Today, July 1st, 2010, Dáil Éireann will pass the Civil Partnership Bill 2009.  Once it gets through the Seanad (which will happen, though I suspect it’ll get ugly), same-sex couples will be recognised by the state at last.  It’s not marriage, but it’s certainly progress.

I have a long history with this issue, and one I’m particularly proud of.  The Labour Party introduced the Civil Unions Bill in 2006.  In the few months leading up to that, I was a member of the Labour LGBT executive which decided they were in support of such legislation, and I played a small role in bringing LGBT groups in to discuss the draft legislation with the Labour Party legal advisor, and with Brendan Howlin – the sponsor of the Bill.  My role was not enormous – I did not draft the legislation, nor was I centrally involved in persuading Brendan Howlin to work on this area – he took that initiative all by himself.  Nevertheless, it is one of my times in politics that I am most proud of, and it was certainly one of the first times that I became aware that Ireland could be made a better place by the actions of a very small number of people.

It’s been a few years since that flurry of activity.  In the meantime, the Labour Party have reintroduced our bill twice, only for it to be voted down by the Government.  I’ve been involved with both Dublin Pride and the NLGF – both of which have taken staunchly pro-marriage, anti-partnership positions.  And yet, I’ve still waited and waited for this day, conscious of the breakthrough which it will come to represent.

I should probably provide some context for my own views.  Theoretically, academically, I am opposed to the institution of marriage, and indeed to derivatives of that institution such as Civil Partnerships.  It is a patriarchal institution which has been used to subjugate women for hundreds of years.  And regardless of the growth of civil marriage, it remains an institution derived from a sacrament in which I do not believe.  I believe society should seek to move beyond marriage – to dismantle the rights and responsibilities of that institution, and to recognise that increasing numbers of relationships do not fit within the model of the nuclear family.  Some relationships last for a long time, and some do not.  Some relationships consist of two people, and some do not.  Some relationships involve children, and some do not.  And some relationships involve sex, and some do not.  One model will never work for all these different types of relationships, and we should consider how rights and responsibilities could be accumulated within relationships as they evolve, rather than being dependent on one ceremony.  Theoretically, academically, these are my views.

Emotionally however, I sit in a very different space.  As I am yet again experiencing, new romance in my life fills me with emotional possibilities, and the attractions of monogamous, long-term relationships begin to appeal to me once more.  But as well as hope such as this, it angers me that society views the relationships of my friends as less than the relationship of my parents.  I want queers who want to marry to be allowed to marry.  And beyond that, I want them to feel safe walking down the street holding hands.  Or to raise their children without judgement.

And so I’m conflicted.  I want to make the radical argument against the institution of marriage.  But I want the loving relationships I see all around me to receive the respect they deserve.  And that can only happen when society embraces empowering structural change.

Tonight will see our society, through the democratically elected representatives of the people, embrace exactly that type of structural change.  If Fine Gael come onside, it is possible that as in 1993, all members of Dáil Éireann will come together to take a stand for progress.  The Green Party deserve enormous credit.  Enormous credit.  As the Labour Party were responsible for pushing Máire Geoghegan-Quinn to decrimilaise homosexuality, so the Green Party have taken this fight and forced Fianna Fáil to accept it.  Their role should not be undermined, and it will certainly not be forgotten.

In six months time, same-sex couples will be having Civil Partnership ceremonies to rival the most gaudy wedding.  Their engagements will become commonplace in the Irish Times.  And most of all, society will have shifted to recognising same-sex relationships instead of ignoring them.  The campaign for access to civil marriage for same-sex couples will continue, and that’s a good thing.  The campaign for same-sex couples to be treated equally in relationship to adoption will certainly gather pace.  And some of us will continue to make our arguments for a different way of recognising love.  But we’ll all be doing it from a better, more equal starting point.

That’s progress, and it’s been a privilege playing a tiny part in it.

Photo of the speakers and committee members

Updated to include photo, with thanks again to Emma Fenelon – debates convenor of Law Soc.

Distinguished guests, Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Law Society, Ladies and Gentlemen

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak here tonight on behalf of the National Lesbian and Gay Federation, and to propose the motion that “This House believes that the Civil Partnership Bill 2009 entrenches second class citizenship”.

To begin this debate, we must define what we understand by the term citizenship.  A citizen is a full participating member of a society with all of the rights, duties and responsibilities that that entails.

Second-class citizenship is therefore a term used to describe those to whom those rights, duties and responsibilities are not attached.  I strongly believe that same-sex couples are already granted only second-class citizenship within this country, and that the introduction of the Civil Partnership Bill 2009 will only entrench that position further.

The arguments that I will put forward here tonight revolve around three central themes.  Firstly, I will argue that our politicians have a duty of representation to the LGBT community.  By outlining some of the research that has been done within the community, I will show that this duty of representation has been willfully ignored.

Secondly, I will aim to provide a critique of the Civil Partnership Bill 2009, underlining the differences between it and Civil Marriage.

And finally, I will argue that the Civil Partnership Bill represents an incremental approach to equality, and I will attempt to detail the flaws of engaging in that tactical approach.

1. Representation

Under our political system, our politicians are morally obliged to represent all of those by whom they are elected.  It is within this mandate that the Government has argued there is a need to introduce a Civil Partnership Bill, which will address the concerns of LGBT citizens.  Unfortunately, this argument is not sustained by research of the views of those citizens.

Last week, the National Lesbian and Gay Federation published a piece of research entitled “Burning Issues: listening to the voices of the LGBT community in Ireland”.  This research gathered the views of over 1100 LGBT people in Ireland – one of the largest national surveys of the community ever published.

The survey yielded some surprises, with Equal Rights at Work and Bullying and Violence against LGBT people figuring as the two issues of most concern which arose from the quantitative questions.  This may be a slight aside, but these findings clearly show that there is still a substantial body of work to be done to address these issues.

What was less surprising for those of us within the community, was the desire for Marriage Equality expressed in the survey.  Marriage Equality appeared as the third most important issue from the quantitative questions.  On the other hand, within the qualitative, open-ended questions, Marriage Equality was by far and away the most pressing priority for the LGBT community, with 25% of respondents designating it their most pressing priority (in contrast with a mere 6% who designated Civil Partnerships as their most pressing priority).

The reasons for this finding are simple.  LGBT people desire, not equality in treatment, as some would argue a complete Civil Partnership model would provide, but equality of opportunity, where same-sex couples are not marginalized and separated, but embraced by the institutions of the state.

It is a truth apparent from this research, that politicians are not fulfilling their duty of representation to LGBT citizens, but have rather decided to create a marginal institution which will dilute the rights, duties and responsibilities of same-sex couples.  This is surely a classic definition of the entrenchment of second-class citizenship.

Over the last 3 years, the LGBT community has increasingly mobilized in support of Civil Marriage for same-sex couples.  Their political engagement in protests, rallies, lobbying and research on this issue has been significant.  I hold no truck with those who would protest against Civil Partnerships, as I think that is a negative stance which will only serve to divide our community.  However, I applaud those who continue to mobilize in favour of same-sex marriage.  Politics and politicians must not be allowed to make judgments on behalf of LGBT people, but rather must be encouraged to genuinely represent all those who elect them.

2. Analysis of Civil Partnership Bill 2009

In a debate around the entrenchment of second class citizenship, we must analyse the Civil Partnership Bill 2009 which has been proposed.

Senator Norris’ Civil Partnership Bill in 2004 ran to 12 pages, while the Labour Party’s Civil Unions Bill in 2006 ran to only 7 pages.  This is because both Bills attempted to start from a position of equal citizenship, mandating that position to be implemented in any other legislation necessary.

In contrast, the Government Bill runs to 118 pages.  This is because the Government has deliberately set-out to limit the rights, duties and responsibilities of same-sex couples.  Their starting principle is that same-sex couples are second class citizens, and this is a position which is reinforced throughout the legislation.

The briefest perusal of the Government’s Bill shows four clear areas in which the rights, duties and responsibilities of civil partnered couples will differ to those of married couples – tax, social welfare, dissolution of partnerships and adoption.

Now, the Government has freely admitted that taxation and social welfare matters have been omitted from this bill, but they have stated that these matters will be corrected in the Budget.  This will at least create a significant gap between the introduction of Civil Partnerships, and the corresponding introduction of the appropriate taxation and social welfare measures.  And what odds that these recessionary times will be used to delay or dilute such an introduction even further?

On the matter of dissolution of partnerships and adoption, there is no such parliamentary trickery to hide behind.  Civil partners will be required to separate for 2 years prior to dissolution of the civil partnership.  This is in contrast to divorce law, which requires that married couples be separated for 4 years prior to divorce.  Is this because the Government assumes us gays to be more promiscuous, and less able to remain in long-term relationships?

Similarly, it is clear that this Government has no intention of ever opening the adoption process to same-sex couples, or even of ever recognizing the many children who are already being raised in same-sex families.  During the 1993 debate on the decriminalization of homosexuality, Dermot Ahern said, and I quote:

Will we eventually see the day in this country when, as has happened in the USA, homosexuals will seek the right to adopt children? We should think seriously about this possibility.

It would appear that his viewpoint has changed little in the intervening period.

On this point, the research which I mentioned earlier threw up some interesting statistics.  Of those surveyed, 41.7% of women over 35 have children, while 16% of men over 35 have children.  That’s an astonishingly large number of children for the Government to simply cast aside.

Not only does this Government wish to entrench the position of same-sex couples as second class citizens, it appears that they would like to create a third-class citizenship for their children, who have no rights to even have their parents recognized by the state.

3. Rejection of the incremental approach to equality

There are those within the LGBT community, and within politics at large, who argue that an incremental approach to achieving equality in this area is required.  They point to the incremental liberalisation of Divorce law in this country as the perfect example of what they are trying to achieve.  And they argue that the constitutional impediments to Same-Sex Marriage are such that we must accept Civil Partnerships as a first-step in that direction.

The divorce example that is so often bandied about is disingenuous in the extreme.  Yes, it is true that the path to divorce began with reforms which allowed for legal separation.  However, that example assumes that the divorce argument was won in full.  At the time of the divorce referendum, campaigners were assured that the required 4-year separation period was a temporary measure – another increment in the process.  However, that 4-year period has remained enshrined, with little political appetite to amend it to allow people to escape from unhappy or abusive marriages.

As another example, Norway adopted an incremental approach to same-sex marriage in 1994 when they introduced Civil Partnerships.  However, it was only in 2009 that they managed to legalize same-sex marriage.  Are we really expecting LGBT people in Ireland to accept a similar 15-year wait for equality?

This is the key question that must be asked of those who argue for an incremental approach to equality – how often must significant increments be achieved to justify the approach?

• It is now 5 years since Senator Norris introduced his Bill.
• It is now 3 years since the Labour Party tabled the Civil Unions Bill
• It is almost 2.5 years since the formation of this Government

At this glacial pace, we will be lucky to see these limited forms of Civil Partnership introduced by the time this Government leaves office.

I could also speak at some length to challenge the assertion that the constitutional impediments to same-sex marriage are too great to allow any step beyond the current proposal.  Unfortunately, time will not permit such an intervention, but suffice to say that legal opinion is greatly divided on this matter.

There is a very brief quote from Minister Dermot Ahern on the day he published the Civil Partnership Bill.  He said:

Civil Partnerships are not a stepping stone to gay marriage

I think that speak volumes about the likely success of an incremental approach, and also about the ability of the Green Party to genuinely bring about an end to the second-class citizenship of the LGBT community.

In conclusion, and I will finish on this brief point, the Government, through the Civil Partnership Bill 2009 is abjectly failing to represent the needs of the LGBT community.  They are introducing a marginal bill which will clearly make civil partnerships inferior to marriage.  And they are adopting an incremental approach that tells LGBT citizens that they must wait for equality.  I think you will all agree that this clearly represents  an entrenchment of second-class citizenship.

The inaugural Gay and Lesbian Awards (GALAs) took place last Friday night in the Radisson Hotel on Golden Lane (a venue that attendees of last year’s Irish Web Awards will remember fondly!), hosted by Derek Mooney and Una Mullaly. The purpose of the event was to provide recognition to LGBTQ people, organisations and businesses for their contributions, primarily in 2008.

And there were some exceptionally worthy winners. It was lovely to see the guys from the Emerald Warriors get credit for their terrific hosting of the Bingham Cup in 2008 by winning event of the year, and I was thrilled to see Labour Senator Ivana Bacik (and my good friend) pick up the gay-friendly politician of the year award. Similarly, there were nods for Gaelick (bloggers of the year), Rory O’Neill (business person of the year), and Google (employer of the year).

The two emotional moments of the night were reserved for the Volunteer of the Year and Person of the Year categories.

The volunteer of the year award was shared between LGBT Noise (not 100% I like the idea of this award going to groups, but I’ll leave quibbles for another day!) and the recently-deceased Noel Walsh for his tireless work in raising awareness of HIV/AIDS. The Noisers made some lovely speeches, but were somewhat overshadowed by Noel’s partner Maurice, who received the most prolonged standing ovation of the night, and spoke with great eloquency about Noel.

The person of the year award went (somewhat unsurprisingly) to Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan. I’ve had my own issues with the campaign for same-sex marriage over the last couple of years, but there’s little denying the visibility that Katherine and Ann Louise have given this issue. Prior to the award, there was a really lovely video of people talking about their work, with the nicest contribution coming from a woman from An Chosán, who spoke about how she learned to love from these two women. In their own speeches, Ann Louise showed once again her ability to bring an emotional reality to a political topic, while Katherine showed off her exceptional oratorical skills. Regardless of my criticisms of the campaign, I’m terribly fond of these two women, and I was delighted to see them win.

Now, as a board member of the NLGF, one might assume that I did a lot of work for these awards. In reality, that wasn’t the case, as Stephen Jacques and Olivia McEvoy did the running from the NLGF perspective, with all of the GCN staff (Brian, Conor, Lorna, Ciara, Lisa and Fionnán) doing incredible work to pull it all together.

It was a proud moment for me to be a very small part of, and it was wonderful to see so many previously unrecognised community heroes get a little credit for their amazing work. Roll on year 2!

I joined the board of the NLGF about six months ago, or maybe a little more at this point.  And one of my aims for the organisation was to see us grow our own identity as well as maintaining the wonderful publication and brand that is GCN.

This is one of our first steps in that direction, and I’m awfully excited about it.  Please head over there, and nominate people in categories such as Blogger of the Year, Politician of the Year, Community Organisation of the Year, Event of the Year, and so on….

I have noticed that you seem to have become the Irish Times gay correspondent recently. Unfortunately, as shown again in your current article, you seem to be of the misguided belief that access to civil marriage is the only issue facing LGBTQ citizens in Ireland. Equally unfortunately, you fail to identify the very concepts that you aim to address in these opinion pieces. This letter is mostly concerned with the opinion piece published in the Irish Times today, but the key themes are relevant to many of your recent articles on queer politics in Ireland.

It is clear that you are in favour of access to civil marriage for same-sex couples – a perfectly valid political opinion. Your comparison between the campaign for same-sex marriage and the detail of the Briggs Initiative (otherwise known as Proposition 6 and described in the upcoming Milk) is considerably less valid. The Briggs Initiative was proposing to ban anyone gay, lesbian (and possibly even supporters of LGBTQ rights) from teaching in public schools. In Ireland, Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act allows institutions (notably schools and hospitals) to discriminate against employees on religious ethos grounds. Surely that ludicrous situation would have made a much more interesting comparison with the ill-fated Briggs Initiative? Instead, the credibility of the article is stretched considerably by your insistence on bringing any references to queer life or culture back to your desire for the institution of marriage to be opened to same-sex couples.

Equally, your failure to address the concerns of women (or even to mention the existence of lesbians, bisexuals or transgender people) while discussing marriage shows an excessively casual approach to an article on same-sex marriage. Your positioning of suicide amongst gay men as being an historical issue is bordering on offensive – suicide (and mental health issues more broadly) remains a deeply worrying concern within the LGBTQ community. Your consistent focus on LGBT Noise and MarriagEquality comes at the expense of organisations such as the Gay Switchboard, the various queer arts festivals, the plethora of regional Pride organisations and a whole host of other community groups who are equally deserving of your attention.

I welcome your observation of the difference between “we” and “they” which was so obvious in the Questions and Answers discussion on same-sex marriage. However, your treatment of this matter is dangerously casual. Such linguistic anomalies are merely indicators of a very clear othering of queer citizens which takes place in Irish society. Indeed, one of the most successful ways of opposing minority rights is to clearly differentiate between that minority and the rest of society, allowing a clear majority of citizens to come to the view that the minority is not in fact a part of the society, but something alien and other which is to be feared and despised. This othering is readily apparent in our heteronormative education system, which is where change is most urgently required. And rather than defining “we” as consumers of products and services, why cannot “we” be citizens – active participants in neighbourhoods, sporting teams, churches, families, workplaces…. But there will be no opportunity to debate how “we” should be defined until we can clearly articulate the root-cause of the issue, and sadly your article failed to make this identification.

I need to take a moment to make a very clear point. There is a consensus emerging that all LGBTQ citizens are campaigning for marriage. Equally, there is a consensus emerging that this is the last significant campaign to be faced by queer citizens. I believe these consensus views to be inaccurate.

Personally, I believe marriage is a fundamentally flawed institution that should be abolished. I am politically aware enough to know that the likelihood of such an event is extremely slim, but it disappoints me that part of our community is willing to prop up an institution of repression by seeking admission to the club. Nevertheless, I support the campaigns of MarriagEquality and LGBT Noise, because I acknowledge that part of our community does want to be allowed access this institution.

However, where I disagree with those organisations (and with you as a quasi-spokesperson for those groups), is in their nature as single issue organisations. Structuring themselves as single-issue groups has the effect of implying that we are a single issue community. LGBT Noise in particular have the potential to be so much more, as direct action campaigns could effectively be deployed in seeking a reversal of the ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men, seeking a repeal of the aforementioned Section 37, or even raising awareness of the increased levels of poverty found among LGBTQ citizens, the heteronormativity so prevalent within our education system, the lack of gender recognition legislation, the violent bullying experienced by LGBTQ school-students or any number of other issues.

But I digress. The reason I write this, is that I think queer journalists writing about queer politics have a responsibility to our community to truly represent the diversity of views, desires and needs that can be found within the community. Just as I support the campaigns of MarriagEquality and LGBT Noise, I also support your work. I recognise that you are a single columnist, but hope that in future your columns will more accurately describe a community (and the issues and campaigns within that community) that is very close to my heart.

Yours Sincerely,

Neil Ward
19th December 2008

I haven’t had a chance to add all of the notes I want to the enclosed presentation, so I’ll update this over the next week or so.  However, I promised to post up the presentation over the weekend, so figured posting it as it stands would be a decent start!

link to presentation

Following on from my previous post on why I’m involved with the Labour Party, the next logical organisation for me to talk about/plug, is Dublin Pride (or formally, Dublin LGBTQ Pride Ltd.)

What I do with Pride

• Critic (retired!) – For most of its existence, Dublin Pride was organised by a collective, the membership of which varied at different times.  For a number of years, I was an outspoken critic of that collective.  While I hugely admired their passion for Pride, I was firmly of the belief that this festival should be owned and organised by the wider community.  I have now retired as a critic of Pride, as in 2006 the collective made the brave decision to establish a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, and to open membership of that company up to any interested members of the community.
• Festival Committee Chairperson/Project Manager (2007) – Dublin Pride is now organised across three levels – the Board of Directors, the Festival Committee and a number of sub-committees (more on that anon).  When I got involved with Pride, it was on the Finance sub-committee (just seemed to make sense given my background!), and I was their representative on the Festival Committee.  When the Festival Committee then decided to elect a Chairperson who would project manage the festival, and liaise with the Board of Directors, they elected me to this position – apparently punishing me for many sins committed in a previous life!  All joking aside, it was a wonderful, if draining experience, and it was wonderful to be leading such a project when all of us were on such an incredibly steep learning curve (this was the first year it was opened to the community to organise).  Year 1 – we doubled our turnover from that reported for the previous year!
• Board Member (2007-present) – Having had a good year on the operational side of things, I was invited to put myself forward for election to the Board of Directors last year, and to make the move from being operationally involved, to taking responsibility for governance and strategic direction of the company.  I was delighted to be elected to the Board, and have tried to play a strong supporting role to those still involved on the operational side (thought the lines become a little blurry during the actual festival, when it becomes all hands on deck!).  The company has continued to experience incredible growth, and from a turnover of ca. €24K in 2006, we grew to a turnover of ca. €80K in 2008 (with that amount currently projected to double in the next 12 months!)
• Board Chairperson (2008-present) – for most of the last year, Conor Prenderville very capably chaired the Board of Dublin Pride.  Then, however, he fucked off around the world, and I got the privelege of stepping into his shoes!

Why I do what I do for Pride:

• Community – LGBTQ people often find themselves on the margins of society.  In some cases, they are economically marginalised (as proven by the higher incidences of poverty among LGB people, as per Combat Poverty Agency), in other cases they are socially marginalised (affecting all LGBTQ people, but particularly the trans community), while in other cases they are culturally marginalised (the absence of queer artistic and cultural spaces can be astonishing at times).  Pride represents an opportunity to reverse that, for at least a small part of the year.  During Pride, we have the opportunity to highlight issues of concern to LGBTQ people.  We also have the opportunity to promote social cohesion and queer culture and art.  All of this gives us the opportunity to strengthen our community, and to tackle the exclusions that we face as a group, and indeed the exclusions that we subject sections of our own community to.
• Safe spaces – heavily linked to the above, is the idea that Pride provides safe spaces to members of our community, within which we can realise our own identities free of pressures to conform from the heteronormative majority.  In a world where ‘straight-acting’ has become a complimentary way to describe queer people, Pride gives us the opportunity to challenge such ideas, strengthening our own confidence, and giving us the strength to engage with broader society comfortable in our own identities.
• Diversity – there’s nothing more dull than a completely homogenous society.  Pride challenges that greatly, and encourages fairies, freaks and trannies to take to the streets alongside their more ‘normal’ brothers and sisters.  Pride allows the LGBTQ community to bring our colour, charm and imagination to the streets of Dublin, and the transformation of the city as the parade passes is extraordinary.  One of my favourite moments of Pride 2008 was standing on College Green with Conor, making sure the parade was staying together nicely, and seeing a little girl with her Dad.  She just stood there with the most enormous grin on her face, as the spectacle of Dublin Pride unfolded in front of her.  And what made it even better was that her father had an almost identical facial expression!
• Friendship – I’ve made a number of incredible friends during my time with Pride.  At all levels of the company, there are people I now regularly go for a pint with, or pop in to a drag show with, or sit and watch a movie with, or just talk to for hours at a time.  And outside the company, I’ve had the opportunity to build new friendships with people from other community groups, such as Sapphic Ireland, Emerald Warriors, BelongTo and Glória (among many, many others).  These friendships and relationships are very valuable to me, and are the greatest gift I’ve been given by Pride (now, enough of this sappy nonsense!).
• New skills – I work with projects in work, so I didn’t think taking on the task of Project Manager for Pride would be too enormous.  Little did I know!  However, the skills in event management, club promotion, budgetting, volunteer management, board reporting and proposal writing skills I’ve developed, have stood me in great stead ever since.  Similarly, my entry to the Board has pushed me to really research what is meant by corporate governance and strategic planning, and the skills I’ve acquired on the Board have been hugely beneficial to me, and to other groups I’m involved with.

Dublin Pride has occupied a chunk of my time over the last few years, and I have no doubt it will continue to do so for years to come.  It also happens to be one of my proudest aassociations in recent years.

I thoroughly recommend all people (LGBTQ or not – some of my straight friends have also become involved and found it immensely rewarding) to consider getting involved with Pride.  You can join us here, donate to us here, or even just email us any comments or suggestions you might have.

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.

Pride ’08 came to an end last weekend, culminating in a wonderfully attended parade, post-parade show, and Pride night party.  Despite the weather, people showed up in their thousands, which was a wonderful reward for all of the volunteers who have put in so much effort over the last few months.  I want to take this opportunity to briefly explain why LGBTQ communities all over the world still feel the need to hold Pride festivals, and I also want to do a little review of Pride ’08, responding to some of the criticisms of Pride this year, and also outlining some of our improvements from previous years.

Why does Pride still exist?

This is by far and away the most common question I am asked during my involvement with Dublin Pride, and it deserves a more complete response than that detailed below.  Nevertheless, I hope that the below points will serve as an overview of why Pride festivals are still organised the world over:

• Safe spaces – from my perspective, one of the single most important roles of Pride festivals, is that they provide safe spaces within which LGBTQ people can explore their sexual identities, and openly embrace those identities without fear of repurcussion.  By providing such spaces, we aim to empower people, so that they can return to mainstream society with the confidence to assert their own identities, rather than continuing to feel forced to hide their identities in order to form part of the perceived homogenous mainstream.
• LGBTQ people are not treated equally – while our choice of theme generated some negative feedback (which I’ll deal with later), our intention was to highlight one of the inequalities experienced by LGB people – that their relationships in Ireland are not held by the state as being equal in value to those of opposite-sex couples.  Pride festivals provide our communities with an opportunity to highlight some of the inequalities which LGBTQ people continue to face.  We can highlight ongoing hate-crimes, the lack of gender recognition legislation, homophobic bullying in schools, increased levels of poverty among LGBTQ citizens, employment discrimination and failure to provide adequate health services, among other issues.  More often than not, our voices are not heard on these issues, and Pride festivals provide our community organisations with an opportunity to have their messages amplified.  While Pride is often seen as a big party, it is fundamentally political, and has a major advocacy and political facilitation role.
• Celebration of our culture – this is an area that Dublin Pride hopes to focus on a great deal in the coming years.  LGBTQ people have a unique culture within our society.  This was recognised by the Irish state last week, when the National Library of Ireland accepted the Irish Queer Archive (which has long been maintained by Tonie Walsh and the National Lesbian and Gay Federation) for archival within the Library.  In future years, we hope to have a curating committee, which will assist us in curating artistic exhibitions, conferences and displays, as well as helping us to recognise the history of our movement.  There’s a lot of work to be done in improving this area, but our venue for next year are very supportive of our efforts in this regard (more on than later in this post).
• Increasing diversity within our capital – The Dublin Pride Parade is now the second-largest annual parade in the country (behind only the St. Patrick’s Day parade), and we our immensely proud of our place in the capital city.  Our parade is an incredible display of diversity, as people from all backgrounds, nationalities and identities gather to take to the streets of Dublin.  And just as we are enriched by the experience, I believe that the city is also enriched in a similar way.  We benefit enormously from having such a parade to be a part of, but Dublin also benefits from such a display of diversity (not to mention the accompanying increase in tourism!).

Where has Pride gone wrong?

Pride has been subject to some criticisms of late.  While some of them have certainly been valid, I want to take this opportunity to provide my responses to some of the major ones:

• Pride should not be in favour of marriage – we have been criticised for our position calling for an extension of marriage-rights to same-sex couples.  This position is the one overwhelmingly held by our volunteers, and that was the motivating factors.  On a personal level, I have fundamental issues with the institution of marriage, rooted as it’s history is in misogyny and patriarchy.  However, I can recognise the arguments of those who claim that we need to be provided with access to the institution, at which point we will be on a stronger position to question the institution.  It’s not my personal view, but it was the view of our members, which is why Dublin Pride took that stance.
• Pride ’08 theme was sexist – The argument has been made by both Suzy and Marie, that our theme of ‘Always the Bridesmaid, Never the Bride’ was sexist, and downright insulting to women.  Firstly, that was certainly never the intention of Dublin Pride, and we can only apologise for any offence caused – it was intended only to be catchy, and to emphasise our theme of pushing for equal access to marriage this year.  Secondly, the theme was suggested by one of our sub-committees, and approved by all levels of the organisation, without a single objection.  That said, we moved from publicly selecting our theme last year, to doing so privately this year.  The complaints that have been made highlight the fact that not making our selection in public prevents us from hearing such criticisms prior to selection of a theme, and we will move back to public selection in future to try to avoid a re-occurence of this issue.
• Dublin Pride do not cater to families – this is an argument I have heard from many quarters, and it particularly revolves around Pride’s decision to hold our Post-Parade rally in the Wood Quay Amphitheatre, where there is no space to provide family entertainmment etc.  Firstly, I think it’s important to acknowledge the number of family-friendly events organised by Dublin Pride in 2008.  From the Viking Splash, to the trip to the Zoo, to the Family Picnic and Sports Day, we really tried to ensure we were catering to families this year.  Secondly, I have to state very publicly that returning to the Wood Quay Amphitheate was not our choice this year.  Quite the opposite in fact.  We had desperately hoped to relocate to Dublin Castle or Iveagh Gardens or Merrion Square this year, but none of those options were opened to us, and we were forced to return.  However, we were delighted to be able to announce on Saturday, that we have found a new home for Pride ’09 (and onwards) – IMMA.  The grounds of IMMA are fabulous, and will allow us to look at having proper food stalls and picnic areas, as well as mini-carnivals and other forms of family entertainment.  We sincerely hope that this will provide a much more family-friendly environment for the Post-Parade rally/party next year.
• Pride do not cater to those with disabilities – again, I want to begin by highlighting some of the work we have done in this area.  The Dublin Pride website, has a number of accessibility provisions for those with visual-difficulties.  Our programme contained a disability key, identifiying which events were wheelchair-accessible etc.  We provided sign-language interpretation for a larger number of our events than ever before.  We improved the location of the wheelchair-accessible area at the post-parade rally (though we had issues with securing this area which certainly need to be addressed).  And we provided spaces on the Labour LGBT bus for those who have walking difficulties or needed a rest during the parade (a facility which we were delighted to see used).  Still, we recognise that this is nowhere near enough.  To that end, we will be establishing a standing committee over the next few weeks, whose purpose it will be to provide us with advice on doing accessibility audits of all Pride activities.  This committee will be made up of disabled people who wish to help advise Pride on future development, and we look forward to improving our record in this area.

Where Pride ’08 got it right

Despite all that I’ve written above – 2008 has been an incredible year for the Dublin LGBTQ Pride Festival, and overall, we have improved immeasurably on previous years.  Below I want to highlight some of those improvements:

• Improved PR – from getting front-page coverage on the Irish Times of our Programme Launch (thanks to securing John Gormley as a speaker) to getting Six-One coverage of the Pride Parade, we moved forward in huge leaps this year in comparison to previous years.  Credit is largely due to our outstanding Press Officer, Amy O’Keefe.
• Social Networking – facebook and bebo were used in a much more efficient way by the Pride organisation, to build a ‘buzz’ around Pride, but also to drum up numbers for our events.  Most notably of all, our own decidated YouTube channel provided community members with an opportunity to say why Pride was important to them, and further served to increase the ‘buzz’ around Pride.
• Sponsorship – this is one area I’m particularly delighted with.  Firstly, we secured great sponsorship from both Google and IBM, which showed very clearly that Pride has the ability to attract sponsorship from multi-national companies.  But equally impressively, it looks as though we’ve increased our public funding (thanks to grants from groups such as the City Council) to a level where it matches our private sponsorship.  I firmly believe that acheiving a balance between public/philanthropic and private funding is essential to ensuring that we protect the identity of Dublin Pride.
• Getting the big events right – there are five major events on which Pride’s success hinges – the Festival Launch Night, Dyke Night, Parade, Post-Parade rally and Pride Night Party.  This year, we got each of these events spot on.  While I ended up hosting Launch Night, it actually went really smoothly, with a nice tight show featuring Ladyface, Eden, Kristin Kapelli and Paul Ryder, before Bucks Fizz came on stage to finish the night.  We packed out the George, and were completely thrilled with the event.  Dyke Night was a spectacular success.  We were a little concerned about this one, as were competing against both Kiss (the monthly lesbian club in Dublin) and Q&A (the monthly LGBTQ indie night).  But we sold-out completely, which was terrific for our finances!  The parade went really smoothly, leaving us arriving at the post-parade show 10 minutes early (an unprecented event!), while the post-parade rally was pared back to an 80 minute show.  It was all nice and tight, and having Maria McKee and Brian Kennedy was just the icing on the cake!  And finally, the Pride Night Party in the Tivoli.  Again, this was a sell-out, with hundreds of people turned away from the venue.  The feedback was amazing, with a couple of people telling me it was the best Pride Night Party in a decade.  When these five events fo this well, everything else seems to fall into place!
• New venue secured for Pride 2009 – this was one of the bext board achievements of the year, as we were able to announce IMMA as our venue for the future.  This gives us genuine room for expansion of the festival, as well as giving us a huge boost to help drive the cultural side of the festival forward.
• Increased turnover – we’ve managed to substantially increase the company turnover again this year.  In 2006, the turnover of Dublin Pride was in the region of €24,000.  In 2007, in our first year as a community-run organisation, this doubled to approximately €48,000.  And if current budgeting projections are accurate, that will rise again to approximately €75,000 for 2008.  At this rate, we hope to have a turnover of over €100,000 in 2009, and that really gives us scope for enlargement.
• Increased number of volunteers – in 2006, there were less than 10 people really involved in the organisation of Pride.  One the festival was taken over by the community in 2007, this rose to 30 people or more.  And in 2008, that figure has roughly doubled, with 50-70 volunteers heavily involved in the organisation.  All of whom did astonishing work in pulling things together in an organised way this year (particular mention to our Newbie of the Year, Niamh Nolan and the Pride of Pride [Overall Volunteer of the Year], Alan McArthur).

Everyone involved is taking a much deserved break for a week or two.  But we have lots to do for next year!  A bigger venue than ever before increases the scale of all of our activities.  We need to massively increase our funding and the number of volunteers we have.  We need to nail down our issues with accessibility and being family-friendly.  We need to massively expand our artistic and cultural programme.  We need to further open ourselves to community involvement, building on the links we have made this year.  We need to develop our new relationships with other Pride organisations (in Ireland and abroad) to help us to grow into the future.

All of these and much, much more are possible.  Feel free to drop me a line if you fancy jumping on board and helping us down this road