Yesterday LGBT Noise held a protest outside the opening of the International Eucharistic Congress in the RDS.
Like it was going to change anything?
The real question that might be asked is if it was a correct and politically astute location and target for a protest? I know there has been a lot of polite silence from many people about yesterday’s events. I’ve never really been one for polite silence.
In 2012 if the church came anywhere near one of ‘our’ events to protest we would be horrified and belligerent . Many of us campaign for freedom of speech and association so that LGBT’s can march and assemble world wide.
While LGBT Noise no doubt will point to the hate preached by the Catholic Church, this hatred is preached by some in all religious beliefs. However the state is the agent of change and has evolved and is in charge of ensuring that legislation is introduced and that people are treated equally. There are 166 TD’s and their offices are in Kildare Street and throughout the country. We have gay TD’s – we even have a practising catholic gay TD. As a ‘movement’, as individuals, voters, families and citizens we have our place at the table. (oops I nearly typed altar…)
This congress is not an event dedicated to homosexuality or curing gays so again I wondered why a protest would be organised pointing fingers at an organisation for being in existence and believing what it does.
I protested the Vatican’s statement against homosexuality in a demonstration outside the Papal Nuncio’s house over twenty years ago. This was a time when the state did not act to protect us. When religious organisations lobbied successfully to have the state discriminate against us. Many people were shunned by families for their sexuality based on church teaching. That hate was real. My anger was also real, but the focus and thinking moved to looking at citizenship and human rights and enshrining them in the state and its tenets because that was where change could actually happen. Not in trying to change ‘makey uppey as they go along’ (if devoutly held by some) beliefs.
This was before decriminalisation of homosexuality, equality legislation, civil partnership, anti homophobia campaigns in schools and countless other policy changes which have been introduced by Irish governments and agencies. Dáil committees now hold hearings where LGBT organisations are invited to appear and are congratulated for their work. The state finally moved to change much in Irish society. Further change is still required and is promised in terms of protecting LGBT teachers and others employed in organisations with particular ethoses.
The church is also a very very different animal. A wounded animal. And a protest on something that won’t change and doesn’t matter outside its events now looks like you are kicking that animal when it’s down or even giving it more attention that it actually deserves. In fact it lets the state off the hook by not keeping the pressure where it rightly belongs.
The other important thing – the vast majority of Irish people don’t believe or agree with what the church says about homosexuality and are prepared to say so. We don’t need to be outside Congresses wasting our time – we need to continue to develop our responses to support LGBT people coming out and living happy and healthy lives and calling on the state to help us to do so also.
In fact we need to be lobbying those with real power and threat to our rights infrastructure, the business sector and employers, who want to retract rights protections because they say it costs too much to include diversity in society. We need to lobby politicians who think that rights are too expensive or not important enough to maintain in a period of austerity. We need to watch the ‘blame the Troika game’ that is being played. We also need to call to account people in rights organisations who collude with all sorts of rights being removed and watered down because it suits them to keep their jobs and funding. Nothing to do with religion at all.
“In fact it lets the state off the hook by not keeping the pressure where it rightly belongs.”
^
This, on any number of issues.
Applause! On both the stupidity of the protest and also where the protest and focus should really be!
Well said Suzy- Why do LGBT org continue to give the church any attention?
As you rightly point out the power lies with the State and it is to those in office we should make our voices heard.
Is it not right to focus on both the Church and the State in these matters? Having one protest outside the Eucharistic Congress does not negate any ongoing work Noise or any other groups do with the government.
If the Catholic Church continue to be an outspoken lobbying force against LGBT rights, then surely it is useful to show its followers that there are differing opinions. As you say, the Church does not always speak for its members, but it does claim that authority in its constant battering of the gay community. The separation of the Church and the State is an important issue that can be highlighted by informing members of both sides – after all, there may well be many attendees of the Congress who would disagree with the Church impinging on the State.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that the Eucharistic Congress is an international event, and one attended by citizens of countries far less progressive than our own.
I attended, found it a very peaceful (and enjoyable) way to get a point across, and not something that makes it impossible to continue the important work with the government that such organisations partake in on a regular basis.
I must preface what I am about to write by saying that I am an admirer of Maman Poulet, and the intellectual and ethical energy you bring to bear on social issues.
This analysis of yesterday’s protest is not, in my view, an example in your finest tradition.
Your opener ‘Like it was going to change anything?’ misses the point that it did have the immediate effect of changing the media coverage of the EC, and discussion of the church’s role in society.
Then, “In 2012 if the church came anywhere near one of ‘our’ events to protest we would be horrified and belligerent . Many of us campaign for freedom of speech and association so that LGBT’s can march and assemble world wide.”
I’ve come across versions of this point elsewhere but did not expect to read this here. Counter-demonstrations of the march 4 marriage have happened, and far from being ‘horrified and belligerent’ our marchers and stewards were briefed and afforded the counter-protest the space to make their point.
This is beside the fundamental issue that LGBTQI people do not stand astride a history of centuries of oppression of the religious. It is a breathtaking false equivalence to suggest that a peaceful protest by 50 odd people outside a walled compound containing thousands of believers might prejudice future free expression, and that it is somehow valid to compare it to church organised counter protests.
One of Noise’s organizers just reported back from Split in Croatia where she has been an annual attendee at their Pride march. Last year, the local RCC were instrumental in mobilizing a ‘counter-protest’ which saw dozens of marchers hospitalized in a violent frenzy. This year, thankfully, the Pride march was larger, safer and better protected by the authorities. A mere 40 violent counter-protesters were jailed. Are you really positing an equivalence here?
You say “This congress is not an event dedicated to homosexuality or curing gays so again I wondered why a protest would be organised pointing fingers at an organisation for being in existence and believing what it does.”
2 things, a): you mention protesting outside the private residence of the Papal Nuncio. That is not a building where the defamatory remarks about LGBT people was written or disseminated from, why protest there? This is the equivalent of your criticism.
b)Please link and show where we “pointed fingers at an organisation for being in existence and believing what it does.”
On the day, in interview after interview, I said that we were not trying to change church doctrine, nor to interfere with anyone’s freedom to worship.
Your point that the organs of the state are now more attuned to the existence and needs of LGBTQI people is a simple observation, and does not entail the corrollory that we can now ignore the church, and concentrate all firepower on politicians.
It is a blatant false opposition to claim that protesting the EC is done at the expense of lobbying for the rights of the LGBTQI communtiy. How, precisely please, does one preclude the other?
The point you make about rights organizations being victims of ‘regulatory capture’ is a really important one that I completely agree with, but in this context, it is orthogonal to a criticism of yesterday’s protest.
I would never claim that all that Noise does is above criticism, and even that yesterday’s protest does not have some liabilities, but I do not believe that you have highlighted such flaws.
Your’s is a dissenting voice, and one that is most often raised in defence of the vulnerable and often voiceless minorities. This post, sadly in my opinion missed the opportunity to open a discussion about the merits and liabilities of our protest yesterday.
M.K.
Max you do actually have an opportunity here to discuss any merits/liabilities.
Indeed Ian, perhaps I should have phrased that last sentence differently.
However it is noticeable that you didn’t engage with the subjects preceding the last sentence.
Max you’re missing the point somewhat – You have an opportunity in this comments section to explain more about this whole thing. What you are doing is a) complaining there is no opportunity b) saying – well perhaps I shouldn’t have put it like that c) changing the subject to deflect the fact you’re not taking up the opportunity given to you.
@ Ian, unless you actually have something to say about the protest and its effects, this will be my last response.
I didn’t complain that there was ‘no opportunity’ for discussion, I said that Maman Poulet missed the opportunity to open a meaningful discussion about the plusses and minuses of the gathering.
Your little a) b) c) rundown contains no disussion about the protest either.
You are not engaging with the issue, and until you do, I will be disregarding your posts.
Max the Papal Nunciature is listed as an embassy by the Dept of Foreign Affairs. See page 62. It was something flung at us by some at the time of the protest 92/93 and we verified it then too.
Indeed that is true, and I think that the protest you were a part of was brave and correct, both ethically and politically.
I don’t know if you really believe that the legitimacy of a protest hinges on the designation of a building, but that seems to be what you are saying, and by extension, therefore, that the Sunday protest was illegitimate.
Please correct me if I am under a misapprehension.
GreAt post Suzy, I was wondering myself what exactly the target and substance of the protest was.
@max
Back in my youth I worked as a church organist and observed that increasingly, the clergy and many orthodox Catholics were getting fed up with the radical catholic right. They were increasingly denied access to church buildings and were very put out because they’re quite an entitled lot and saw themselves as the righteous saviours of Catholicism. A lot of people in the church didn’t and don’t like that.
Don’t make such wild assumptions about others, and maybe, just maybe, they might stop making such wild assumptions about you.
The interesting thing I found from talking to a lot of the individuals was that a lot of them are actually quite broken and damaged people and are actually in need of help. (well, sadly, it’s mostly mental health, but sometimes you’d see people who had other needs that were not being met).
@ Laura. I’d be happy to shed any ‘wild assumptions’. Please indicate assumptions I’ve put forward that fall into that category.