Category: My Politics (Page 4 of 4)

I saw something last month that has been playing on my mind a great deal. I know it shouldn’t and that I may be accused of ‘raining on someone else’s parade’ but I can’t seem to be able to let it go. I am talking about Citizenship Ceremonies. These are celebratory events, where those who have been successful in earning Irish Citizenship (no easy task), gather to have their citizenship conferred in a collective and convivial manner. There is pomp and there is ceremony and the enthusiasm of the participants is obvious to all observers. It appeared to be an occasion of great joy.

What then could possibly cause me unease? Well there are three things. First the Oath, second the emotion and the third, the actual level of citizenship being conferred.

This is the wording of the oath,

“…hereby solemnly declare my fidelity to the Irish nation and my loyalty to the State.”

Fidelity and loyalty to the Nation and the State? The closest equivalent oath, that I can think of, is one of marriage. It is an oath I have never been expected to take and it is an oath I would most certainly never make. I have no loyalty to the Irish State. My loyalty is to me and to a system of laws that I think benefit me. When those laws work against my best interests I will leave or simply break those laws. The important point however, is that my citizenship does not depend on my loyalty. I can write, say or do anything and my citizenship remains unchanged. In our Dáil are men and women, who were part of an organisation that murdered members of our security forces. Murdered agents of this State, yet their citizenship is unassailable. They were born to it, thus they and everyone else born on this Island (if born to the correct parents) do not have to demonstrate any fidelity or loyalty to Ireland. Some members of our Dáil have promised to break the law regarding Property Taxes. Would an oath of fidelity and loyalty prevent them from engaging in such an action?

As for the emotion on display? It would be churlish of me to criticize anyone for being more than a little relieved and joyful that their status as a citizen, of this country, has been finalised. Any and all fears of deportation ended. Family security gained and the prospect of a forced return to danger, ended. I am fortunate to never have had such a real and visceral cause for celebration. I struggle to even imagine the relief many of the new citizens must feel. I may denigrate this nation for its many faults, but while I do so, I remain fully cognisant of the fact that there are whole swathes of this planet that I would consider uninhabitable. Places many of the new citizens once endured. It is the fostering of an emotional attachment to a nation that causes me to find fault. A fierce intellectual and yes, emotional adherence to the principals of democracy, justice and a system of laws is, I think, the higher calling. The more noble joy. This island is not a relatively good place to live because we are Irish, it is because it is a nation where we have no need to fear a knock on our door, in the dead of night, from the agents of the State. We are Nation where the agents of the State have cause to fear cameras. A Nation where the agents of the State must rely on our cooperation. A Nation where the agents of the State can be offered contempt if they earn such. A Nation where the agents of the State are temporary. These facets of democracy are to be celebrated, not a quasi religious tribalism.

That joy should also be tempered by the fact that naturalisation does not confer on the new citizens, the same level of citizenship as those of us who did nothing to earn it. The only way I can lose my citizenship is by formally renouncing it. A new citizen however…

The Minister for Justice and Equality can revoke your certificate of naturalisation if:

• You obtained it through fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of material facts or circumstances
• You have, through an overt act, failed in your duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State
• You were ordinarily resident outside Ireland (other than in public service) for a continuous period of 7 years and, without a reasonable excuse, did not register your name and a declaration of your intention to retain Irish citizenship with an Irish diplomatic mission or consular office or with the Minister for Justice and Equality on an annual basis
• You are also, under the law of a country at war with the State, a citizen of that country
• You have, by any other voluntary act other than marriage or registration of civil partnership, acquired citizenship of another country.

Some of these provisions are reasonable, yet singularly and collectively, they place, on the new citizens, a burden and curtailment, that no Irish born citizen has to endure. Murder, organised crime, doctrinaire disloyalty and civil disobedience are not enough to cause an Irish born citizen to lose or even have questioned, their citizenship.

Until we have a situation where a person who has applied for citizenship of this jurisdiction, is informed by a terse letter, that they are now free to display the same level of contempt for and enjoy the same level of protection from, this State, as anyone born to their citizenship is entitled to, then I will remain of the opinion that we are continuing to deny the new citizens the full experience and legality of Irish Citizenship.

I am 37 and I have yet to experience the loss of a loved one. No one is missing from my life through death. I wonder how many people of my age, can say that? I do not say this to boast, but to illustrate how cosseted by life has been and how singularly unqualified I am to speak about death. I am however an inveterate blogger, so I’m going to write about it anyway. I do recognise though, that not having watched a loved one die and the fact I am healthy, does make my exploration of this topic, somewhat shallow.

From a theoretical and philosophical perspective, I have long supported the idea of assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. As an atheist I do not suffer the delusion of magical interdiction and as no one dear to me has ever had to face death, I have never had to be emotionally invested in the topic. Looked at, from a purely intellectual stance, Assisted Suicide and even Euthanasia are rational, logical and positive medical interventions.

The usual practice, when one encounters a device that is broken beyond repair, is to dispose of it. I can think of no examples where power is fed into a device just to create the illusion of functionality. When one then imagines that device as a living thing, the scenario becomes a practice in barbarity. A practice that our species would not countenance being inflicted on other animals. On the contrary, we would recoil in disgust if a dog owner, failed to spare their beloved pet, the pain of a prolonged and inevitable death. It would be viewed as a torture inflicted for the emotional surcease of a weak being. And if that person sought to justify their behaviour as being divinely inspired? Well, only sociopaths willfully inflict pain on animals to satisfy an emotional need.

Yes, I am being didactic and uncompromising about the theoretical right to die of theoretical living creatures. I could make also make a compelling argument for the systematic sterilisation of a huge number of adults. In my previous career I saw what adults did to children and any idealistic notions I had about procreation rights disappeared. I may no longer believe in those rights but I would still fight to defend them, simply because I would not trust those who would be making the decision to impose a sterilisation. I would not even trust myself to get those decisions correct every time.

For that reason my enthusiasm for Assisted Suicide is far greater than my tentative agreement with the practice of Euthanasia. It is the difference between a provision and an intervention. I see them as wholly separate services, though in reality they are not. They cannot be wholly separate as they intersect at two points. The first is that point, where someone who is availing of an Assisted Suicide, requires so much help to have their life ended that the service becomes indistinguishable from Euthanasia. The second point is consent. If someone has a Living Will which requests death in certain circumstances, does withdrawal of certain medical procedures constitute Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide?

That’s why I am more concerned about Euthanasia and more concerned with Assisted Suicide. Models for Assisted Suicide already exist, for example Dignitas in Switzerland. It is far from perfect. One has to travel, it is expensive but more importantly, it avoids any intersection with Euthanasia by only providing a service for those who can take an active role in the process. Unfortunately leading many with terminal and debilitating conditions, to suicide earlier than would be necessary, in a more understanding and flexible system.

Not having had to confront death may appear to be the biggest weakness in my argument, but there is a bigger one. What is it I am actually looking for? Am I arguing for a severely prescribed system of Assisted Suicide provision or am I looking for the widespread use of Euthanasia? I don’t know.

All that I am certain about, are my feelings now about a notional future circumstance. I am certain now, that I wish to exercise ultimate control over my fate for as long as I have the intellect to do so and that the wishes expressed when in full possession of my wits are respected when those wits desert me. I am certain now that the cessation of existence terrifies me, but to be prevented from the embrace of that nearing certainty, terrifies me more. I am certain now that my freedom to choose death, is more important than society’s desire to impose itself upon me.

 These are the things I feel now, untested and untried feelings. Watching Terry Pratchett’s documentary about Assisted Suicide was the nearest I have come to real death. The closest I have come to experiencing an examination of my opinions.

Watching Mr Smedley and his dignified, but ultimately disempowered wife, was so startling, so informative and so heart breaking. If you have not seen the documentary (and you really need to watch it) Mr Smedley suffered from Motor-Neuron Disease and had decided to seek the services of Dignitas to end his life, while still able to self-administer the poison. We watched him meet the doctor who signed-off on his decision and we saw him at the building where the suicide was to take the place. We watched him take the poison and we watched his moment of panic, before he went under.

 I have never watched a man experience his very last moments of consciousness before. It still haunts me. I had thought myself inured to such images. I am of the Pulp Fiction generation, I have watched tens of thousands of deaths in every imaginable way and no matter how arresting the images, Mr Smedley did cease to exist, I witnessed a real event and a possible future. Will I feel that moment of panic before I lose consciousness? How long would that moment seem to last, in my dimming mind?

 I am scared by death, my death and the death’s of those close to me. There is little comfort to be mined from my naturalistic view of life, especially as I know Death to be unavoidable and final. I can take some comfort in the fact that pain is an integral part of life, but it is no longer a necessary part of death. I can take comfort in the fact that science will do for me, more than even my grandparents could dream of, though it still cannot prevent the diseases of gradual death. I can take comfort in the fact that I have spoken at length, to those closest to me and I am confident that they would take what actions they could, to see my wishes fulfilled. I can take comfort in that fact that I am still relatively young and this issue remains largely theoretical for me.

Finally I can take comfort in remembering Mr Smedley and that momentary crack in his unerring bravery and resolve. My terror is not lessened, but having seen the path he laid out for those who would follow, at least now my terror is largely of the known, not the more terrifying unknown.

Ask me again however, when I have had my first experience of grief.

I must confess from the off, that I was supporting David Norris for the Presidency for all the wrong reasons. It is supposed to be an office shorn of petty politics and ideology, the President is expected to be the symbol of Ireland, our representative to the world, the embodiment of us. To be honest I couldn’t care less about the Presidency though of course I will vote, it is the least duty of democracy.

I supported David Norris because the symbolism of his possible candidacy and possible victory are so incredibly political and divisive that I was moved to see the Office of President as having meaning at last. A gay man, a man enjoying but second class citizenship, to become the first citizen of a still overwhelmingly Catholic country, is a wonderful irony to contemplate and anticipate. Not that him winning would indicate final defeat for the godly conservatives. I fear his victory, while indicative of a liberal advance, would symbolise more our growing disillusionment with main stream politics and its apologists.

What shocked me about Senator Norris’ campaign was that he looked like he might actually win. All my prejudices about Irish conservatism were looking as if they might be challenged and ultimately overturned. Then reality kicked in. Apparently Senator Norris is not only gay, but something of a moral relativist and worse, he is not a house trained homosexual, he views sexuality as an immense spectrum, without fast and simple rules, without predetermined rights and wrongs, without comfortable facts and mores.

Instead of being a man and just thinking about sex, he thinks about sexuality. The conservatives may have lost the power to destroy him for his homosexuality, Ireland appears to have progressed to the point where this difference can be accepted, incorporated and co-opted into our faux cultural identity, but don’t, just don’t ask questions like why is incest wrong and why is there an Age of Consent and why is it 17?

I fear that Senator Norris will not now, nor ever be, the President of Ireland and for the first time that actually matters to me. Rubbing the conservatives’ noses in the dirt would have amused me, but President Norris, our first citizen would still have been a second class citizen. That nonsense and that war should have ended in the last century. And in this century we could have begun to ask the difficult questions.

Questions, questions and even more questions, these are why I now support Senator Norris whole heartedly. I am a moral relativist, or at least I try to be, though it does not come naturally to me. I try to hold to Socrates’ dictum of an examined life. Again this does not come naturally to me, I instinctively prefer answers to and than questions. I instinctively prefer the argument, not its purpose. I instinctively prefer certainty, as most people do. Senator Norris is a man who asks not dictates.

Thus I do not think that Senator Norris has anything to answer for. I would instead suggest that he is merely asking a better quality of question than we are accustomed to. This is especially true when it comes to sexuality. Questions we must confront if our laws and customs are to have any meaning and strength.

To that end I will offer 20 questions on this subject, which I do not think can be appropriately answered with a simple yes or no. If we don’t at least examine them in the cold light of unfettered reason, we will continue to believe in things that were decided for us and was it not for that reason, our country ended up in the mess it is in today?

If you do think you can offer simple yes and no answers, please add them to the comments section.

1. Why do we need an age of consent?
2. How do we decide what this age should be?
3. Who decides what this age should be?
4. How do we define the ability to consent, if there is no recourse to chronological age?
5. How does one explain the immense disparity in ages of consent over time and in different cultures?
6. If we are all individuals why are we insisting on the blunt instrument of a ‘number’ which all must adhere to, regardless of intellect, maturity or desire?
7. As we are sexual beings from birth how do we respect and affirm this aspect of our identity at all ages?
8. Do Age of Consent laws serve more to make things easier on parents and society than to protect children?
9. How do legal interventions serve to facilitate young people exploring their sexuality?
10. Why do we have laws against incest?
11. Like consent, why does our definition of and attitudes to incest vary over time and culture?
12. Why is it still permitted to prohibit what consenting adults do in private?
13. Are the strictures against incest motivated by a desire to see less genetic mutation?
14. If we fear genetic damage because of consanguinity and legislate to that end, should all prospective parents be subject to ‘genetic counselling?”
15. If ability to consent is an issue, do we prevent people with learning disabilities to fully explore their sexuality?
16. If genetics are an issue do we also prohibit people with learning disabilities from having babies?
17. Why in the twenty-first century do so many of us react with horror to important questions around the sexuality of children?
18. Why in the twenty-first century do we allow the attitudes that have not served us well in the past to continue to inform our attitudes today?
19. Why do we allow the authorities of old, that served us so poorly, to still have a say in this debate?
20. Why do we equate permission with permissive, questioning to abandoning and sexuality to loss of innocence?

I have to admit to being addicted to Twitter. I have been using it for eleven months and already I find it difficult to imagine my existence without it. Though, the reasons I joined it are now somewhat different to the reasons I remain with it.

I joined mainly because I was certain in my convictions and wanted to meet others who shared those convictions and to indulge in verbal jousting with those who didn’t. Also meeting others who were excessively concerned with Lord of The Rings, Star Trek, The Discworld, Wheel of Time, Westoros, sport and films was and remains a firm motivator.

I quickly discovered many people I could agree with it on certain ideological or value topics and that being able to call someone a cunt, doesn’t necessarily mean one should do so. Finding agreement, even if only partial, with so many differing proponents of wildly differing ideologies was and remains both confusing and enriching. It has forced me to accept that I don’t really know what I believe anymore.

That’s perhaps a tad trite. To be more precise, the number of ideological issues I had a firm opinion on, has been pared back considerably. My own reading, debates with the denizens of the twitterverse and recommended reading from that world, has caused an innately inflexible mind to open.

The closest I have come to a definitive understanding of my own idealism is to conclude that ideology is itself more a source of division than agreement. Every ideology I encounter appears to have at its core, a utopian sensibility that just contradicts reason. I’m not saying that all ideologies are by their nature inimical to paradise. More that for an ideology to achieve individual and collective nirvana, it must be an ideology held dear by every individual who would suffer its shortcomings.

Take for example Nazism. This incredibly silly idea, necessarily collapsed under the weight of its excesses and stupid assumptions, but consider what would happen if instead of being the National Socialist German Worker’s Party it was the International Socialist Human Worker’s Party. Then imagine the party had the genuine support of the entire population of the Planet.

Imagine the parades, imagine the night time rallies, the book fuelled bonfires and our concerted efforts to mount an invasion and extermination of the evidentially inferior Martians. Of course the inherent wrongness and raging hubris of Nazism would inevitably lead to the destruction of our Planet, but as good Nazis we would be united in our firm belief that this was the fault of perfidious Mercury.

The closest we have come to a consensus ideology is democracy. This however only applies to a portion of the planet and is such a broad concept that two democrats could conceivably disagree on the time of day. The only reason that democracy appears to have survived at all is that it is the preferred ideology of the richest and most powerful nations. Though again this causes another disagreement. Are we democratic because we are powerful or are we powerful because we are democratic?

There are now very few things I choose to believe. I am an atheist. I see this as logical and any case against it, fallacious at best. Thus I see existence as meaningless. This informs my perception of reality at all times. That is principal number one. There are addenda but there is no principal number two.

The addenda

1. I am the centre of my universe and its most important inhabitant. This doctrine is limited by the fact that I am not a sociopath and the knowledge that my existence is dependent on others.
2. Intellectually and emotionally I reject the fetters that others would impose on me, in the guise of ideology.
3. I am a libertarian, or more accurately I like the idea, but cannot conceive its application in the absence of a 100% buy in by all citizens.
4. Nationalism is as big a lie as religion.
5. Right and wrong are moveable feasts.
6. Life is precious as it is all we have, but in a competition for resources, I’d always favour education over health.
7. I do not envy the wealthy.
8. I cannot be expected to always be rational, so I embrace the escapism of sport, art, sex and drugs.
9. I am against the death penalty in every circumstance, but until we dispense with nationalism and ideology, The West should be ready and willing to shed blood to protect my inconsistent way of life.
10. I am a feminist, but as this term encompasses so many different and sometimes opposing ideals, it is virtually meaningless. Suffice to say that if the State was to intervene to level the playing field somewhat, I wouldn’t get all libertarian about it.

And now a short sample of questions I cannot answer to my own satisfaction;

1. Abortion?
2. Would I prefer the security of a big gun or the expense of a solvent neighbor?
3. Do rich individuals or nations have an obligation to the poor?
4. Is an outright ban on public displays of religiosity illiberal or would it serve the long term goals of liberalism?
5. Is the State’s obligation to children inferior, equal or superior to their parents?
6. Israel?
7. Euthanasia?
8. Multiculturalism versus assimilation?
9. How does one embrace history but avoid being its subject?
10. If Global Climate Change is a reality, do we owe a duty of care to people yet unborn?
11. In the absence of a consensus, is it just best to muddle on with our centrist system, which serves to keep most of the people only moderately dismayed?
12. Should prostitution be legalised?
13. Should I vote primarily on economic issues or on social issues?

Well that is where I am at the moment. Perhaps in a year’s time I will have discovered better questions. In the meantime however we have The Hobbit movie to look forward to and a probable sovereign default. So there is a good chance I won’t be able to afford the broad-band connection which carries these thoughts into the digital world.

And there in lies the biggest contradiction of my confused philosophy; even this arch individualist fears the atomising devastation of an economic collapse.

It may offend women, if one compares male circumcision with female circumcision. I believe them to be comparable practices, though it is inarguable the extent of damage inflicted on a woman, who is circumcised, far outweighs the damage done to a man. They do however exist on the same spectrum and thus I would contend that male circumcision is a feminist issue.

Research has shown, that the practice of removing the foreskin, has been in existence since as far back as the Stone Age. Today approximately one in six males are circumcised. Indeed it is a multi billion dollar industry in the Unites States. The reasons for this practice vary from, cultural and religious to the enhancement or the reduction of sexual pleasure. For some, circumcision is a ritual of initiation into adulthood and for others it is the removal of the feminine part of male genitalia.

In all these cases, this elective cutting of a man’s penis, is done without any rational basis. It is in fact an irrational and uncivilised habit which is allowed to continue only because of our Western fear of commenting negatively on other people’s cultural or religious mores. This cultural cowardice is just the environment required to allow female circumcision continue.

Before I continue, I should quickly point out the medical benefits of male circumcision. There are none. Laboratory studies have shown that the inner mucosa of the foreskin is more susceptible to the HIV virus. So advocates of circumcision are using the logic that, if one is to indulge in unsafe sexual practices, then circumcision can take the place of a condom. It is a ridiculous and facile argument.

The biggest problem, presently, with dismissing circumcision, as the barbaric practice of religious fanatics, is that circumcision is the norm in the West’s strongest nation, the United States. As mentioned, it is a multi billion dollar medical industry that created and captured a market, way beyond the relatively small Jewish and Islamic populations. Taking on the religious may not be easy, but attacking a profitable business is even more difficult.

Unfortunately however, unless the United States criminalises infant circumcision, then tackling it worldwide is worse than futile. For the US to do this however it would have to tread on the toes of the medical profession and take on the religious lobby. I wish I could say that this was likely to happen. The opposite is more likely. At some point it will be decided that female circumcision is so dangerous, it should be done by doctors. There is a logic to that proposal, a tortured and sick logic, but it exists.

If the moral argument against male circumcision does eventually win the day in the West however, then we have the levers of Aid to advance that argument throughout the World. Only with the eradication of male circumcision, can female circumcision be finally ended. To this end we should employ language in our efforts. Female circumcision is rightly referred to as genital mutilation. We must begin to employ the same terminology to describe male circumcision. It may take a generation, but once mutilation becomes accepted as the description of circumcision, then the battle will have been almost won.

I was questioned recently about my virulent hatred of Fianna Fàil, while trumpeting, with pride, my past membership and support of the Progressive Democrats. Fianna Fàil were not alone in Government these last 13 years. The PDs were right there with them, part and parcel of those successive administrations, which destroyed our Country. The pride however, remains?

I know I am unquestionably a hypocrite and that I’m inconsistent, but I retain my pride for two reasons. The first reason is that the PDs, or we the PDs, paid the ultimate price for our negligence. We no longer exist and our place in history will be forever tarnished for having had a hand in this economic tsunami.

There is something quite bracing in receiving one’s righteous punishment. We erred, erred dreadfully and we were destroyed. Justice was done and even if one is on the receiving end of that justice, its very rarity makes it well worth the experience. It also helps with the guilt of course, well it does for those who accept that guilt is an appropriate response to the mistakes of the past.

The second reason for me still having pride, in being a PD, will take a little longer to explain. It has to do with their place in my history.

I still remember that evening, in 1985, when the formation of the Progressive Democrats made it onto the news. I was 11 at the time, but even at that age and coming from an apolitical family, I was instantly a supporter.

Back then there were two themes which dominated our reality; the recession and Haughey. Coming from a working class family, I understood even then, what a recession meant. The shortage of money, the parcels from America and the less than salubrious accommodation were my family’s experience of that time. It was not beyond the wit of a child to know that we were at or near, the bottom of the pile. (it was also a time of mass emigration, a 60% tax rate, a crippling National Debt, a rampant Black Economy and the Church still had us in its death grip)

And even a child was aware of Charles J. Haughey. Even a child had to take sides in the great narrative of that time. It was either Saint Haughey or Evil Haughey. There was no middle ground and I definitely saw him as evil. At 11 that perception, could not have been altogether of my own creation. Family, friends and media, must have played their part in making me see Haughey as the villain of the piece. Whatever the Genesis of my opinions were, Haughey was the enemy.

I could not see (and still can’t to be honest) any goodness in him and thus I could not feel hope for the future. He did bestride the world like a colossus to my young eyes. He was the leader, he was a strong leader, and if he continued as such, we were doomed. (a big reason why I still mistrust the Irish desire to have a strong man to lead them) Then came Des O’Malley and even more than Garrett The Good, he represented the rising of the people against the scary Overlord. That he came from within Haughey’s own ranks, made him even more impressive.

Yes, I’m being melodramatic, but I am speaking on behalf of a child, a child who became a Progressive Democrat in his heart, at just 11 years of age.

That was then though, I could remain idealistically, even naively, loyal to the PDs, but now I must reexamine my Party and its actions. With so much time having passed, one can now bring twenty-twenty vision to bare on where the PDs went wrong.

For the longest time I blamed everything on Michael McDowell. Just because he was such a poor politician. I still consider him a cut above many TDs for both his intellect and his integrity, but a politician he is not. Two decisions I thought were the killers of our Party. The first was his reaction to a Labour Party Bill on Same Sex Partnerships. McDowell killed it, as he knew it would prove unconstitutional. Making it easy for the left-wing media to paint him as a fascist. He was correct of course and saved the State some millions but the smarter thing to do would have been to back the Bill and let the dice roll.

The second big mistake he made was not knifing Bertie Ahern at the earliest possible opportunity, I really wish he had knifed Berie. Though it would have given our Party an undeserved boost. With the benefit of hindsight however I no longer blame Mr McDowell for a thing. The rot set in, I believe, the very moment that the PDs entered Government in 1989, supporting Haughey as Taoiseach.

I say this as someone who knocked on doors in support of the 1997 coalition. My distaste for FF was still there but I also thought we were a party with a future. I didn’t at the time question what O’Malley had done and I didn’t question what Mary Harney was doing in 1997. It’s is only in the last year that I have concluded that O’Malley (one of the very few people I actually admire) destroyed his own creation by going into Government with his bet noir, Haughey.

In the short four years from its inception in 1985 to the election in 1989, the entire play book of the Progressive Democrats had already become National Policy. Taxes were being lowered and the State rolled back. The Tallaght Strategy formalised this ideological shift, Fianna Fàil and Fine Gael put aside their differences on the economy and began to turn it around, leading to the boom.

The liberal agenda, championed by the PDs also finally began to gain traction. Try to remember that this was a time before even Marital Rape was a crime and that Des O’Malley lost the Fianna Fail whip because he refused to vote against a plan to make contraception easier to access.

I have to wonder what if O’Malley had demanded Haughey’s head in 1989? How different would our recent history have been? Would FF have had to wait all the way to Brian Cowen for a leader untouched by personal corruption? Would our politics have been so reduced? Would we be less cynical about our leaders during this crisis? FF could of course have called the PDs‘ bluff, which may have resulted in our obliteration, but what a way to go.

We are a conservative people and so for their time, the Progressive Democrats were as radical as they come. And their radicalism also offered many people what they wanted most, but could not find in the Ireland of that time, hope!

History may not be kind to the Progressive Democrats, but there are a few of us who will always remember that they did eventually see off Haughey and preside over the destruction of his name, they played a vital role in ending the previous recession and they prevented FF ever again ruling alone.

We were dealt with harshly, but fairly, by the electorate. I just hope the electorate do to Fianna Fàil what they did to us and what we should have spent our entire existence trying to do to Fianna Fàil.

I recently spoke to a class of 7 year olds about Atheism and Humanism. It was in an Educate Together school in Tralee, County Kerry. I found the prospect quite intimidating. I was worried because the audience were 7, not because of any problems with explaining my philosophical stance. I may be a strident Atheist, but if a child asks me about Santa Claus, then I’m playing the believer without pause or doubt. Of course I wanted questions, but the Santa question scared me.

I was sharing a platform with a Biblical Christian and a Moslem. It was to be an explanation of points of view and not a free for all of competitive proselytizing. I was glad of that, converting people to atheism is not something I would ever do. I of course believe the World would be a better place if magical thinking was consigned to the history books, but atheism does not provide the warm fuzzy feelings that many people require and can only achieve through religion.

Richard Dawkins is a hero of mine. I do however disagree with him about spreading the word, as it were. Mr Dawkins has a much higher regard for humanity than I and indeed many other atheists have. His zeal is an expression of his devotion to the betterment of his species. Most atheists would settle for a world where simply our beliefs are not outraged. Mr Dawkins wants to show people that our species could create a paradise, if we would but accept reason.

I think many people confuse Mr Dawkins‘ personal contentment and his enthusiasm for the rest of us, as smugness. I suppose so many of us have come to mistrust those who display any degree of certainty that we instinctively think Mr Dawkins must be on the make. It is horrible how cynical we have become, a cynicism that Mr Dawkins seems to have avoided.

None of that entered the class room thankfully. Difficult enough to explain an unfeeling and consequence free universe to children, without bringing orthodox and non orthodox atheism into the discussion. My concern was primarily how to pitch such an idea to an age group this young.

So I cheated, I made sure I was last to speak. This way I could glean some idea of who I was speaking to. One of my brighter ideas I must admit, though the fact that these 17 children were bright and well behaved and interested and open minded made the job of the speakers much easier than we had a right to expect.

My plan was to break my plan up into three parts. First define atheism and humanism, second, play a game of Chinese Whispers and finally talk about kindness, the Golden Rule and the Great Apes.

The first part went OK, but I did slip in an unworthy joke equating God with Harry Potter. In retrospect that was uncalled for, a hackneyed jibe more appropriate for the pub or a tweet. I explained that atheism describes an absence of belief in magical creatures and events. Humanism then is a philosophy of ethics based on reason and logic and science. They appeared to broadly understand these ideas.

The Chinese Whispers portion of the talk was a disaster. Seven year olds are literalists. So the concept of just passing information on as best as possible is foreign to them. It is the correct information or none at all. The game was quickly abandoned and never referred to again. I still think however that it is a good game to play when seeking to demonstrate the probable accuracy of any information passed down from the distant pass. I didn’t however panic, I did vomit in my mouth a little, but still appeared almost as if in control of the situation.

The third and most wordy portion of the talk was a tad under-prepared. I tried to sound bite too many things instead of picking one particular point and knocking it completely out. I didn’t trust the children enough, unfortunately I should have and would have delivered a more coherent and concise speech.

I began with a brief description of the Golden Rule, i.e. ‘treat others as you would have them treat you,’ a maxim as old as civilisation and explained that this was how I tried to live my life. I then explained that kindness is built into evolution and that our species could not survive without it. I then spoke about studies using the Great Apes that proved kindness and fair play are part of what define our closely related species’.

Then the questions began. The two most important were what happens when we die and do I believe in any kind of spirituality (the internal kind not the ghost kind). I was quite abrupt about death. I said we cease to exist, except possibly in the minds and hearts of our loved ones. Glib I know, but with a grain of linguistic truth.

As for spirituality I said that I did believe our species to be unique, we are unique in that we alone can tell the future. We alone know we are undoubtedly going to die (I said ultimate fate instead of die, they are children after all). It is how we deal with this unavoidable futility that I choose to call spirituality. We can embrace despair or choose to live full, kind and useful lives. This is my spirituality. There the talk ended.

I didn’t make a fool of myself and I didn’t misrepresent atheism and I almost avoided denigrating the magic thinkers. So not too shabby. I really hope I get the opportunity to speak on this subject again.