Tonight I am speaking at a meeting where Michael D Higgins will be talking about equality. A number of people who are passionate about equality were asked if they would speak at the meeting and endorse his candidacy. I didn’t hesitate.
It’s no surprise to many that I would have long been a fan of Michael D Higgins as a politician, thinker and public figure. Having observed the candidates and names that have been thrown around in the past few months it’s clear we have to truly respect the position and it’s actual possibilities and limitations. Its not about a party vote and indeed my support is not support of the Labour Party, particularly given the lack of commitment to equality and social justice that is emerging as a theme of the new government and their role in it.
I respect Michael D Higgins and his personal commitment to equality and justice. When I think of who I want to be representing the country, thinking aloud and observing both the good and worrying things about Ireland then I would rather have Michael D speaking to the nation than someone who pretends they were inclusive or doesn’t have the political experience needed to make good decisions. The post is not about entitlement but it is about earned and maintaining respect.
We will soon have a real campaign and the shadow boxing of nominations will be over. I’m looking forward to it. I hope we see an end to the damage to the role which this early part of the campaign has done.
Tonight I will be speaking about equality and disabled people and why despite the boom and now particularly in the bust the position of people with disabilities in society remains low and the use of the images of disability and cuts do nothing to improve our standing in society.
Violence (both by the state and others) against people with disabilities increases in all forms as the clamber for the worst off emerges and the lexicon around disability talks of shirkers, stupid, unemployable, and carers and the jobs of staff in the sector instead of the right to live a life of one’s choosing with all rights protected. Many continue to be hidden away in institutions and homes and promises are broken. The Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities reported in 1996. Most of the commitments have not been fully implemented or are being reneged on and I doubt that it’s money or the lack of it that is the excuse for our failure as a society. I look forward to the chance to speak with Michael D and others tonight on this and other issues.
The problem with that view is that like it or not a vote for Michael D Higgins is a vote for Labour. And he hasn’t, to my knowledge, uttered a single word of criticism of the programme for government, the “lack of commitment to equality and social justice”, the privatisation agenda, the slavery “jobbridge” scheme, Burton’s mania for persecuting people on the Dole or any of the other malevolence the Labour Party are inflicting on the country.
I’m really not that interested in how good he is at giving waffly aspirational speeches. And neither am I that interested in his record as a radical in the dim and distant past. He’s running as a Labour candidate and he hasn’t distanced himself from Labour policy, so a vote for him is a vote for the government just as much as a vote for that nasty piece of work Mitchell.
Great post. Hope you’re heard by the Labour heads & others.
While I’m of two minds regarding Michael D, I definitely enjoyed reading your article. I do have a question though.
You mention the post is not about entitlement yet also refer to disliking candidates lacking political experience. Are you opining that candidacy for the Presidency should be restricted based on previous political acheivement alone?
It would seem to me to be a very restrictive criteria on which to judge potential candidates who may otherwise legitimately contribute to the office and nation.
And the political animal is baaaaacckkkkk!!
Yes to Michael D for President. From what little I know, he is an honourable man and the thoughtful, pragmatic sort of intellectual that would bring grace to the office. We will be voting Labour as usual. As we have a by-election, we’ll also be voting for Cllr Nulty, who I vaguely remember from TCD as being a sound guy.
I’m both angry and heartily sickened by the celebritization of the Presidency by these non-entities, the hubris of Norris tonight, and the complete failure of the FF leader to stop the shenanigans within his own dismal party, both of which have discredited the electoral process.
This is about the person we elect and Mark I wondered if you had read the rest of Suzy’s blog and noted that she’s been one of the people citing concerns about Jobbridge from the start? Also I saw Suzy speak tonight and she pointed to the coming attacks on disabled people and the failure of this and previous governments to truly address the rights of people with disabilities and others.
The Presidency is very important despite the efforts of Norris and others (aka the media) to downgrade it. We’re not electing a government, we’re electing a person to be head of state, for all of us.
MDH has an impeccable record but I’m reserving judgement on his central themes for the Presidential race. In setting his stall out at Glenties I don’t think he once referred to equality or inequality; ‘inclusion’ featured prominently, dignity occasionally, and his record on human rights (admirable). Equality appears to have become a dirty word associated with socialism and until a candidate is brave enough to publicly grasp that nettle, his conviction on the matter must be questioned. Speaking in generalities is politically astute, but not enough.
“What must be recognised however is that liberal equality policies in fields such as
education or employment will not create a really inclusive society because of the
internal logic of liberal policies themselves. Social mobility, which is the mantra of
liberal equality politics, is fundamentally about recycling injustices, moving a small
number of poorer people, disabled people, Travellers or women up the social
ladder. The evidence is that few of those on top ever move down so there is literally
no room on the top step.
Both logically and socially it is impossible for liberal democratic policies to promote
substantive and robust forms of equality as they are premised on the assumption
that hierarchies are inevitable. Those in positions of power and wealth will protect
their own interests unless they are seriously challenged by law and policy. There is
compelling evidence that those at the table of privilege only allow others to sit with
them when their own needs are satisfied and privilege has advanced to another
level.”
- Kathleen Lynch, http://www.tascnet.ie/showPage.php?ID=3138&PHPSESSID=2caeef6af937cd652cac48d1c2a6ae78
not achievement – experience Oisin. Some of the candidates are treating it like a series of xfactor – aided by the press of course but there are tinges of beauty comp and ageism coming in and the political reform mantra which dismisses all public service is something I can’t support.
Sorry while I do accept that Michael D is suitable as a candidate he is tarnished by his lack of outrage at the Governments agenda. The Office of President should not be a badge of honour handed out amongst the political elite but a position open to everyone in our society who can genuinely bring credit to the office. The goings on of the nominations is proof if ever it was needed that the political party system controls selection and the wishes of the electorate are of no consequence. The office of the President should not as some state be as a spokesperson for the Government but it should be as defender of the constitution and the people against a repressive government is that not what our founding fathers had in mind.
‘Turning Inclusion into a Reality’ // Oct 31, 2011 at 01:26
[...] This mention in the interview nearly made me reach for the tissues again. It was one of the challenges I laid before him last month during the meeting on the the theme of equality where I was proud to endorse his candidature. [...]