Category: Commentry

I noted the invitation to make a submission on the subject of a LGBTI inclusion strategy and would make the following comments. In general, I believe that Governments are good at rectifying technical issues and not good at social engineering. Legislation tends to be something of a blunt instrument and although social elements are present in tax and criminal law, they are best kept to a minimum. If there are still legal or tax inequalities then they should be addressed. For example, the issue of one partner being forced to testify against another as against the protection afforded to a married couple is something the legislature has to resolve (Lyons, 2019).

That society changes and presents new challenges is illustrated by the above example but the title of the Strategy relates to the LGBTI community and it would be interesting to know who is being included. A quick search on the Net comes up with something called the LGBTTQQIAA+ (Urban Dictionary, 2011) which is an acronym which I hope you understand because I don’t. I believe that the ‘+’ at the end is meant to be inclusive of any future group that may want to come in under the LGBTTQQIAA umbrella. I only mention this because the term in the Inclusion Strategy is imprecise, subject to constant change and open to political vagary.

There is another problem with the definition which is that it is not only open ended and ill-defined but when applied to both legislation and what might be called positive action, is subject to the principle of unintended consequences. In both cases it leads to exclusion and that is what Matthew Parris calls the Parris Principle. This states that, “statute cannot explicitly include without implicitly excluding.” (Parris, 2019) For example, this is true where a ‘hate crime’ “is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.” (Parris, 2019) In the UK there are five groups who are specially listed and if the Law Commission has its way misogyny will be added. In constructing a Strategy for one section of the community we run the risk of alienating the rest. Does this really matter in relation to the proposed strategy? We have seen, in other countries, the instability created by a population who believe that they are excluded from the political process. I would suggest that we saw a manifestation of this in the recent Presidential election in a response to the rather crass remarks by Peter Casey. By seeming to promote one section of the community over another we run the risk of creating a feeling of resentment in the wider community.

The proposed strategy also confirms some in the belief that government agencies are not neutral and even handed. This is evidenced by the intense lobbying of government by activists and minority interest groups where the debate does not seem to include the wider community. The Ashers case would seem to be an example of this. Those inclined towards conspiracy theories might see a connection between two gay customers each requesting a cake with a message supporting gay marriage from a Christian baker, on two continents. In the case of the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland they supported the gay customer all the way to the UK Supreme Court where they were defeated, 5-0 on a ‘compelled speech’ decision. To an observer it seemed that there was more a relationship of client and agent with the plaintive, rather than one of a neutral agency supporting equality for all.

The other strand to the Ashers case was the question of whether one part of the community has superior rights over other parts. In this case the plaintiff might have had a better case under the law of contract rather than equality but this was never really about a message on a cake but was all about pushing the boundaries. To my mind the sort of initiative proposed under the title LGBTI Inclusive Strategy runs the unintended risk of the perception being that the IRHREC and Dept. of Justice do not represent equality for all but only their clients.

• Conclusion
  • Governments are best correcting technical and legal inequalities in tax and employment law, for example
  • Legislation and ‘positive action’ are blunt instruments and are liable to the doctrine of unintended consequences.
  • Inclusive positive action or legislation means excluding someone.
  • There are a growing number of people who feel that they are not being listened to and a strategy of this kind is perceived to be confirmation of that belief.
  • It is difficult to establish a strategy for a group whose membership is open ended.
  • Do not become a hostage to an ideology
• Recognise the whole community rights when considering those of minority groups

 

 

References
Lyons, n. (2019, 1 31). Flanagan Told to Protect Couples. The Times, p. 4.
Parris, M. (2019). We’re on a Slippery Slope. The Times, 16.
Urban Dictionary. (2011, 3 15). Retrieved from https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=LGBTQQIAAP

You might not think that our current Minister for Transport is a person who just keeps on giving but to me he comes through every time. Whenever I am casting around for something to write about I take up the paper and look for anything Ross and there it is. His latest escapade is in relation to the abandonment of the Road Traffic (Minimum Passing Distance of Cyclists ) Bill which has had to be abandoned due to advice from the Attorney General that it is unenforceable.

There are two aspects of this debacle that are classic Ross. The first is that he believes that by merely passing legislation he solves a problem and in this case silences those irritating cyclists who keep pestering him about cyclists safety. Secondly, he ignored the research paper produced by the Road Safety Authority who found,” limited evidence to support the implementation of minimum passing distances legislation.”(Irish Times, 01/01/19) He must also have ignored ‘the dogs in the street’ who knew when it was first muted that it was totally impractical. Much head shaking accompanied the original proposal with locals measuring roads that barley allowed the passage of a horse and cart, much less than today’s 4 x 4. Having said this, why on earth did it take the State Attorney General to point out the obvious?

I would guess that Department of Transport officials have given up on Ross and left him in his own world where problems are solved by proclamation and not hard work. I suspect that it also goes for his Cabinet colleagues who are quite prepared for him to make a fool of himself. I have written before about the shambles that are the Road Traffic Acts and the whole system that needs to be overhauled but Minister Ross shows little inclination to tackle these failures. Perhaps in the forthcoming Cabinet reshuffle, Leo could appoint someone who is really concerned about the brief and send Ross to the board of RTE where he can do little harm.

Reference: The Irish Times, 01/01/19, David Labanyi, New Laws on Drivers Overtaking Cyclists Abandoned.

What are the chances that two gay couples go in to two conservative Christian Bakeries on two continents and order two cakes to be inscribed with a message supporting gay marriage? Well you probably know the answer to this but in case you don’t I will continue the tale. Predictably, the two bakeries reject the order explaining that it is against their religious principles to support gay marriage and equally predictably each gay couple take a case against the Bakeries with their respective Equality Agencies claiming discrimination. The cases go through a number of iterations with the governments funding the claimants and the Bakeries having to appeal for funding from the general public to support their defence. What do you think so far, Gay conspiracy or pure coincidence?

Well, as usual, I will go for the middle ground and suggest that this was just a copy cat case, stopping short of suggesting a co ordinated attack on religious beliefs over two continents. How did the respective Supreme Courts decide the case? In both Courts they found for the bakers but there were significant differences in the ratio decidendi  of their judgements. In the US the Supreme Court skirted the issue of Freedom of Speech and decided by a count of 7 – 2 that the Equity Agency that first tried the case and defended the plaintiffs, were themselves prejudiced. The judgement was drawn quite narrowly and focussed on the facts of this case and was reported as follows: “Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion turned on the argument that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which originally ruled against the baker, had been shown to be hostile to religion because of the remarks of one of its members. “(New York Times,04/06/18)

In contrast the UK Supreme Court found by a unanimous verdict of 5 – 0 that, “Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, Hale added. “This court has held that nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe.”(The Guardian, 10/10/18) The judgement splits the facts of the case into two halves. The Bakery did not refuse to serve the couple because they were Gay. There was no issue in respect to selling any of the goods on display and the Court clearly recognises this.

Ashers did not discriminate against Gareth Lee …. because he was gay. They agreed to make him a cake but refused to decorate it with the pro gay marriage wording he requested. Peter Tatchell

The plaintiffs were not refused service because they were gay and therefore the actions of the bakers was passive. However, trying to  make the bakers express a political opinion  against their will was an active infringement of the bakers rights. This would appear to be self evident and although the Court went to great lengths to support current equality legislation, it clearly refused to grant superior rights over those who did not agree to promote their ideology. Peter Tatchell makes the point that we need to look at the implications of a ruling against the Bakers, ” If the Supreme Court had ruled against them, it would mean that a Muslim printer would be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed and a Jewish printer could be required to publish a book that propagates  Holocaust denial.” (Peter Tatchell)

This would appear to be such a common sense ruling that a person on the Clapham Omnibus would have seen the logic very quickly yet the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland spent £250,000 of public money supporting the plaintiffs. A Spokesman for the Commission said, “We are very disappointed. This judgment leaves a lack of clarity in equality law.” (The Guardian) I would argue that the Supreme Court has established an important principal of personal freedom and that the only thing that needs to be clarified is the role of the Commission. Was it establish to promote fairness and equality for all or just the interests of it’s clients?

 

references: The Times, 11/10/18, Peter Tatchell, Judges Ruling on Gay Marriage Cake is Victory for Freedom.

New York Times, 04/06/18, Adam Liptak, In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court sides with Baker….

The Guardian, 10/10/18, Owen Bowcott, UK Supreme Court backs Bakers ….

I was out to lunch recently and as the alcohol count went up, the temperature of the discussion increased and the willingness to defend absolutely untenable positions became crucial.  The subject matter whipped around current news, visiting matters Trump on a couple of occasions (Is there an equivalent to Godwins Law that encompasses DT?) and for a short time settled on the Health Service. One of the requirements of this sort of discourse is that none of the participants is expert on the subject which gives a certain amount of latitude to the debate. At one point we were each asked, ‘If you were appointed Minister of Health, what would be your first action?” There were a number of responses to this that have been lost in the haze but it was a question that came back to me as I was listening to Simon Harris introducing Sláintecare. I wonder whether his first action on appointment  was to wonder what he had done wrong in a prior existence to deserve the Department of Health posting.  On the same day that  the discussion  took place there was more fall out from the Cervical Cancer debacle: more GP’s leaving the country; over a million waiting for hospital appointments; more people on trolleys and so on. The only thing that was consistent was the call for more and more money from all of the stakeholders in the Health industry.

Earlier this year there was the trolley crisis and I remember a lunchtime radio presenter promising to read out the number of patients on trolleys every day until the problem was solved. Perhaps I misunderstood her because I don’t hear her publicising the numbers any more. Today we have new problems that remind us that in simple economic terms we have insatiable wants and limited resources. When the lunchtime program was on the subject of the crisis in A&E we heard a number of theories as to how to deal with it. What I didn’t hear was any in depth analysis on patient through-put, broken down by type of incident. What I kept hearing was the number of patients on trolleys and even this figure was different from that published by the HSE. What I kept asking the radio was for some basic data giving the type of medical emergencies of those presenting to A&E. I heard two doctors interviewed saying that every patient attending had a legitimate reason for being there but we all know someone who has been told by their GP to attend A&E to avoid long delays for MRI scans, for example. It would be interesting to know how many trolley patients were discharged as soon as a Doctor could get to them or, how many just needed to sleep it off.

This is not my normal rant but a genuine doubt as to whether the Minister or the management of the HSE understand the drivers and demands of healthcare today. I understand that the Health Service cannot be run like a business but when we see a long term plan being published without costings it ceases to be a plan and becomes something aspirational and full of good intentions  and we know what  the road to Hell is paved with. At this point I should say that I have a great regard for those healthcare  professionals working at the coal face but I get an impression of an organisation that is rudderless, lacking in energy, accident prone and moribund. I also get a sense of segmental interests fighting against each other for a slice of an ever increasing budget. I hope that I am wrong and that there are current, relevant and robust figures and costings on which a plan can be based and that there isn’t a form of internecine warfare responsible for a black hole into which more taxpayers funds are sucked.

To get back to the original question of what I would do if appointed Minister, I would look for current, relevant and robust data that gave me a good sense of where the organisation is and what the plans are. I am not talking about yet another report from one of the top accounting firms. I am talking about data properly targeted and obtained by multi discipline teams from within the Health Service. There are a number of benefits to this approach firstly, the poacher turned gamekeeper effect where all the old hiding places are known. Secondly, if the team dynamic is good then cross discipline and cross health centre  contacts are made and best practise procedures are implemented. If management trust their own staff, implementation of ‘quick wins’ will continue to build trust between them. Of course this will need extra funds  and the other front that has to be addressed is the taxpayers view that increased funds go into a money pit that benefits everyone but patients. The Minister and HSE have to have a dialogue with the taxpayer that not only looks for more funding but takes full responsibility for implementation, supports investments with value for money data and publishes follow up audits to ensure that targeted gains are achieved. In the UK the Minister for Prisons has promised to resign if, in a year,  improvements are not made in 10 prisons taking part in a pilot scheme to reduce drug taking and violence. (Irish Times 21/08/18)

What about it Simon, prepared to ‘nail your colours to the mast’ and for a change make a meaningful promise to the Health service and its clients?

 

Reference: Irish Times, 21/08/18, Denis Staunton. World News

 

We all know the following quote from Edmund Burke and understand its meaning, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” It was running through my mind as I read an article written by Janice Turner. (The Times, 04/08/18) In it she discussed the current shift to the right in European and US politics and how the Liberal centrist community should approach this phenomenon. She describes the hatred and fury that drives the leaders of these groups that would not have been out of place in 1930’s Munich. There is also a recognition that the left has similar issues with Corbynites weirdly unable to shake off the antisemitism that seems to be embedded in some parts of Labour. The shocking Sunday Times research findings that 24% of UK respondents would vote for a far right anti immigration party gives cause for concern. Even though polls should be treated with some scepticism Questionaires any number in the 20%’s is significant. Turner argues that the ‘new wave’ rightists bypass the traditional media and peddle their ‘truths’ unchallenged on the net, claiming that they have been silenced by the traditional media for one conspirital reason or another.

Turner poses the question how do we react to this seismic change in society? One method is to ignore it and as she says of one of the ‘new rightist’  we could, “Cast him out to the nutty fringes no-platform and ignore him, keep his views off our airways cut the publicity oxygen pipe and hope he chokes.” (The Times, 04/08/18)  I agree with Turner that it is wrong  to simply ‘do nothing’ in the face of this threat to our way of life. However, what has worked in the past was to bring the extremists into the open where they have to confront issues in the traditional media, especially television. Where I disagree with the article is that it focuses exclusively on the Right and given the antics and sinister organisations representing them, it is easy to see why. However,  I think that there is a wider problem that needs to be addressed. The more fundamental issue is to restore public trust in Politicians and Journalists. If we go back to the Sunday Times questionnaire the voters who said that they would vote far right were described as, ‘politically unserved.’ I would suggest that this class of citizens include the 52% white female vote for Trump; those who did not see the benefits accruing from the EU in the Brexit debate and the basis of the People before Profit and the rise of Sinn Féin in Ireland.

The combination of social media, the Bank failures and the shift toward identity politics has left a disconnect between the traditional media, centrist political parties and the people they are supposed to serve. The perception that a class of people at the top escaped the worst effects of the crash cannot be wholly rebutted. There is a further perception that some groups are given victim status at the expense of others and to question either is commit some form of blasphemy. All this, added to other unresolved social issues finds a home where these feelings of abandonment are enflamed. Turner challenges us, ” Do we sit in our self affirming twitter Pods, muting and blocking opinions counter to our own …. ” She thinks that Journalists should go on the offensive and not allow anti democratic forces an easy path. Is the current media fit for purpose?                  Turner sympathises with entities like the BBC who try to keep a balanced view but end up trying, “in a hand wringing, liberal way to address a significant strain of public opinion without causing offense.” This is part of the problem and Turner and others have to also look at a Liberal ideology that has done much to create the demons that she warns us against.  I like her style, especially when she says, “The best weapon against unreason is for journalists to do their jobs.” Are Janice Turner and her like only going to see ‘unreason’ to her right or, is she prepared to look hard at what some would say are  the new Puritans of the Centre and Left and take them on with equal fervour.

 

 

references: Edmund Burke Quotes, https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/17142.Edmund_Burke           The Times, 04/08/17, Janice Turner, We can’t Ignore Cult of Tommy Robinson

I try to avoid commenting on Brexit as it has been ‘done to death’ a number of times in the media and in political debate. I was rather a weak remainer who hoped that the EU might revert back to it’s EEC roots and that we might actually implement  the rules of  subsidiarity which were promised, post Lisbon. However, I wasn’t really surprised when the concept was quietly ditched and Brussels supplanted sound economic principle with expansionist doctrine. There are parts of the debate which still ‘raise hackles’ and put the television in grave danger. One of them is that it is all too complicated for the ordinary person to understand and therefore there should never have been a vote.

I take exception on a number of levels. Firstly, when I look at the assemblage of UK MP’s, Irish TD’s and UK and Irish MEP’s all I can say is that the bar isn’t set very high. Of course, in the main, they don’t understand it either but are advised by professionals who do. These are people who share an elite international  western culture with their continental bureaucrats. I rather like the following interplay between Sir Humphrey and the Minister on how the elite really see the voters and Politicians,                                                                                                                                “James Hacker: This is a democracy, and the people don’t like it.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: The people are ignorant and misguided.
James Hacker: Humphrey, it was the people who elected me!
[Humphrey nods] ……”  (Yes Minister, 1981)                                                                     It seems that people can be trusted to vote on issues that are matters of real life and death as in the Abortion Referendum in Ireland. I also seem to recall that people voted on access to the EEC and therefore why are they not qualified to vote on whether to leave?  In General Elections people vote for Governments not detailed policies and a large chunk of the UK did not feel the love from the eurocrats.  Finally, would you buy a used car from these ‘experts’ who didn’t see the crash coming, even though they were employed to do so and scurried for cover whilst others had to pay the bill.

At this point the PC is in danger and I will return to the article that started this train of thought. Clare Foges wrote an article headlined, ‘EU was always going to Punish UK’ (The Times,7/08/18) making the point that the EU was more concerned with holding the Union together than doing a deal with the UK. I think that there are no surprises there but her conclusion is interesting and worth quoting, “Britain was always going to scrape a deal that would leave us worse off than before, or no deal that will take us God knows where. The writing was always on the wall. That’s why Brexit was always a terrible idea.” One of those foolish Brexiteers might say that with friends like the EU, better out now and take the consequences than to continue until it is too late. Not necessarily my opinion but not as clear cut as Clare Fogas would have us believe.

 

 

References: The Times,7/08/18, Claire Foges, EU was always going to Punish UK for Brexit, Yes Minister, BBC, 1981, Anthony Jay and Jonathon Lynn

I had cause to contact IT support by chat line recently. This is the second time I have had to chat to them with separate problems and I feel stupid and clumsy in an environment that I do not understand. They mention a couple of fix’s and I respond with a question that means I haven’t got a clue. In fact, I apologise for my ignorance and place myself in the position of a supplicant rather than a customer who has a problem and wants it fixed. I can almost hear the sigh from the ‘consultant’ who has to change down a gear to accommodate the simpleton who shouldn’t really have been allowed to buy the product in the first place. I hasten to add that they were very polite and I acknowledged this on the questionnaire that popped up as I exited the chat line. I gave them full marks for their knowledge and courtesy but the question that was missing was, ‘did they resolve the problem?’

I am always ready to give an opinion, as you can tell from this site and it is also reflected in the fact that I have signed up to answer questionnaires with a leading market survey company. Occasionally, they are interesting and relate to social or, political issue but they are mainly concerned with marketing spend but are framed in such a way that they dodge the hard question. For example, there are lots of questions asking you to rate one supermarket against another but you have no experience of three out of the five alternatives but there is no option to state this. ‘ Rate the shopping experience with X. Is it A) better than the others; B) a great experience; C) A shop for my type of people; D) I wish I could move in and live there.’ Well no, I go there because my car can drive there by  itself and get parking. The pricing is competitive and I can be in and out in an hour. Where is the button  for that?

I hope that great marketing strategies are not made on the basis of my replies and investments made or, people laid off as a result. In most cases the marketing surveys are made by marketers’ to justify advertising spend and do not ask key questions especially for everyday products.  I am sure that we are all influenced by advertising, although at this stage I have built up a pretty effective filter which means I always fail in matching the advert with the product bit of the questionnaire. The survey company that sends me questionnaires has a very good reputation and is often quoted as the source of statistics in national debates but by contributing to some of the surveys it has made me question the methodology used and conclusions drawn from some of the  data.

Isn’t it odd how you half listen to something on the radio and  suddenly realise that something was said that tweaked your sub conscious . The conversation has passed it by but there was something. So it was that I was listening to the Economist Podcast that had an item on the World Cup. I say,’The World Cup’ but the commentator had introduced it as the ‘MENs World Cup’. I am pretty sure that there wasn’t another World Cup that had slipped through the media net and that nearly everyone would have associated the term The World Cup with the tournament that the French team won only a few days previously. If the addition of the word men to the title did not add anything to the listeners understanding of the piece, then why add it. At a time when a President has demonstrated how a small change in a sentence can change the meaning, what are we to make of the Economists addition?