bunch of fundaments.

I’m not on the side of the anti-fluoride people because they represent a regression, an evolutionary cul-de-sac, an idiocracy that threatens lives. This country already has a positive surfeit of native stupidity to contend with. We use Sellotape to mis-teach teenagers about sex and I can’t be the President because I’m an atheist. That’s the only reason under the sun, that I can’t be President. Not a single thing else would stand in my way. And our bankruptcy system can trap individuals for up to eight years. Yes, I said eight years. Yeah my party brought that in. Eight fucking years. Mediocre teachers every one of them.

Then there’s our deference to authority and our lack of respect for authority. Often a dichotomy contained in the same person. What’s that about? I won’t compare the wooists to the Barbarians at Rome’s gates or the Ottomans standing before at Venice. Those would be overly dramatic references. More showing off really and possibly saying more about me than the wooists. (The allusion I’m aiming for here is floodgates. I think it works. Comments on a postcard please…)

If we allow the wooists a victory, even an empty and relatively unimportant one as this, then we may as well begin handing out the tinfoil hats now, for the idiocracy will be in the ascendancy. (That’s an astrology allusion by the way. You’re welcome) Our politicians will have surrendered to a populism so dumb and scary that a Conspiracy Theorist would think that our mediocre teachers are simply following the mob where ever it may take them, even if it’s down the rabbit hole, or up a conspiracy theorist’s fundament just to stay in power. Not realising that mediocre teachers are just that dumb.

(Just a few links to the fight against woo)

One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten and Eleven

“St Patrick’s Day is a universal celebration of Irishness and shallowness. With a national identity translated universally, we are left with little meaning except marketing. Irishness is now a connotation abroad, hollowed of content at home.” Gerard Howlin (The Irish Examiner)

I read this article recently. It’s a strange one as I am left wondering if I agree with the overall thesis or profoundly disagree with it. In my first read all I could discern was that old and debased saw, ‘in the good old days.’ Yes, they were the ‘good old days’ but only for a very small cohort of the population and even then they still had terrible teeth. In the ‘good old days’ Irish national identity, which was code for cowed catholic, was the stick used to beat all those who erred from the proscribed path. The mentally ill, the women who dared get pregnant in non church approved ways, actually any woman with a brain was scary, gays, lesbians, the poor, children and those perverse enough to play garrison games were all victims of this ‘good old days‘ identity.

I hold these ‘good old days’ in as much contempt as I do those who dare express any misty eyed sentiment for those foul, violent and oppressive days. On the other hand, the days when Irish identity was that bastard amalgam of 19th century nationalism and revanchist catholicism were easy on those who did not wish to question who and what they were. One could go through an entire lifetime, sated with the certainty that Irishness was this thing and not any other thing. That is easy, that is safe. That created the monoculture, the economic stagnation and political waywardness that led to a country with two dominant parties who don’t have as much as the width of a cigarette paper between them on any issue. Other than mutual acrimony of course. (And I say that as a member of one of those parties.)

“This is a country with an identity crisis so acute we are largely unaware of it. Life goes on, but out national conversation has essentially stopped and stultified.” Gerard Howlin (The Irish Examiner)

Today we don’t have an Irish culture, an Irish identity. We have a plurality of Irish cultures and Irish identities. We have about 4.5 million identities in this jurisdiction. About another 1.8 very different different identities in Northern Ireland and Gandalf knows how many other different identities across the Globe. I can’t think of anything healthier.

There are those of course who are uncomfortable with this democracy and plurality of identities and cultures. How can there be millions of Irish cultures and also just one? How can there be mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins and in-laws, but only one family?
I am atheist, thus barred from certain Public Offices, I can’t speak Irish and have no interest in doing so, I hold our Constitution in contempt, I support marriage equality, full reproductive rights for women, the decriminalisation of drugs, I wish people would be a little bit more German when it comes to parking their cars, I hold a British Passport, have a proud English woman as a mother and I think the ’16 Rising was a mistake. I am a Kerry man first, a European second and yet I remain an Irish man. There are those who think my identity disqualifies me from any claim to Irishness. To them I say, go fuck yourselves. Croziers, guns, nor even the universities get to tell me who or what I am.

If a person cannot comfortably hold many identities at once nor comfortably accommodate the plurality of identities in others, then I fear they have that limited intellect most beloved of the fascists. One can simultaneously cringe at the shamrock nonsense going on over at The White House on Paddy’s Day and still accept the economic benefit of such fawning. And one must make room for those who are genuinely touched by our Taoiseach being given access to the most powerful man on earth, so he can celebrate Irishness (or a version there of at least). There are those who still find a part of their identity in St Patrick’s Day celebrations. Who am I to criticise where they find their Irishness?

“The independent Irish state was itself the rump expression of the rump population, remaining un-emigrated in the southern part of the island” Gerard Howlin (The Irish Examiner)

This however, is a wonderful sentence. All else can be dismissed as the unfortunate sentimentality of atavist nationalism, but this is purest accuracy in a single sentence. This should be the point entire of the column.

Has there been an impact on our collective identity by being the ‘left-behind?’ Was that the basis of our earlier cruelty to the most vulnerable among us? Did we lose imagination, radicalism, vision, confidence, empathy and sympathy because the best of us left?

I’m in a bind here, because I am the product of emigration. My dad left Kerry back in the 60s. I wouldn’t exist if he hadn’t been forced to leave. I have had no negative experiences of emigration. I am comfortable with my many and varied identities. But this little country is smaller than it should be or could be. The collective identity that is 4.5 million identities, the ‘soul’ of our nation, to use the sentimental term, cannot but be marred by such stunting. That stifling, if it exists, is worth exploring.

Twitter has been something of a battle lately, as we collectively watch and interpret according to our individual prejudices, The Oireachtas hearings concerning legislation for the X-case. It seems these hearings have let loose the dogs of our ever present Culture War. It has been interesting to watch, it has been ugly and it has been informative. It’s also the first time I’ve witnessed a twitterverse flame-war, where threats of lawsuits have been bandied about with wild abandon.

I’ve tried to not get involved in the exchanges. It’s not that I am unsure of my own opinion on the matter. I am pro-choice. More that I worry sometimes that I may enjoy the fight more than is appropriate and I cannot think of any useful purpose, to me engaging with anti-choice advocates. There will never be a meeting of minds in that exchange.

One issue however, had my fingers hovering, all twitchy over the keyboard. It seems that anti-choice advocates think that gender selective abortions is a stick to beat pro-choicers with. Do conservative societies and communities disproportionately abort female foetuses? The statistics speak for themselves. Some cultures prize male off-spring over female. I find this distasteful, backward and even tragic, but it has nothing to do with my stance on abortion.

If a woman presents for an abortion, there are only two questions she should be asked. The first is, ‘are you sure?‘ and the second is, ‘are you choosing this course of action, free from coercion?‘ That’s it. Any other, ‘non-medical’ questions are a violation of her privacy.

Not that I expect that level of physical autonomy to be offered to women in this country any time soon, if ever. No, I would be very surprised if Irish women achieved that kind of equality and freedom. The principle however remains, it is no one’s business what a woman chooses to do with her body. That conservative and patriarchal societies still denigrate women is a separate if unfortunately thematically linked problem. It is an issue that requires addressing, but it isn’t an excuse for anti-choice campaigners to deny Irish women ultimate ownership of their own bodies. Nor should it be confused and misused as an opportunity for anti-choicers to stake a claim to the moral high-ground.

I have a Scottish uncle who delights in calling my dad, Paddy. My father enjoys calling my Scottish uncle, Jock. One gets the sense that they’ve been at this since before I was born. My father, like so many of his contemporaries, fled the poverty of rural Ireland, to find work on the building-sites of England. Thus the non-Irish relations. He returned to Ireland in 1979 and it took me many years to realise, that returning was obviously a mad thing for him to have done.

There was still little or nothing for him in rural Kerry. What possessed him to leave good money and a house in the UK, to come back to live in this backward dump? “In England, he would always be Paddy.” Growing up in a virulently anti-English place, as Ireland was in the 80s (slightly less anti in the 90s and slightly less again in the noughties) it was more than beneficial for me to hear that it doesn’t matter where one lives, there is always someone hating and always someone being hated.

Not that Paddy is necessarily a bad word. It’s not. Many of us refer to Saint Patrick’s Day, as Paddy’s Day. It’s more colloquial, shorter and secular. I’ve told Paddy Man jokes, both those that belittle the Irish man and those that depict him as superior. And despite my British Passport, I am a Paddy, so if you are an Australian or are French or a member of a yet to be discovered tribe in the deepest part of the Amazon Jungle, please feel free to call me Paddy. If however you have an English accent and cannot lay claim to plastic-Paddyhood, then you don’t get to use the word.

That’s what Political Correctness is all about, robbing the powerful of a tool they once used to oppress i.e. specific words and phrases. Some rail against this imposition, claiming it is inconsistent for a word to be allowed for some, but not for others. And it is inconsistent, but why should those who were the victims of abuse, suffer the same restrictions as the perpetrators?

I don’t think a white person should ever use the N-word. It can never be anything but hateful in the mouth of a white person. Not that there are any legal strictures, which prevent me from using the word. All that prevents me from using it is my comprehension of common decency, which is again, another essential aspect of Political Correctness.

Common decency and an understanding that language matters. Words matter and the context in which they are used matter. If a white person uses the N-word, I am going to assume they are ignorant, until proven they are merely stupid or are bigoted. If they desist from using the N-word, once it is explained that the word is offensive and implies an aggressive disdain for black people and that the person using the word is presuming a position of superiority over black people, then fine. A misunderstanding had been dealt with.

If that isn’t enough, then one is dealing with a bigot. A bigot who is wielding the word as a weapon and is aiming to wound, is aiming to impose their reality on others. And it is not a very subtle attack. It is similar to what gay people daily endure. There are several epitaphs specially designed to belittle and harm and destroy gay people. Trouble is, a bigot is never going to wake up one day and discover their child is African. Gay however, is a possibility. This has led to a more insidious form of bigotry.

The language has evolved. Those with power, no longer use the language of street abuse. No, they prefer terms like ‘intrinsically disordered’ and ‘harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual well-being.’ Not Fags, not Queers, no Benders here, no, instead big words and ideas are wielded, to convey hate as reasonable comment.

This is where Political Correctness is at its weakest, when it is battling people with large vocabularies. When the enemy are not grotesques who can be ‘othered’ for their coarse ignorance. The young men who delight in ‘queer bashing’ and toothless rural types who can put centuries of hateful inflection into the term ‘boy.’ Those are easy to point fingers at and even silence.

It is the men with Doctorates and power and respectability, with their thoughtful and carefully edited hate, that are the most important enemies now facing Political Correctness. Not only do they seek to oppress, they do so, while attempting to wear the mantle of the oppressed. No one is better at this gross hypocrisy than the Roman Catholic Church and its fellow Christian cults who continue to oppose equality for gay people.

The bleating of this inhumane campaign grew to an astonishingly ‘offended‘ pitch recently, when a high-ranking member of this anti-equality coalition, was named as a bigot, by those he seeks to discriminate against. When Cardinal Keith O’Brien, was named as the Bigot of the Year, by a gay rights group called Stonewall, there was apoplexy, for daring to call this powerful man, his discriminatory beliefs and his anti-equality campaigning, bigoted. It’s as if Political Correctness has been turned on it’s head. Instead of denying the powerful, the use of words they have used to abuse, it seems now we are to see Political Correctness as just not being mean to anyone. Well anyone who is a high-ranking member of a powerful institution that is.

Let’s look at this poor misfortune’s words.

“Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved…”

“…but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.”

“…victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs?”

“…marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women. But when our politicians suggest jettisoning the established understanding of marriage and subverting its meaning they aren’t derided. Instead, their attempt to redefine reality is given a polite hearing, their madness is indulged. Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.”

“ All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favour of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by a same-sex couple, however well-intentioned they may be.”

“It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father. Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women, why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another?”

“Education suddenly had to comply with what was now deemed, normal.”

“Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that, no one will be forced to keep a slave.”

“If the Government attempts to demolish a universally recognised human right, they will have forfeited the trust which society has placed in them and their intolerance will shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world.”

All quotes taken from one depraved rant. But we must not call this Prince of the Roman Catholic Church a bigot? We would not want to offend him? Laughable, if it wasn’t for the fact that this Christian bigotry is killing people. Children and adults are dying because it is still acceptable to publicly denounce homosexuality as wrong. Denounce it because an ancient prejudice got written down and must now be accorded a level of respect we don’t give to slave owners, human sacrificers and those who would stone people to death. No, this prejudice is give a special dispensation.

The Roman Catholic Church can envisage an eternity of torment for gay people, but we must be polite in our rejection of that monstrous hate. Well no thanks. I may not be gay, but if a friend, a neighbour, or just a fellow citizen is attacked by people spouting irrational hatred, then politeness is not what is called for. No. If a section of our society is bullied, attacked, maligned and discriminated against, because a group of hateful men, think their god demands it, then Human Decency demands that I and everyone else, that is free of this ancient bile, must point the finger of shame and say bigot, bigot, bigot. To do ought else, is to affirm the bigots in their bigotry.

I like to think of myself as principled. I like to think that principles are not arbitrary, that they have some basic logic to them. Others may say a moral basis, but as an atheist, I prefer logic. My principles say that in a crowded world, where I lack the skills to look after myself from birth, to the gentle death, in a clean bed, that I am hoping for, I must rely on the help of others. I can attempt to take that help, pay for that help, or look for mutual cooperation. I live in a country where we attempt a mixture of pay and cooperation. It’s far from perfect, but malnutrition, homelessness and violent crime are now incredibly rare here. So rare that every murder still merits headlines. Not every country is that fortunate.

I’ve never encountered a set of principles, which I could consider to be a logical alternative to our present mishmash of capitalism and socialism. Even the magical thinking of nationalism and religiosity would be difficult to replace or wholly dispense with (at the moment at least). We couch this strange mixture of compromise and silliness in a system called democracy and hope that its inherent contradictions will work themselves out.

How does majority rule, stop itself from becoming a dictatorship of the majority? How far is it right to expect an individual to go, in compromising their principles, in order to retain their access to the community’s resources? Fortunately I am not a philosopher, a leader or a pregnant woman, so I do not have to plot a practicable path through that mire. The laws that offend me, but are imposed on me by the majority, are easily circumvented by me. Thus I am really just an armchair rebel. Worse comes to worse, I can always head off to Switzerland.

I am never going to be told, that what is inside my body is the business of strangers. The business of the majority. And as someone who has been irresponsible, has overindulged, has dared, I think myself more than fortunate that I am not a woman. A woman who might face being told that what is inside my body is someone else’s business. Oh the heady joy of being born a man. Oh the strangeness of having my insides protected by my gender.

In this jurisdiction, we are not even sure what the majority thinks about imposing their views on another person’s insides. We don’t even know for sure what the legal situation is concerning a woman’s insides. We’ve had referendums with ambiguous wording and we have a spineless, cowardly, male dominated legislature, which wishes to please everyone, because a legislature, is where principle goes to die, to be replaced by populism and very fine pensions.

What we do know for sure, is that many of us have decided that there are good reasons to impose another person’s principles on what happens to the insides of a woman, and then there are perhaps less good reasons to impose one’s views on a woman’s insides.

We see something similar in the US. Their Supreme Court ruled that woman’s insides are always her business and never anyone else’s business. But now there are ‘principled‘ men, powerful men, who think that there are good reasons to, in many cases, interfere with a woman’s body, in the interests of principle.

The irony of course, is that in this jurisdiction, some of us have conceded that sometimes it is ok to interfere with a woman’s body, in the hope that if the principle of sometimes not interfering with a woman’s body is conceded, then one day this will lead to a woman always being left alone by principled men. While in the US, the principle of sometimes being allowed interfere with a woman is being pushed, in the hope that one day, this will lead to a woman’s body never being left alone by men of principle.

I started following Kenan Malik on twitter a few months ago and I have to say, it has been something of an education for me. Describing the dangers of illiberal liberalism as we struggle for a truly secular world, has been a been an eye-opener. Take for example the Hijab. Intellectually and emotionally I find the very existence of this garment, offensive. But can I, as a liberal, condone it’s proscription? I thought I could, or more accurately, I thought I could without thought. Can I justify the State interdicting the transmission of values and mores I find offensive, from parent to child? Can I censor all religious utterances I find objectionable?

The problem for me as a liberal, an atheist, a secularist, a moral relativist and a democrat, is that I have to believe in two contradictory, yet wholly fundamental principles, at once. I hold that the individual is paramount in all things. I also believe that society comes first. It may appear confusing, but I am well aquatinted now, with balancing this nonsensical philosophy of philosophies. I can get by without encountering a personal moral conundrum, which confounds this tension. The problem arises when I have to decide about something like the Hijab.

I don’t think it should be worn and I suspect that many who wear it, do so due to pressure and/or indoctrination. Should women then be required to apply for a license to wear a Hijab? The granting of which involves an invasive psychological examination, which may or may not include interviewing the immediate and extended family, and their Spiritual Advisors. And of course, there is just enough subjectivity in psychology to argue that all things being equal, a woman who chooses to wear a Hijab, is displaying a symptom of a psychological problem.

As much as I may long to see the disappearance of the Hijab, I cannot see how the State can fruitfully intervene in a liberal fashion. Yes, it can vindicate the rights of those women who do not wish to wear the Hijab, by offering asylum and/or criminal penalties, but to do anything, other than react to being invited into a situation where an individual desires to not don this particular item of clothing, is necessarily illiberal. I hate that this may be the only consistent application of my philosophy.

I cannot escape the awful feeling, that in trusting to the eventual victory of liberalism, over restrictive religious practices, that I am condoning the abandonment of powerless women today. Similarly, must liberalism, to remain pure, allow children to be taught hate and fear and disgust? I cannot see a way around it, because to do otherwise is to invite the State into all our homes, into all our heads. To monitor all of our interactions, public and private. Thus, if a major religion has homophobia as a basic tenet, then the State can only seek the ameliorate this sacerdotal hatred, by not endorsing it.

That is what defines a secular state, rather than a liberal one. As an atheist and a liberal, I have to tie myself in knots, to justify not going after the religions for misogyny, homophobia, child-abuse and anything else real or imagined that I can lay at the feet of the religious. A secular State isn’t as emotional.

A secular State, simply doesn’t make laws that reflect the prejudices of atheists, which Roman Catholics must obey, nor does it legislate for Hindu taboos which Moslems must follow. That is the most vital thing about a Secular State, the quality to which, both my atheism and my interfering liberalism must defer, not legislating for one side’s prejudices. Not supporting a taboo by legislation. Not using the law of the land to force Catholics and non-Catholics to adhere to Catholic dogma.

This is the reason I’m never really sure why organisations like the Roman Catholic Church conspire to thwart secularism. Is it because it wishes non-Catholics to obey its rules or is that it wishes the secular authorities to force Catholic to behave like good obedient Catholics?

Is this the reason that Christians are so against people like Tony Nicklinson receiving the help he so desperately wanted? Do they fear that Christians will opt for this service, thus reducing the power of the various Christian Churches? Or is there something even more arrogant and sinister at play? Do they wish for nonbelievers to play by Christian rules?

Many Christians, similarly rail against marriage equality, a woman’s right to choose, divorce and assisted suicide, yet none of these things can be forced on people who do not wish to experience them. In a secular State, I am free to marry whomever I wish and the Roman Catholic Church is free to disapprove, but I am unable to censor their disapproval. In a secular State, a pregnant woman would be free to do as she wishes with her body and I would not be allowed intervene, even if she chooses to forgo life-saving treatment, to protect her unborn child.

In a Secular State I would be free to live my life as a liberal atheist, as long as I did nothing which harms anyone else, without their consent. In a Secular State, a Roman Catholic would be free to practice, proselytise and campaign on behalf of their values, but again, would be constrained by law, from physically or legislatively interfering in the lives of those who do not share their beliefs.

Unfortunately, I’m not entirely sure that I am cut out to be a campaigner for secularism. The fate of Tony Nicklinson leaves me too angry and bitter and not a little terrified. Does my future include having to starve myself to death, just to find final surcease? It is difficult to temper one’s words, to engage with respect, to give the benefit of the doubt, to people who have stood in judgement of Tony Nicklinson and the many other men and women who are enduring similar agonies.

You see I can speak about the Hijab and the Human Rights implications, because it is a Human Right i.e. some other human. Similarly I can speak about abortion with a certain detachment, I am a man. Gay marriage, I’m not gay. Divorce, I’m not married. Children’s rights, I don’t have children. But one day I may be afflicted by a debilitating disease. A condition that may render living, finally less attractive, than no longer existing. And the idea that my choices would be restricted by men and women who’s opinions I do not respect, fills my stomach with a raging tension. To be the tortured slave of another person’s prejudices? How does one learn calmness in the face of such vicious infamy?

I criticise the country I live in, on an almost daily basis. It is mired in so much self-inflicted catastrophe and neurosis that I sometimes can’t help feeling contempt for it. It is healthy for me then, to occasionally remember why I still live in Ireland. I live here because I am free. I would be equally free in the UK and just a tiny bit less free in the rest of the EU as I am a citizen of an EU nation. That freedom is easy to take for granted, so it really is healthy to remind myself how privileged I am to be Irish-English-European. I may have no emotional attachment to these three labels, but I feel giddy every time I get to vote in this country.

It is so easy to forget how rare a thing it is, for an individual to be consulted on the affairs of their State. It is a thing almost non-existent in the annals of history and it is a thing still restricted to but a privileged portion of today’s world. I don’t have to worry about the Security Forces kicking down my door at night or the State dealing with me in an extrajudicial manner and there is nothing, but my own incompetence, preventing me from standing for public office. That is a remarkable thing.

Remarkable and rational. There are two ways to look at our species. We are fallen angels, constantly fighting the forces of evil, internal and external, so one day we may ascend into heaven. The other is to see our species as rising apes, capable of great reason but still subject to our animal nature. As an atheist I obviously see more reality in the second view.

When we look at our closest relations, the other primates, we see that successful leadership and dominance are not the preserve of mere strength alone. Intelligence and the fostering of loyalty through kindness also play a part. We see that reflected in the best of our society. Kindness is built into our species. Why else would we hate beggars? For the vast majority of us, there is a little wrench of emotion as we walk past a beggar, pretending to not see them or muttering a lack of change or bitterly dropping a few cent into their cup. We may eventually learn contempt, but to learn that contempt, we must first unlearn something innate, compassion.

We may also scorn our politicians, but they do some amount of buttering us up, to get into the positions of power we put them in. They smile and they promise and they remind us of what kindnesses their father did for your father and we desperately want to believe them because even now, being lied to face to face, seems like something unnatural and even, despite all the evidence, unlikely.

And what do we elect them for? We elect them with only one purpose in mind; that we may leave the security of our little castles, cross our moats and safely navigate the world beyond. I deride the State for many things, but I will never question its importance in denying the biggest among us, the freedom to behave as we imagine the creatures of the jungle behave. An all powerful silver-back maintaing order is no longer practical, so we’ve created a collectivised notion of a silver-back and called it the State. It is a big, mostly dumb and prone to being a very greedy creature, but it only exists and persists because it works for the majority of us. We have institutionalised altruism and reciprocity i.e. we are civilised.

The persistence of civilisation has paid off in ways beyonds safety. We have invented rights. Again, think about voting rights. Think about democracy and the obligation to cater to minorities. Think about all those politicians and their fake smiley pandering. Really think about it because it is beyond wonderful. Every nation in the Western World is a liberal democracy. It is our gift to the World, a World which we were so recently robbing blind.

Big L Liberals and big C Conservatives may battle for the hearts of our democracies, but we remain liberal democracies in that we all vote, men and women, rich and poor, non-caucasians, non-Christians and even those people who persist in voting for the smaller parties. Everyone is included and we have systems that seek (with varying degrees of competence) to cater to and manage the mishmash of aggregated and conflicting, social and economic and cultural values that make up our multifarious nation-states. So many contradictions contained within all our neat and not so neat borders. All with one thing in common, the perceived right to walk the streets unmolested by the State and other bullies, real and imagined.

We are so free that we protest when members of our police force speak about us behind our backs, or when our politicians smirk at us or when private clubs don’t have rules which reflect our values or when foreign parades don’t include people we want included. Now I’m a liberal, a dyed in the wool, marriage equality supporting, anti-prohibition, proud feminist and welfare state loving liberal, but even I can’t take seriously some of those issues. I do however feel a great deal of gratitude for living in a society which is so liberal, that people feel entitled to object to what people say about other people behind their backs.

The alternative is a society where liberal becomes a term of abuse. A society so opposed to progress, that equality can be objected to on principal, rather than someone having to go to the effort of constructing a coherent and viable argument against it. A society of unreason, where the strong are unrestrained and where even our castles are unsafe.

We must then return to the beggar. Those of us who do not suckle at the breast of Ayn Rand, tend to not want beggars intruding upon our streets. We may just not want to see them and are happy with; out of sight out of mind, or we may have a genuine wish to have their plight ameliorated in some fashion, up to and including the transfer of wealth from our pockets into the pockets of a cohort of professionals who will care for the beggars. Criminalising or socialising, both have the same result, we don’t have beggars messing with our emotions or more importantly, we don’t have a visible manifestation of our civilization’s shortcomings showing us its open palm, on our daily work commute.

Short of experiencing poverty oneself, nothing shouts out societal problems, like seeing poverty asking us for help so directly. For the most part, poverty is as hidden as child abuse. Most of us can get by without unduly worrying about the frayed edges of our society, of our civilisation. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing even impractical about that. Poverty is still not prevalent enough to endanger the status quo. And we have enough shame left that the majority of those in poverty stick to living lives of silent despair. Suicides may be up, but again, shame keeps us out of that issue too, we are much more comfortable talking about car safety. Fingers crossed, we will get through this recession before we have to start digging mass graves for the casualties.

The beggars though, they can come into our castles now. We inadvertently invite them in. Our exposure to a multiplicity of media, fed to us through a plethora of different platforms, means we have to work very hard indeed to harden our hearts to the out-stretched hands, from all across our planet. If we would move beyond compassion, if we would learn to be harsh, then let us do so. Let us develop a philosophy of non-compassion. A philosophy that we are comfortable teaching to our children. Let us teach them that we are richer than the all the rest, ah well, aren’t we financially and genetically and politically fortunate and/or entitled.

When we boast of our weakened State and we compare it to, let’s say, the Chinese State, which routinely puts bullets into the heads of criminals, just before harvesting their organs, we need a ready answer for our children’s inquiry as to why we are happy, no, eager, no, coquettishly and obscenely enthused, by the prospect of doing business with China? Why are we playing nice with Russia while they prop up the murderous regime of Assad in Syria? And why do we have diplomatic relations with nations which continue to treat women as cheap brood mares?

We can lie to our children and say that the tenets of Cultural Relativism require us to give equal deference to all different societal values, especially if that culture is predominately dark-skinned. Or we tell the truth, that money and jobs and raw materials come from foreign lands and if we wish to get our grubby and increasingly desperate paws on those materials, then we are going to have to accept that we only value human life where and when it is convenient. And anyway our dead ancestors were mean to their equally dead ancestors so we get to keep our eyes fixed firmly on our feet, because we are conveniently embarrassed by what dead people did.

It is this learned cynicism that keeps us sane when we encounter that bloody beggar. The learned cynicism that comes with embracing helplessness. It is a seductive feeling. It allows one to retreat to the cocoon of one’s own intellectual and emotional castle. What can ‘little Ould Ireland’ do against the might of international scum-baggery? What can an individual do against the multitude of tiny evils that cause girls to have their genitals mutilated, homosexuals hanged, dissidents blown up, apostates beheaded and of course that whole thing of explaining to our fat children how malnutrition kills children every single minute of every single day on our planet?

Truth be told, there is nothing I can do to convince this Government and a critical mass of Irish people, that it is a damning indictment of our democratic values to even have diplomatic relations with a nation such as China, never mind the nauseating spectacle of our elected officials rolling over to have their bellies tickled by the Chinese Government, just so they’ll throw us some of their custom. I may despise it, but my mortgage repayments, my responsibilities and my family situation all mean I have not experienced desperation and even if I eventually lose my house, I still will not suffer any emotional damage. How then do I preach solidarity with a Syrian, who’s name I can’t even pronounce, to my neighbour who is facing the loss of everything he/she have worked so hard to accumulate?

The problem with our freedom and with our economic depression is that we are now, more than ever, as a bag of cats. Our population is divided by those who feel robbed by the State and those who feel robbed by the Wealthy and we are also all points in between. We are divided by those of Faith and those of none. We are divided by those who agree with basic human rights, or authentic human rights or that human rights are a nonsense. We are divided into europhiles and europhobes. And we are now either beggars with our hands out for help or beggars with our hands out to help.

No wonder then, that if an ordinary nation like Ireland can be so conflicted about its values, that a plurality of nations would be so utterly incapable of finding a consensus. How can we be surprised that the United Nations would find itself tied in knots as it haplessly attempts to address the despotic suppression of dissent in Syria? There is no rational reason for us to think that the UN should be able to intervene usefully in Syria. The UN does not exist independently of the nation states that are its membership. And like every democratic international organisation, the biggest members, with the largest armies and a proven willingness to use said military prowess, cannot be gainsaid.

Small-fry like us? Well we did almost as much to facilitate the United States in its illegal (if one takes the UN seriously) invasion of Iraq as we are now doing to support the legal (again, if one takes the UN seriously) occupation of Afghanistan. I’m one of those few people who once supported both invasions. My mind was not changed by any moral break, but by the sheer incompetence of the occupation of Iraq. The fascinating thing though, was that despite the protests, our Government did not lift a finger to hinder the use of our airports and airspace by the United States and again, despite all the protests, not a single TD lost their seat due to their/our tacit support for that illegal invasion.

We knew then, what we know now; the side of our toast on which we’ll find the butter on. It is on the same side as almost every other small nation. We will vote to condemn or to support or to resolve, but we are not going to act against our economic best interests. I wish it were different, but then, I was for the invasion of Iraq and the majority, were softly softly against.

So not only am I trying to convince people who face economic ruin, that they should care about unpronounceables out foreign, but also that they should entertain the idea of not only offending possible economic benefactors, but that they should also consider the possibility of actively involving themselves in activities that harm the interests of those big and mobile monied nations.

For example, I want the EU to invade Syria and impose democracy. Further, that the EU guarantees the independence of Syria against all-comers. The list of reasons why that is never, ever, you’re dreaming man, it’s just not going to happen, is about a mile long. And at the very top of that list is the lack of military might and competence within the EU, to impose our power (and thusly our values) beyond our borders. Second on the list, but even more importantly, the citizens of the EU, do not want the EU to, in principal, possess that kind of power, neither do they want to have to pay the huge sums of money required to attain that level of military competence. And they definitely don’t want to, nor even can they imagine, killing and dying for the entity known as the European Union.

So Syria? So the plight of women in Islamic Nations? So that statue of C.J. Haughey in Dingle? So smoking in cars? So the weather? Too much, just too much. So we switch off our brains and then compassion soon follows. We can’t demand that the Chinese and the Russians forego their interests in the Syrian regime and not expect to have to endure economic consequences. Why suffer for people we stopped caring about the moment complexity reared its head? Now a tsunami is OK. We can dig deep for that. It is a simple exchange of money for relief. Helping flood victims is not going to threaten anyone’s livelihood.

That dichotomy does not anger me. I’m an adult and I know how narrow one’s horizons get when the mortgage needs paying, but I am no longer content to remain cynical about our species. I despise feeling powerless. And the intellectual dishonesties and illusions required to deal with that powerlessness have begun to lose their efficacy. I blame having too much time to write or perhaps it is the grey in my beard reminding me that soon I will cease to exist, but for whatever reason, for the last few months I have been rediscovering the energy required to care. I have begun to reengage with organisations I was once active in, I am trying to set up a new one and I am contemplating joining others.

I am never going to be able to save a woman from misogyny disguised as religion. I’ll never be able to put anti-tank ordinance into the hands of Syrian rebels. And I am never going to be able to save a child from starvation. I can’t even live in a county free of Haughey statues. What I can do is fall back in love with democracy. All I can do is become again an active participant in this tiny, achingly self-conscious, little democracy. It is an unlikely aspiration, but perhaps one day, I will convince one other citizen that there is such a thing as tainted money and perhaps there are good reasons to sacrifice one’s immediate economic interests for something more discreet. Perhaps to fully appreciate the awesome dimension of democracy one must accept the responsibilities of being the protected beneficiary of democracy. And if those responsibilities do not include the protection and propagation of democracy, then surely we are nothing more than economic units and consumers, with nothing separating us from the lumpen, but time.

It takes the wind out of you when you discover you will never be able to change the world, but wait a decade or two and that desire may return and that idealism, tempered by cynicism is the kind of thing that can sustain one through the unpleasant task of fruitless effort.

When I first came to the realisation that all is grey, I thought myself most mature. I was slow getting there and it still doesn’t come naturally to me, but it certainly makes engaging with issues more satisfying. I now find stridency off-putting and arrogant (unless, of course, I’m the one being strident, a fault I hope to one day overcome) and I am no longer comfortable interacting with those who confuse opinion with fact (again, one day I hope to stop doing this too). Outside of science, all is relative and that uncertainty is bracing.

When I realised I was an atheist, I did feel it necessary to have one all-encompassing value, by which to lead my life and on which to base all other philosophies. I didn’t go for The Golden Rule. Instead, I chose the primacy of human life. With death being final, what could possibly be more important than our individual existences? As possibly the only self-aware species in the Universe or Multiverse, to extinguish any of our lives, seems appalling to me.

So that is my jumping-off point, as it were; the primacy of life. Well not exactly. Within that ‘primacy‘ are lesser and greater primacies. The first and foremost life, is my own. Followed by the lives of my close friends and family. Beyond them are the other seven billion or so of you. As my life is of such vital importance, I’m forced to choose how best to preserve that wonderful life. I either buy seven billion bullets and a weapon’s platform that can efficiently deploy said munitions, or I succumb to and encourage the social nature of our species. I chose the latter due to a surfeit of emotion and a deficit of resources.

An attachment to life is found in all species. Living and breeding and all that contribute to those goals, is existence in its entirety. Our species just happens to have evolved such huge brains, that we have gotten into the habit of rationalising everything. We have been forced to invent a myriad of distractions, to alleviate what we all know to be inevitable i.e. death. We invent wildly to protect ourselves from the inevitable and worse, how entirely meaningless life is. As steadfast in my atheism as I may be, I am still not immune to this. I am 37 and I have planned my funeral. There is nothing so devoid of relevance as one’s own funeral, but it does help with the fear, by providing one with a false sense of control and post-mortem relevance.

So I am a mere vector for mindless genes. So what? In the last week, I laughed, I cried, I had sex, I wrote, I ate well and I scored a goal at football that was borderline cheating as I did nudge the defender in the back, but the goal stood and it felt great. I am profoundly grateful for my existence and the opportunity it affords me to experience, but we have become far too intelligent to live and experience naturally.

We no longer live in little family groups, with a dominant male. We no longer hunt for food, nor do we really need to fear the unknown. We live in the millions and tens of millions. And in place of a dominant male, we have dominant males and we invent unknowns. And we require rules. We require rules and we require principals on which to base those rules. As I’ve already said, my most cherished and fundamental value, is life. Not because my life has any intrinsic value, but because it is all that I have.

There are two ways I can interpret that principal. The first is that the preservation of my body’s ability to oxygenate my organs is all that matters. The second way is that the preservation of my ability to experience life is paramount. I choose the second, as life is only life, if it can be experienced.

So, life above all else, but my life first and life means that which is experienced, not merely inhaled. That’s the easy part. Now my philosophy has to contend with and accommodate the seven billion other lives who are also entitled to their primacy. Seven billion individual lives, but not really individual, as we are social animals and we are all packed onto this one little planet. This is where I struggle to make sense of the apparent contradiction between autonomy and interdependence. It descends into political philosophy at this point; the individual versus society.

Unfortunately, political philosophy is not a satisfactory method of dealing with this problem. The Right versus Left dichotomy doesn’t work as there are contradictions on each side of the political spectrum. The Left speaks of freedom but makes us subservient to the State and the Right speaks of freedom but makes us subservient to tradition. I would be a Libertarian, if only there were no children. In the place of political philosophy then, I will revert to personal prejudice. I’m allowed do this as I am discussing my own beliefs, but I must attempt to show some logical underpinning to those prejudices and then perhaps, I might get to the point of this article i.e. abortion.

If life is to be experienced, then one must be free to experience it. This freedom includes innate, learned and external conditions, that contribute to and facilitate an individual in fully engaging with their reality. Of course this freedom cannot be total, as there are billions of competitor/cooperator experiencers. Political philosophers have grappled with that balance for centuries and yet they still can’t agree on an answer, but they can pick up followers fairly fast. If it wasn’t for their inability to definitively address this conundrum, we wouldn’t have the ‘political spectrum‘ and all its attendant nonsense and division.

 I look at the problem on three levels; the economic, the social and individual ability. Economic; I have yet to come across a better method of economic interaction than capitalism, but the only way to eliminate the problems associated with losing badly, is to eliminate the possibility of unlimited winning. Social; in every conceivable circumstance leave adults the hell alone. Individual ability; screw all political philosophies when it involves the health and welfare of children, or adults with impaired mental, intellectual or physical abilities.

Yes, there is a contradiction between freedom and providing care for those who require it. This contradiction can only be resolved by invoking a purist ideology or by choosing a muddle. First World nations generally choose to muddle through this problem. Our wealthy nations choose to look after those who require it, but each nation has a different idea of who deserves what and within each nation, the political parties also disagree on this issue. Thus the line shifts at every election, in every nation.

Do we expend resources on others due to altruism (learned or innate) or are we engaging in enlightened self-interest? No one knows for sure, but the philosophers, theologians, psychologists, anthropologists and the evolutionists will all offer their views. Ultimately it doesn’t matter as the number of people who would admit to having no qualms about stepping over a sick or starving child is very small. The more important issue is; maximising personal freedom within a system that is empowered and even enjoined to intervene. 

I equate personal freedom, not to mere taxation, but to physical autonomy. The problem is that I get to vote on my taxation at regular intervals. In issues of physical autonomy however, I usually have to wait for a referendum or a European Court decision or the uncertainty of social progress. My physical autonomy is as dear to me as my own life and it ranks second only to my life in importance. Further, I don’t believe one can really have a life without freedom and without freedom, there is no life. There is nothing truly controversial about that. People have been killing each other, in the cause of freedom for centuries. Freedom from oppression, freedom for a country, freedom for or from an idea.

 We have also fought for personal freedom. We make it difficult to send people to prison and we are making it more difficult to force adults into care. This is progress. It is progress, but slow, so very slow progress. Adults are sill largely denied physical autonomy. The inviolability of our bodies, the freedom and protection from intervention, by the State, regarding our bodies, remains far from being the reality.

 Suicide is a good example of this. In the past, suicide was both a moral and civil crime. Church and State combined to keep the prevalence (reported anyway) of suicide to a minimum. It was taught to all, to be a taboo. A shameful thing, the price of which would follow the wretch into the after-life. It was an effective method in its own way. It may have increased the collateral damage caused by a suicide, but it was at least a clearly understood and cohesive reaction to a phenomenon that was thought of as wrong and unnatural. Indeed, there are those who would prefer this condemnatory method reapplied to the tragedy of suicide.

 Now both fashion and science demand a more empathetic response to suicide, both in its prevention and in its aftermath. It is no longer a criminal act and in the place of eternal damnation, there is counseling. It is a more humane response. Will it prove more effective? While there is pain, there will be those among us who would escape that pain. For some, that escape will necessitate suicide. At what point does one surrender physical autonomy to the State? If the answer to that comes easily to you, then you and I have little in common.

 Escaping emotional pain is an area of purest grey as it generally involves otherwise healthy people. Assisted Suicide and the related area of euthanasia are somewhat easier issues to discuss as, despite the unpleasantness of the contrast, it generally involves older people, suffering obvious ill health. Medical science, over the last century, has been a veritable boon to our species. What we now can avoid, overcome or endure would amaze our nineteen century ancestors. Any death suffered before one has reached their 70s or even 80s, is now considered tragic. It is a wonderful time to be sick.

 There is however a downside to this medical revolution; we are now expected to endure, what were once conditions never borne. The vile irony is that the healthy young can find the means to end their pain, but the sick and infirm must endure agony beyond reason. Society and the State deny physical autonomy and instead inflict their values as a form of torture.

 One can argue that despair is a mental malady, an infirmity that warrants intervention to protect the life of the sufferer. I can argue both sides of that. An adult in full command of their faculties, demanding ultimate relief from an inescapable disease? Well that is different. When strangers condemn you to a slow death, are they entitled to your loyalty? Are they entitled to one’s respect? Can they ever be seen as a legitimate authority, even if they have the weight of numbers behind them? I say no. My body, my rules, my choice, always and in every circumstance.

Do I support abortion? No! But do I feel entitled to tell a woman what she may or may not do to her own body? Never! Does life begin at conception? Yes! But that life is in somebody else’s house.

If you have, thus far, merely skimmed this article, you may feel entitled to accuse me of rank inconsistency. Life above all else, except when it’s not? I am not inconsistent, nor am I justifying abortion. I am attempting to explain my definition of life, a definition which has freedom, physical autonomy and the ability and willingness to experience life, as integral aspects of life.

 The real weakness of my stance on abortion rights, is that it is ultimately meaningless. I may embrace the grey in all, but I have to recognise that in this instance, it is a black and white issue. If one believes a life begins at conception and that this life is entitled to all the rights we give the already born and further, it has the right to be endured in all circumstances by the carrier, then abortion is always wrong.

If one thinks the carrier has superior rights (as I do), then abortion is justified. There are those who attempt to argue that foetus and carrier have equal rights, but this is an unsustainable nonsense. The contrast in power and dependency is too vast to make equality a viable argument or position.

The problem with being on the side of Choice is that many of us do not have the luxury of seeing this as a black and white issue. Those against choice, are against choice in all situations. That is consistent and easily argued and explained. It took me 2000 words to explain why I support choice over life, or more specifically, why I choose freedom over life and I’m not going to win any arguments with my unwieldy logic and prose. Arguing against choice, well that’s easy, pithy and logically coherent.

My logic allows for abortion up to the second before birth. My logic allows for abortion for any reason. My logic allows for any and all manipulation of the foetus. I’m back in the grey here. Prochoice? Antichoice? Easy choice for me. Now why do I recoil at the idea of aborting a foetus just because it is female? The only reason I could offer for limiting choice, would be for tactical reasons i.e. strict limits would make it easier to get prochoice laws enshrined in our Constitution and realised in legislation. Take that self-serving logic away and I am left with only one argument against 100% choice and that is; it doesn’t feel right to me. Ickiness however, is no basis for a law that seeks to put fetters on a woman’s right to exercise her physical autonomy.

I would struggle to argue the merits of abortion as distinct from the issue of freedom. I am a supporter of euthanasia, so I could, in certain very limited circumstances, justify an abortion to spare the foetus becoming a short lived and pain filled infant. It doesn’t really matter though as too few people are open to being swayed on the life versus freedom debate for argument to really matter anymore. Philosophy and principal and politics have failed. Now we are left to tot up the numbers,

 We are left with the crude mechanisms of democracy. In Ireland our politicians run scared from the issue. Complexity for them is deciding who best to promote to maximise votes in subsequent elections. And referendums are seen as too decisive and too unwieldy and too definitive for this issue. I now think that because this issue is so decisive, it is only referendums that will suffice. Not because they are definitive, but because they inform legislation. Choice versus Life will remain an issue of bitter contention until our contraceptive technology progresses to the point that even a raped child has ultimate control over conception.

 Referendums will not decide forever what we think the correct balance between freedom and life is. No, what a referendum will tell us (and our politicians) is what the majority of people think about the issue at that time. This will constantly change, so I think a referendum should be held about this balance, every ten to fifteen years, until such time abortions are no longer necessary.

This referendum should have several questions. Abortion in the Republic of Ireland; yes or no? If no, then should those who travel abroad for abortions have their procedure and travel expenses covered by the Irish State; yes or no?

If yes to abortion; restricted or unrestricted? If restricted, should grounds include: Contraceptive purposes; yes or no? Health of pregnant women; yes or no? Damaged foetus; yes or no? Disability; yes or no? Gender’ yes or no? Should genetic manipulation be allowed; yes or no? And finally indicate to what week terminations should be allowed?

Every referendum would be bitter. Every referendum would be hard fought. But every referendum would be necessary as this is a black and white issue. There can be little or no compromise. So we are stuck with petty democracy. We have to hope that one day we can prevent all unwanted conceptions, because we are just never going to agree on how to deal with unwanted pregnancies.

(This is a guest blog I wrote for the 50 50 Group)

It surprises me that I support legislation which insists political parties run more women candidates. It surprises me because it is an example of something I should find insupportable. It is State intervention and interference. I tend towards the notion ‘that government is best which governs least.‘ Yet I support Gender Quotas.

Not only is this an example of the State intervening in our lives, it is based on another ongoing interference. Our political parties are funded by the tax payer. Without holding the purse strings, the State could not impose its will in this instance. Yet I support Gender quotas.

As a man, I will gain nothing and may, hypothetically, lose a great deal. I have yet to completely abandon all hope of one day, entering Public Life. As things stand, there are few obstacles, other than my own inadequacies. This legislation will mean that the bar will be raised for me. Yet I support Gender Quotas.

I am a capitalist. I may not believe in the ‘tooth and claw’ capitalism espoused by some, but I embrace the necessity of free enterprise. Is this the first step in an inexorable campaign to allow the State to decide for Corporations, who will sit on their Boards? Yet I still support Gender Quotas.

 Can a feminist really be in favour of preferential treatment? As a feminist, I’m uncomfortable with discrimination, be it positive or negative. Two individuals of equal talent, separated only by gender? Of course that should cause one to pause. Yet I support Gender Quotas.

Is this an affront to democracy? Are we insulting those fallen millions who gave their all for the principal of ‘one man, one vote?’ How can a democrat favour a diminution of this most civilised and civilising ideal? It is totalitarian states who decide who can and cannot run. Yet I support Gender Quotas.

One could say this legislation indicts men as being incapable of representing women and logically then, that women are not able to adequately represent men. If we are all free to stand and we are all free to vote, surely the result must always be representative? Yet I support Gender Quotas.

If this legislation has the desired affect, then the next Dáil will have many more women than the current one. Will these new TDs be called the quota women? Will the women who preceded them lose status by association? It might prove difficult for them to be taken seriously. Yet I support Gender Quotas.

The charge is also made that if women are to be given preferential treatment, then why not special help for the other minorities; the Africans, the Gay Community, the Red Heads? This legislation implies women are a more important minority than other minorities. Yet I support Gender Quotas.

Finally; what is the point? It’s a free country after all. We are all equal. Women are free to run or not run and our Dáil has operated reasonably successfully for decades. It had weathered existential threat and strife. This could be seen as fixing something that isn’t broken. Yet I support Gender Quotas.

These are all reasonable objections. Objections that any feminist could make. Then why do I support Gender Quotas? It’s simple really. The Dáil, our National Legislature, is 85% male. And that’s on a good day. A century after gaining legal equality, women remain a minority in their own Parliament. Women continue to lack the power and wealth of men. How can this not be seen as a failure of democracy, even a failure of men?

Should we persist with the status quo, hoping and believing that women will inevitably catch up? Men are not suddenly going to take on their fair share of caring for the young, the infirm and the elderly. Men are not going to forgo their greater wealth. Men are not going to fall in love with house work. Men are certainly not going to lose that confidence which only power imbues and male dominated political parties are not going to decide to empower women, when one of the old boys is in the firing line.

These are the elements of the status quo. This is what militates against our democracy being truly representative and participatory. This situation is not going to change organically. Only by transferring (surrendering) a portion of power, from the male dominated Dáil, to women, can change be accomplished. Only by ensuring that a critical mass of women are elected to our Dáil can power begin to be wielded by women. Only by ensuring women are in positions of power, can Gender Quotas become quickly obsolete. That’s why I support Gender Quotas.