June 28 2006 / Labour and the LGBT Movement
This post was prompted by a post and subsequent comments over at Maman Poulet, and as a member of Labour, I felt obliged to put forth my two cent worth. To some of those people, I'd tend to suggest two things - contacting the Labour Parliamentary Party and ask questions of them - let them know you're concerned about this issue. You could also think about joining Labour or whatever other party you incline towards supporting and influence their policies on the matter. Now for my two cent worth.
The Labour Party is the only party with an active LGBT wing that campaigns. Other parties have LGBT wings, but less is seen of them than the Labour one, at least in my experience. This year, the Labour LGBT hired an open topped bus and decked it out with banners. At the Pride Parade last weekend Rabbitte and a fairly decent number of the Parliamentary Party turned up to support them.
And yet Labour still get flack, some of which seems to be due to comments made by Liz McManus where she said that she didn't support gay marriage. I was there when she said this, and I got the distinct impression that she said it because she was wary of firstly a backlash from conservative elements of the electorate, and secondly because of the risk of any bills containing progressive legislation for same-sex couples actually failing to be passed in the Oireachteas (where a conservative Government has the majority!), but that she did support the Civil Partnership Bill being drafted by David Norris (and assisted by a prominent member of Labour, Ivana Bacik). It's worth noting at this point that Senator Norris watered down his Civil Partnership Bill because he knew that anything more progressive than that would not get through.
While I see where Liz McManus is coming from, I don't agree with her - I think she's incorrect in her assesment, and even if she was to be proven correct, I'd like to see Labour go all out and push for same-sex marriage, not just civil partnership - which, by the way, is still a damn sight more than the other major parties are pushing for.
But what really bugs me about this issue is that people give out about Labour, but never, it seems about any of the other political parties in relation to LGBT rights. Why don't people ask why Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael didn't have LGBT wings at the Pride Parade, not to mention policies in the area? What about Sinn Féin? Or the Greens? Where were the LGBT wings of those two gay friendly parties? Why don't people give out to David Norris for watering down the partnership he drafted? And why don't people give out to Bertie Ahern for paying lip service when he paid a visit to GLEN earlier in the year? His words sounded nice, and he got a bit of kudos for saying it, but what else is he doing on the issue?
Trackback(0)
June 23 2006 / Political Musings
Some political stories that have been getting my attention over the past week or so.
As a big fan of hers, I was sorry to read in the Sunday Business Post last week that Ivana Bacik has announced her decision not to run in the next General Election. Rumoured to have been preparing to run in Dun Laoghaire, I suppose she feels that she only has an outside chance of winning a seat there, as it is a tightly contested constituency.
She is however, running again for the Seanad next year on the Trinity (University of Dublin) panel, so when the time comes, I shall be haranguing all my TCD graduate friends to vote if they have the vote, and if not, to find those who do and get them to vote for her!
In other news, I see Socialist Party leader, Joe Higgins has been getting under the skin of our Dear Leader again, by making some insightful comments about the longstanding ties between Fianna Fáil and the construction and property development industry. Bertie, of course, lost the plot. Not content with referring to him as a failed person (and a nitwit, I believe!), with failed policies. He finished his tirade by telling his Comrade in Socialism to "Go away".
This is pathetic. The Dáil is a place of debate. Telling a parliamentary colleague to "go away" belittles the deputy saying it, and the Dáil itself.
Finally, It seems the PD's are in trouble, with Michael McDowell making threats to leave, and Mary Harney making threats to sack him over a leadership contest. But of course, in the last couple of days they've been making a desperate attempt to display a unified front. To this end, there was a photo of them published in the Evening Herald yesterday. Taken at a photocall to show how matey Mary N' Mick are, the photo shows them kissing. On the mouth. I don't think any tongues were involved, though, but that does not make the photograph any less revolting. I'm not sure about this, but I doubt the few readers I have want to see a balding, blond right-winger engaged in a clinch with his party leader.
Trackback(0)
June 22 2006 / A Social Perspective of Charles J. Haughey
It is now just over a week since the death of former Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey, occurred. Out of respect for his family and the office of Taoiseach - but not, it must be said, the man himself - I decided to keep my thoughts to myself and allow a small period of time to pass.
Despite the fawning eulogies and tributes, Charles J. Haughey is, in my view, the individual to have had the most negative political influence on Irish politics since Independence. His only political acts that were of pure benefit to Irish society were done early in his career, while he was Minister for Justice. The Succession Act of 1965 ensured protection of the inheritance rights of wives and children, while the Extradition Act of that same year and the reactivation of the Special Criminal Court clamped down on IRA activity. But what else did he do that was done purely for the positive benefit of Irish society and not for his own personal gratification also?
As a well-known lover of the arts, it could be argued that he did good things for the arts in Ireland, not because he felt it would benefit others, but because it was something he himself wanted, so that he himself could appreciate art better, and satisfy his ego at the same time. When viewed in this light, it is merely a happy coincidence that his promotion of the Irish arts had a positive effect on the rest of us.
The provision of free public transport for old age pensioners, while heralded as a radical thing, was and is a breadcrumb, a sop to the electorate of the 1960's, in order to catch their imagination. If Haughey had really been radical, it would have been free healthcare for old age pensioners - that really would have been radical then, and most certainly now. The aged in Ireland deserved then, and deserve now, so much more than to ride for free on public transport.
In 1978 the Health (Family Planning) Bill was introduced by Haughey. This bill limited the provision of contraceptives to bona fide "family planning or for adequate medical reasons", however the most controversial part of the bill was that contraceptives could only be dispensed by a pharmacist on the presentation of a valid medical prescription. If Haughey was really radical, that Bill would have allowed contraceptives to be available without prescription of any kind, defying conservative elements in Irish society, as was done seven years later, while Haughey and Fianna Fáíl were in opposition.
Politics should be seen as a noble profession. For an individual to dedicate their time, their energy and make sacrifices of their personal life to their local area or electoral constituency, to serve in the Dáil or a government - all these are noble acts. But Charles J. Haughey is largely responsible for those acts to be seen as negative acts. To put it simply, he made politics appear ignoble.
Haughey was a bully. Accounts of intimidation while he was leader of Fianna Fál are many. He took money from wealthy businessmen. He supposedly took money from an account to help pay the medical bills of a political colleague and ally of long standing. When appearing before tribunals, he perjured himself under oath. And as a result, and the most harmful of all the things he did, he destroyed the trust that people placed in political institutions and politicians. The country is less well run because of him, because fewer people vote today than they did 10 or 20 years ago, which ensures that the political opionions of the electorate are not as accurate and known to our political servants as they should be, thereby ensuring that their opinions are not fully taken into account in the development of governmental programmes. Most people under the age of 30 simply do not care about politics, because, as I have heard time and time again "politicians are all the same, all on the take".
And for that, I cannot forgive Charles J. Haughey.
Trackback(0)
June 21 2006 / A Return
Despite not having written anything in two months, I am still here! Amongst other things, I have been very busy with work and a new house. I have a piece on Charles J. Haughey ready to post, so bear with me while I get back into the way of things. I hope to be posting regularly from now on, at least, that is the intention!