What of equality, rights and social justice?
Posted by Maman Poulet on 12 Oct 2009 at 12:42 am | Tagged as: Disability, Equality, Equality Authority, Green Party, Irish Politics
In the mid 90’s the joke about the Greens was that they didn’t care much about divorce once the fridge was disposed of correctly in the separation.
This was the opinion of many regarding Green Party commitment to social justice issues. I know that this is an unfair description with regard to many Green Party members and spokespersons. Ciaran Cuffe has spoken out frequently on matters of equality and been the target of much anger (including some from yours truly) regarding the cuts on equality and other government policies. There are many lesbians and gay men in membership in the Green Party and members with disabilities who are vocal on issues concerning equality.
The Green Party have been seen as the protectors of minorities and ‘champion’ of the marginalised in a coalition with Fianna Fáil. However after two years in power and now this renewed programme for government I think that description can be binned and probably created unfair expectations of a party of 6 TD’s. (I don’t think there will be a lot of lesbians and gay men voting for the Green Party next time around.)
I didn’t comment on the Renewed Programme for Government yesterday as I was busy covering the event and encouraging coverage and communication on the liveblog. Much has been written elsewhere about the aspirational nature of the document.
The introduction to the section on social affairs is entitled A More Caring and Just Society and is ripe for buzzword bingo in a time of fiscal rectitude.
Promoting care and a sense of personal responsibility for the welfare of others is one of society’s greatest moral challenges. In these straightened times we must avoid the temptation to retreat to self interest as a method of survival. We are obliged to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
A caring society respects its citizens equally while recognising their difference, it celebrates diversity.
The way we treat our sick is a true test of our values and the effectiveness of our social provision. The Government is determined to reform the healthcare system to improve the services to all people, regardless of income.
Where the unemployed, the young and the old need the safety net of Government support it will be provided as a matter of right. Childhood will be cherished as a special time requiring special protection.
The mentally ill, the disabled and the marginalised should not fear isolation. Our society should and must respect the right of our citizens equally while continuing to recognise their individual differences
I got a few messages yesterday whilst in the RDS asking me about the Equality section from friends who wondered if there was going to be a new Department of Culture and Equality. It seems there will be no such department and no commitment to reinstating the budget of the Equality Authority or the Irish Human Rights Commission.
Equality
· We will monitor, report annually and respond to the impact of the current
economic conditions on gender equality in employment, political participation, access to public services and care infrastructure, to ensure that gender equality continues to advance in difficult times.
· We will ensure the introduction of the Civil Partnership Bill to the Oireachtas before the end of 2009 and its early passage and implementation.
· We will review legislation in the area of guardianship, custody and access,
following the publication of the report of the Law Reform Commission Report
on Legal Aspects of Family Relationships.
· We will introduce legal recognition of the acquired gender of transsexuals.
· We will proceed, subject to appropriate Oireachtas approval, with proposals to hold a constitutional referendum to consider amending Article 41.2 of the
Constitution, broadening the reference to the role of women in the home to
one which recognises the role of the parent in the home.
That’s that then? And can someone let me know is the term ‘acquired gender’ the one in use by the transgendered or gender identity groups? It is not one that I would find respectful or understanding of the issues involved but I may be out of touch?
The Social Welfare section of the document is vague and troubling in it’s brevity. No mention of protection from forthcoming cuts. Nothing on child poverty and nothing on the cost of disability.
On disability there is a continued commitment to the National Disability Strategy (NDS). However if the commitment and policy action already displayed is to be taken as evidence of action in the future I doubt we’ll see much progress on the strategy. Millions has been cut from budgets for services for people with disabilities already with very little oversight or reaction.
Two points of note :
We will publish a “NDS Recession Implementation Plan”, central to
which will be the availability of accessible public and social services to
vindicate the rights of people with disabilities to full participation
within the State.
and
· We will advances measure [sic] to specifically strengthen collaborative
working across Departments, Public Bodies and the voluntary
disability sector to ensure person centred public service provision.
(Psst am I alone in noticing if you were to abbreviate the new commitment to the strategy on a recession plan for the NDS you would come up with NDS RIP. )
So anyone else bothered reading the document? Did you hear any Green Party spokesperson talking about the equality aspects of the programme? Will we hear from Fianna Fáil talk about it or defend it? It is after all their document also – though you’d be pushed to think about it that way after this weekend.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7840b254-dd5b-4ec3-8838-6b97284e9408)
I was at the conference, and equality issues form a large part of why I voted in favour of the document (indeed, they’re a big part of why I joined the party in the first place). While I’m not blinkered enough (yet!
) to think that this is a perfect document, I think your criticisms are a bit strained.
The first one about the creation of a Dept of Culture and Equality isn’t really a criticism, since the revised PfG simply doesn’t deal with departmental structure (for equality or any other issue). From what I’ve heard, that structural change is likely to happen after the upcoming reshuffle, and that’s more a matter of horse trading on the day, rather than a prior commitment in the PfG.
The second point about “acquired gender” is a fair one. I cringed a little bit when I read that phrase (although it does seem to be the term used in the 2004 UK act on the matter), but that’s not hugely important compared to the content of the sentence. It’s the creation of something which has been seriously lacking in Irish law, and creating a lot of nasty situations for transgendered people in Ireland and their families. This solves that, and even though the wording isn’t perfect (it’s doubtlessly the result of much political haggling early in the morning), it’s the effects and substance of the commitment that matter.
The third point you raise about the NDS is one which I don’t really get. There’s a new commitment to the NDS, and a commitment to adapting it (or its implementation) to the recession. If you’re understandably cynical about commitments to the NDS, then I don’t really see what kind of commitment could ever satisfy you. If a commitment with the promise of action isn’t good enough, what is? I don’t think that that’s a fair reason to criticise the document.
All that aside, this is a fairly good document. It’s not perfect, it’s not even great – but it does represent a serious set of concessions to the Greens, and some of those concessions are in the area you’re talking about. Far, far more importantly now, though, is the recognition that the Greens can now properly (thanks to the new electoral math) hold FF over a barrel on commitments in the PfG. Not only is this a set of new commitments, but it’s a set of new teeth for the party.
Yes, this is such a good set of concessions (is that all this was about?) for the Greens that FF felt it necessary to regain the initiative in this morning’s newspaper headlines.
I think MP is really referring to a lack of ambition on the part of the GP leadership in their renegotiation. Is that fair?
I had the same unease with the term “acquired gender” in the document, so I posted a query about that on the angrypotato forum, as there are a number of trans members there.
The reply I got (here) seemed to indicate that this was something of a legalism. It included:
“The problem is, from a pedantic legal point of view that is exactly what happens. For example, in the case of a transwoman in Ireland, you are currently legally male no matter what your physical form or social interactions are. To change this you have to become legally female and there is currently no way to do this.”
Still, though, it’s a term that to me seems fairly offensive.
Forgive me for being cynical Pidge but when you say
“It’s the creation of something which has been seriously lacking in Irish law, and creating a lot of nasty situations for transgendered people in Ireland and their families. This solves that, and even though the wording isn’t perfect (it’s doubtlessly the result of much political haggling early in the morning), it’s the effects and substance of the commitment that matter.”
A – No law has been created by this government
B – This solves absolutely no problems until their is legislation
C – The Civil Partnership Bill seems to ignore the issue of transgendered persons and how the law would effect them – indeed it would seem that if CP enacted it will actually cause many more legal problems for transsexuals
D – Their is absolutely no subtstance to the commitment – It’s a vague sentence – Their is no timeline – No decision to withdraw from appealing the Foy case, no commitment to look at UK Act and learn from the problems that they had, no commitment to meet with relevant groups such as TENI
Hey Ian,
A – That’s being a bit pedantic. When I said that this is the creation of something, you’re right, I wasn’t referring to the law being made itself. This is a commitment to create a law. Similarly, were I to point to the heads of a bill being a solution, you could say that it’s not a solution until it’s passed. You’d be technically correct, but I think that you’d be missing the point, which is one being made in the context of a discussion on this Programme.
I also think it’s a tad petty to claim that this is meaningless, especially considering the strong rate of implementation of previous Programmes, and how well over 60% of this government’s previous programme was implemented, in just under 50% of the lifetime of the government.
B – That seems to be the same point as the first.
C – The Civil Partnership Bill isn’t exactly a fantastic document, but I would have thought that any concept of legal recognition of the “acquired gender” of a person (to use that ugly term) would necessarily apply to something like CP.
D – Commitments on which groups to meet with and which acts to examine in order to decide on exact legislation aren’t usually included in PfGs. That’d be a fairly standard part of the consultative phase of most legislation. Look at other, similar documents for proof. The commitment is vague because this isn’t a legal contract, it’s an agreement between two parties which will be enforced by those two parties together. Were the sentence in question to be a contract, or a piece of legislation, it’d be a wholly inadequate phrase. As it’s not that, I think it’s a fair enough and simple phrase.
Pidge
Is the government still appealing the Foy case?