However, Batt O’Keeffe has now gone on the rampage and lined up alongside the Presidents of the Universities to call for a reintroduction of third-level fees.  The irony of this partnership is that the two sides have very different aims for the reintroduction of fees.  The Presidents, quite rightly, want to see an increase in funding of third-level institutions.  The Minister, on the other hand, wants to reintroduce fees as a Government accounting strategy, and would presumably move to reduce the direct funding of universities by the same amount they generated through the reintroduction of third-level fees.  My own belief is that some of the Presidents concerns should be addressed by increasing the direct exchequer funding of third-level institutions.  This should be done as a political reassertion of the importance of investment in education, rather than an attack on the enshrined principle of universality.

In a further display of the idiocy of these proposals, an idea has been floated that fees would only be charged to parents earning in excess of €100K per annum.  It appears that the introduction of such fees would bring additional income of only €4Mn per annum, excluding administration and other associated costs.  So it becomes clear that it is the principle of universality, rather than the funding of third-level education that is the Minister’s political target.

Fortunately, with Ciarán Cannon, Mary Hanafin, the Greens and all opposition parties vehemently opposed to the reintroduction of fees, it will be difficult for Minister O’Keefe to pursue this idea to implementation.  But this isn’t stopping him from trying.  One of the key tools at his disposal is a wide array of right-wing commentators, only too happy to back up the Ministers assertions.  One of those commentators, Michael Casey (board member of the IMF) wrote an article in the Irish Times last Wednesday, to which I responded through the Letters page on last Thursday with the below:

Madam,

Michael Casey (Opinion, August 20th) makes some bizarre arguments for a reintroduction of university fees.

Firstly, he claims the economic benefits of third-level education accrue entirely to the person receiving that qualification. This is untrue on two counts. Firstly, a highly educated workforce makes it much easier for the government of the day to attract investment and promote entrepreneurship, providing an enormous boost to the national economy. Secondly, by earning higher salaries, third-level graduates contribute more tax.

Secondly, Mr Casey argues that providing free third-level education is equivalent to handing over money for personal enrichment. The same argument could be made against universal access to primary and secondary level education, yet such an argument would be immediately ridiculed. In a democratic republic, education should be a right, not a service, and that theory underpins the system of universality introduced by Niamh Bhreathnach.

Thirdly, Mr Casey says that poor families fall through the cracks, and that their taxes go towards the cost of third-level education for middle-class children. Certainly, by lowering the rates of income tax and corporation tax and raising indirect stealth taxation, successive governments have weakened the progressive tax structures which were designed to prevent any widening of the poverty gap. However, the real neglect of poor communities lies in the failure to fully implement the RAPID programmes, or invest enough in primary and secondary education in disadvantaged areas.

Finally, Mr Casey says abolishing third-level fees was “crassly political”. This assertion is clearly based on his own ideological position. It is his own article which could more easily be described as “crassly political”.

Yours, etc,

Neil Ward, Philipsburgh Terrace, Dublin 3

The Government have finally gotten around to publishing Heads of Bill of the proposed Civil Partnership Bill (3 months after they had promised it would be published, not that anyone’s counting).  And the gays are divided.  Some (such as GLEN) are delighted that some recognition is finally going to be provided to same-sex couples in Ireland.  Others (such as LGBT Noise and MarriagEquality) are furious that access to civil marriage is not being provided.  Unfortunately, all we’re getting to hear are either welcomes or condemnations of the proposed bill, rather than any in-depth analysis of the actual proposals on the table.

The actual Heads of Bill can be read here, and are worth reading to develop your own opinions (at 172 pages, it’s not a light read, but most of it is fairly self-expanatory).

At first glance they appear to be reasonable proposals.  It is certainly to be welcomed that we have finally seen movement on the issue, and that Government are recognising a need to provide rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples.  Also, the establishment of a redress scheme for co-habiting couples (either opposite-sex or same-sex) must be very warmly welcomed.  And we have to acknowledge that it is not all that easy for Government to move on this issue, with the relevant Minister having a history of issues with homosexuality, not to mention the considerable number of reactionaries who continue to dominate the FF back-benches.  And of course, the Greens can’t get everything their own way – they only have six seats, in case you haven’t heard.

Now, I’ve given all the excuses and equivocations you’re likely to hear, so nobody can accuse me of just whinging.  That said, after reading the Heads of Bill, I can only conclude: not good enough.

The first reason I don’t think the proposals are good enough, is that they contain no provision for the rights of same-sex couples to be considered as potential adoptive parents, nor do they contain any provisions to protect children who are already living with same-sex parents.  Such a provision had been included in the Labour Party Civil Unions Bill, but we had always suspected that Fianna Fáil would vehemently oppose the inclusion of this area in any Government Bill.  It seems we were right, so no surprise there.  Fortunately, all organisations are taking the opportunity to push the Government on this, so at least there is some political pressure to acheive an improvement on this before implementation of the actual legislation.

Much more worrying, as far as I’m concerned, is the absence of any taxation or social welfare provisions, something which certainly took me by surprise.  Just to clarify – the Heads of Bill as published contain no provisions for providing income tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax or social welfare provisions for civil partners.  The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform are responding to queries on this matter by stating that these areas will be dealt with through a seperate amendment of the Finance Act (also known as the Budget).  And this response seems to have satisfied almost everyone (including the editor of the Irish Times, Roderic O’Gorman of the Greens and GLEN), which is frankly bizarre to say the least..

This response should be prompting at least a couple of questions.  Firstly, can the Department guarantee that full equality will be provided in all areas of taxation and social welfare?  Secondly, which budget is expected to make these changes (ie – is such action expected this November, or is it a number of years away)?  Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, why not make the relevant changes to the taxation and social welfare legislation as part of the Civil Partnerships Bill?

By failing to include these vital areas in the primary legislation, the Government are leaving some options available to them.  They can delay introduction of rights in these areas (a particular concern given the current economic climate).  They can provide some tax and social welfare rights, without providing full equality in this area.  And of course, by including such changes in the budget, they will have the opportunity to easily undo such changes at any juncture in the future (something which would be much more politically difficult to do if the rights were included in the primary Civil Parnerships Bill).

Some organisations will always welcome legislation that is seen as a step in the right direction, while others will condemn such legislation for not going far enough.  Both of which are fine, but the rest of us have a responsibility to examine proposals and provide a more nuanced reflection on legislation than these organisations can fit into a press release.  Let the debate and examination begin.

(For what it’s worth, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform are accepting questions/suggestions on the legislation at this address)

edit – 1st September 2008 – an edited version of this article appears in the Autumn edition of the Left Tribune.

Dogmatic rhetoric advocating gay marriage as the solution we should all be aiming for is detrimental to our diversity of opinion and therefore serves to undermine the fight for rights, says Neil Ward.

I’ve long been a supporter of achieving marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. I’ve always thought that achieving such a step would have an enormously transformative effect on the way gay and lesbian couples are perceived in broader society, and as such, opening the institution of marriage up to gay and lesbian couples would be a huge step towards eradicating homophobia and heteronormativity in our society.

I support the aims of ideals of MarriagEquality. I also think that Gráinne Healy does a fantastic job in representing that organisation. However, Ms. Healy’s parting shot in the last edition of GCN (March 2008) has perturbed me with language that seemed intemperate and overly dogmatic. Above all else, the LGBTQ communities have always stood for diversity in our society – diversity of preferences, orientations, genders, beliefs and opinions. The comments made by Ms. Healy fundamentally threaten our diversity of opinion, by rushing to condemn those who may not agree with the stance taken by her organisation.

There are three main bodies of people within our communities who disagree with a focus purely on camapaigning for equal marriage rights immediately. The first group is one which had equal marriage rights as a medium-term goal, but are currently focussed on achieving the best civil partnership rights possible. The second are those who have consistently campaigned for the abolition of marriage as an institution. And the third group are those members of our communities who do not support campaigns for LGBTQ rights, for a variety of reasons.

To disregard the value of these dissenting opinions does the argument for equality no favours, and undermines the diversity on which our communities have thrived for so long.

Many people in our communities, hold a belief that the current Irish constitution is a major roadblock in seeking to open the institution of marriage to lesbian and gay couples. In particular, judgements made by the Supreme Court (e.g. Justice Murray -DT v. CT [2002] – “Marriage [is] a solemn contract of partnership entered into between man and woman with a special status recognised by the Constitution”), have been clearly gender-specific in the definitions of marriage as an institution. The argument is therefore made that there can be little doubt that our extremely conservative Supreme Court would immediately strike down any legislation passed with the intention of opening Civil Marriage to gay and lesbian couples. It was under this belief that Senator Norris first introduced his Civil Partnership Bill to the Seanad in 2004. Again, it was based on this belief and the advice received during the drafting of that bill (from legislative drafters, academic legal experts and practicing barristers) that the Labour Party drafted the Civil Unions Bill 2007.

Ms. Healy may not agree with this analysis of the constitutional situation, but to label all those who are committed to achieving equality through incremental progressive change as ‘participating in their own oppression’, is to undermine their commitment to equality, and undermines the solidarity needed within our communities at this time.

Ms. Healy goes on to write about how “Irish politicians do not have a good track-record on progressive, incremental law-making”. On this point, she is factually incorrect. The closest parallel that can be drawn with this situation, was the legalisation of divorce, a similarly controversial family-law matter, with constitutional impediments, and constant scaremongering about the effects on children. In that case, constitutional progress was made only after a series of progressive family law legislative acts were passed, which gradually introduced the idea of separation into Irish society, and normalised the reality of marital breakdown prior to attempting to amend the constitution. Ms. Healy may not agree with taking this route towards equality, but attempting to imply that our politicians would never allow incremental social change in a progressive direction is unfair, and does not accurately reflect reality.

The second group of people disenfranchised by Ms. Healy’s article, are those qu eer activists and academics who have long since argued for the abolition of marriage as an institution. Arguments have long been made based on the premise that marriage is a fundamentally heteronormative, class-driven institution, which has subjugated women (in particular) for hundreds of years. It is frequently argued that there can be no true equality while this institution exists, and that the model towards which LGBTQ activists should be campaigning, is one which sees the removal of the institution of marriage from our society, and allows people to form and break relationships in manners of their own choosing, not constricted by a state ideal of how people should interact.

Many people will argue that the institution of marriage establishes within society binary ideas of gender – ideas which have long been rejected by large sections of our communities. We continue to see these ideas projected upon same-sex marriages and partnerships around the world, as people rush to speculate on who takes on the masculine or butch role, and who is the more naturally feminine partner. These ideas are consistently underlined by the institution of marriage (as much as they are by civil partnerships or other derivations of marriage). And I don’t even have space to mention the impact that marital reinforcing of binary ideas of gender has on intersex or transgender communities.

The last major section of our communities who reject the drive for marriage equality, are those who generally oppose LGBTQ rights campaigning. Many people feel that LGBTQ people are fundamentally different, and that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with our differences being reflected on our legal situations. Whether such beliefs arise from internalised or externalised homophobia can be debated, as can the relative merits and demerits of providing public platforms for such opinions.

Adopting a position which wilfully attempts to force such opinions underground in favour of a politically-correct consensus on marriage is a dangerous route to follow. Furthermore, it only serves to further fragment our communities, rather than pulling together the broadest possible coalition from amongst the members of our communities.

I will continue to support MarriagEquality in their campaigning, and I will enjoy working alongside Ms. Healy on this journey. However, I believe in the diversity of our communities, and I cannot stand back and watch as that diversity is challenged by the type of dogmatic rhetoric we so regularly face from those who would deny us equal rights. As an alternative to homogenised debate, is it not time to start proclaiming our diversity once more?

Neil Ward is a director of Dublin Pride and an LGBTQ community activist. He writes here in a personal capacity.