Page 28 of 29

The End of Senator Norris’ Campaign

3rd August 2011 / Paul W.S. Bowler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cloyne Report (The Kerryman)

3rd August 2011 / Paul W.S. Bowler

The following is an edited version of my Cloyne Report post as it appears in the Letter section of The Kerryman

As appeared in Letters – Kerryman – 3 August, 2011 edition

Sir,

On 13 July of this year, The Cloyne Report was published and, in essence the report shows that the Catholic Church failed to protect children from harm between the years 1996 and 2005. That the Catholic Church failed to protect children is not a surprise, the surprise is the dates involved, 1996 to 2005. Perhaps it is a still a little early to use the phrase ‘last century‘ to describe archaic ideas, but if some of us had given credence to the excuse of ignorance, which Catholic apologists had used to explain away their Church’s behaviour, then 2005 wholly demolishes this ugly attempt at misdirection.

There are no more excuses left for the Catholic Church. Any organisation that routinely interacts with children should have a child protection policy. Best practice would have these policies based almost wholly on Children First (1999 and 2010) guidelines. This policy provides front-line staff and management, of any organisation, with an easy to follow guide on how to protect children and how to report instances of suspected abuse. Put simply, if a member of staff has a suspicion, they pass this information to their supervisor, who is responsible for ensuring that the suspicion is reasonable, if the suspicion is reasonable, the HSE and/or gardai must then be informed.

What the Cloyne Report shows is that this policy was adopted by the Catholic Church and then it was turned on its head. Instead of Children First, it seems to have became a policy of Catholic Church First.

In response to this betrayal of trust by the Catholic Church, the Government is now keen to make reporting of suspected abuse mandatory. The discretion that organisations had will end, childcare professionals will have to endure investigations when subjected to malicious and nuisance accusations and careers will be unnecessarily harmed or even ended.

When I began my childcare career in 1994, I was taught that children never lie about sexual abuse. I left childcare in 2004, utterly exhausted by the measures required to protect oneself from false allegations.

I do not resent those requirements, because the best child protection practice, exactly mirrors that which is required of staff to protect themselves from false allegations. Allegations will of course still be made, but if everyone has followed the prescribed protocols, then that allegation can be quickly assessed as either credible or malicious.Thus a well run establishment provides a safe environment for both service users and staff.

Mistakes continue to be made, but today, when the State or organisations who operate under the auspices of the State get involved in a child’s life, that child is physically and emotionally safer than they have ever been in the past.

The problem in the case of Cloyne was not Catholic organisations, largely staffed with lay people, who see their service users as their prime responsibility, the problem is the Catholic Church itself interacting with children.

In my view, the prime motivation moving the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. Since its inception it has put its needs first. It sees itself as God-touched. It has spilled blood on an epic scale and still maintains its visage of pious saintliness. That it would confuse the rape of a child with a PR problem is unfortunately a limitation in their morality they may never overcome. And so we must look at mandatory reporting.

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

In the interim however, spare a thought for those thousands of social care workers, social workers, community workers, nurses, teachers and special needs assistants whose working environments are about to drastically deteriorate. And spare a thought for the coaches and volunteers and neighbours and foster parents and unfortunate parents who will have to face interventions in their lives that they wouldn’t ordinarily have to endure.

Bear in mind too that these hard working and dedicated people will have to tolerate the imposition of mandatory reporting for the simple reason that priests cannot be trusted to put the safety of children above the interests of the church.

Cloyne Report

16th July 2011 / Paul W.S. Bowler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidential Candidates

27th June 2011 / Paul W.S. Bowler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assisted Suicide

19th June 2011 / Paul W.S. Bowler

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.

David Norris

9th June 2011 / Paul W.S. Bowler

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.

Why do we need an age of consent?
How do we decide what this age should be?
Who decides what this age should be?
How do we define the ability to consent, if there is no recourse to chronological age?
How does one explain the immense disparity in ages of consent over time and in different cultures?
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?
As we are sexual beings from birth how do we respect and affirm this aspect of our identity at all ages?
Do Age of Consent laws serve more to make things easier on parents and society than to protect children?
How do legal interventions serve to facilitate young people exploring their sexuality?
Why do we have laws against incest?
Like consent, why does our definition of and attitudes to incest vary over time and culture?
Why is it still permitted to prohibit what consenting adults do in private?
Are the strictures against incest motivated by a desire to see less genetic mutation?
If we fear genetic damage because of consanguinity and legislate to that end, should all prospective parents be subject to ‘genetic counselling?”
If ability to consent is an issue, do we prevent people with learning disabilities to fully explore their sexuality?
If genetics are an issue do we also prohibit people with learning disabilities from having babies?
Why in the twenty-first century do so many of us react with horror to important questions around the sexuality of children?
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?
Why do we allow the authorities of old, that served us so poorly, to still have a say in this debate?
Why do we equate permission with permissive, questioning to abandoning and sexuality to loss of innocence?

Exploring my own Idealism

2nd May 2011 / Paul W.S. Bowler

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

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.
Intellectually and emotionally I reject the fetters that others would impose on me, in the guise of ideology.
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.
Nationalism is as big a lie as religion.
Right and wrong are moveable feasts.
Life is precious as it is all we have, but in a competition for resources, I’d always favour education over health.
I do not envy the wealthy.
I cannot be expected to always be rational, so I embrace the escapism of sport, art, sex and drugs.
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.
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;

Abortion?
Would I prefer the security of a big gun or the expense of a solvent neighbor?
Do rich individuals or nations have an obligation to the poor?
Is an outright ban on public displays of religiosity illiberal or would it serve the long term goals of liberalism?
Is the State’s obligation to children inferior, equal or superior to their parents?
Israel?
Euthanasia?
Multiculturalism versus assimilation?
How does one embrace history but avoid being its subject?
If Global Climate Change is a reality, do we owe a duty of care to people yet unborn?
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?
Should prostitution be legalised?
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.

Circumcision

5th January 2011 / Paul W.S. Bowler

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.

Still a Progressive Democrat!

28th October 2010 / Paul W.S. Bowler

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.

Moral Hazard

27th October 2010 / Paul W.S. Bowler

As appeared in Letters – Kerryman – 27 October, 2010 edition 2010

There is an ugly term being used by bankers and politicians during these economically troubled times. The term is ‘moral-hazard’ and while moral is in the term, it isn’t in the meaning of the term. Moral-hazard is the dirty little piece of philosophical sophistry that the banks and politicians have invented that will allow them to reenact the evictions of the nineteen century.

What moral-hazard means is that if our government doesn’t beggar several generations of taxpayers to save the banks, instead choosing to save the heavily mortgaged tax payers of today, we citizens would party like twas 1999 and never again pay back a loan.

The banks, the professional lenders, are more trustworthy than we fools who availed of the services of these licensed loan-sharks. Think on that, think hard on that, the politicians, and by politicians I mean all 163 members of the current Dàil, have opted to save the banks at our expense. The men and women whose fabulous wages and outrageous pensions we pay have decided, on our behalf, that it is morally acceptable to save the bankers but morally dubious to save the rest of us.

How do we react to this? How can we react to this? I am hit by my desire for two, apparently contradictory things, fairness and vengeance. If the bank ends up owning my house, then I will want some conditions met before I can be sanguine about being thrown to the State’s mercy.

Moral-hazard is particularly galling as it should also apply to banks, to bankers and to politicians. If a bank is considered too big and important to fail, then why would it concern itself with conducting its business in a proper manner? If the tax payer is always available to bail it out, it can behave in whatever way it wishes.

As for the bankers themselves, well their behaviour is easy to understand. Some got rich through the mishandling of their banks and it seems the worst they face is living off their hefty pensions. Banking seems to be a consequence free profession.

Speaking about consequence free professions however one has to look at the politicians who destroyed our country. Thirteen years of Fianna Fàil rule has brought us from recession to recession, but this time it’s a recession with the added pain of huge personal debt. It took 20 years, from 1977 to 1997 to recover from the previous Fianna Fàil recession, just in time for them to learn from their mistakes and make the this recession the most destructive of them all.

Consequences however for the Fianna Fàil ‘brains trust’ who did this to us? Fat pensions and a delusional refusal to accept that they destroyed us. A delusion so strong that they would rather see politics debased beyond repair than resign, a confusion so deep that they cannot distinguish between Fianna Fàil and Ireland.

Men and women so divorced from normality and morality that come the next election, they can look forward to six figure pay offs, when they are thrown out of office. That is their future, comfort, ease and a few decades of writing memoirs that show it was all the fault of an American bank.

What though, can we do? How can we endure these hardships, while those responsible get to put their feet up and relax on the money we are paying them? How can the pain of every death caused by cut backs, every suicide, every life ruined, every family torn apart by emigration, be placed at the feet of these vile creatures, these bankers and politicians of ruin?

We are exhorted to come out onto the streets in protest. Irish people don’t do protest. What we do is follow, doesn’t always matter who we follow, but that’s what we do. Now we need someone to follow who will make the right promises. Don’t downplay the pain to come, we know now thats unavoidable. Do promise that no one is going to get off easy this time.

Make us just ten promises and Ireland will follow;

Promise us a new Constitution.
Promise us less TDs on significantly less money.
Promise us that incompetence will cost a banker or a politician their pension.
Promise us that this will be back dated to include every member of the Government now in power.
Promise us that the banks will pay back every penny, with interest and without them passing this onto their customers.
Bring the solicitors, barristers, consultants dentists, judges and anyone else, paid for by the tax payer, to heel.
Break the Public Sector Unions.
Eradicate the quangos.
Dispense with all the higher grade civil servants. The tax payer is forced to pay for expensive Government advisers anyway. Why pay double?
Finally and most importantly, any TD not pulling their weight, should be forced to face a by-election.

A Party who promises to remake, punish and lead will be able to save those of us who remain on this benighted island. A new Ireland may just be able to avoid destroying itself again.

The real moral-hazard the Irish people of today face, is if we bequeath a nation worth living in to our children, or do we just pass on our debt?

datbeardyman