Is the government still appealing the Foy case?

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.

“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

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.

I think MP is really referring to a lack of ambition on the part of the GP leadership in their renegotiation. Is that fair?

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.