Mick Clifford: Difficult to see how the next Government will make us any better off
Was Joint On The Chaired Rae Mittee By Healy Deputy Dying Michael Assisted
New Year, new government. But how much are things going to change? If there is any sense of urgency at all, the next government should be in place before this month is out. We know the shape it will take. The two Civil War parties are to be complimented by the now seven-member group of regional independents and a pair of Healy Raes.
The interesting aspect to this coalition is how exactly will the tail of the independents and Healy Raes wag the dog of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Or, more accurately, how will the tail silence the dog.
Three of the issues that remain unresolved from the last Dáil are the constitutional amendment on women in the home, hate speech legislation, and proposals to legislate for assisted dying. All of these are contentious and have attracted genuine concerns. They have also been used by some elements as convenient weapons in the culture wars.
Those who see themselves as opposing anything ‘woke’ — a word that is misused to the point of being a term of abuse — attempt to elevate matters like these way beyond their real meaning. Many among the TDs in the forthcoming government’s tail would consider themselves to proudly be opposed to ‘wokeiness’ in all its forms. Despite that, and irrespective of the extremes in both sides of the culture wars, any democracy that describes itself as developed should have to address these three issues in a grown-up manner.
Look first at the failed referendum last March. The primary premise for the poll was to amend a constitution which sets out that “the State recognises that by her life within the home, women gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”. Instinctively, most people feel that does not reflect modern society, either in terms of women’s role vis a vis the workplace nor of the State being serious about supporting women to remain in the home if they so wish.
The referendum was heavily defeated. The government — and all other parties except Aontu — had thought it was a done deal. The wordings were sloppy and phrases like “durable relationships” unexamined. So it was lost. Will the incoming government be willing to expend any political capital in modernising the constitution or will it just provide an Irish solution to an Irish problem? In any event, even if the main parties of government are minded to effectively update the constitution, there is every likelihood the regional independents would kick up.
What of the promised hate speech law? Following the referendum defeat on an entirely different matter, the last government quite obviously decided to park any moves on introducing hate speech legislation appropriate to a modern, western democracy. Frequently, members of various minorities are subjected to abuse, both online and in person. Other countries accept that this is wrong and can have a corrosive effect on society at large. As a result, all of these countries have implemented laws to properly police hate speech. The only law here dates from 1989, a different country in terms of minorities or ethnic diversity.
The outgoing Minister for Justice Helen McEntee decoupled the hate speech element from a bill that also included hate crime. The latter was passed and came into effect last Tuesday. But what of hate speech now? Are we going to leave things as they are if the independents deign this matter to fall into the category of ‘woke’?
Another issue that went unresolved in the last Dáil was that of assisted dying. Again, countries around the world have recognised this is a primal matter that requires attention. Late last year the UK became the latest to introduce legislation which is destined to lead to major debate in the houses of parliament. At least they are actually debating it which is more than is being done here.
Former People Before Profit TD Gino Kenny was a driving force behind this matter. A special Oireachtas committee produced a report last year recommending that legislation was required. Out of the fourteen members on the committee, nine agreed with the report, two others demurred, and another three produced a minority report, rejecting the majority’s conclusions.
Among those who are against any such legislation was the committee’s chair, Michael Healy Rae. He said at the time that his “belief is that God brings you into this world, God brings you out of it”. Are religious beliefs a sufficient basis on which to reject legislating for this issue? Presumably, all parties would be — or at least should be — obliged to allow a free vote on something like this but pretending it’s not an issue is an abrogation of a basic responsibility.
The opposition to assisted dying is complicated. Some, including this columnist, could be persuadable but have concerns for any societal fall-out down the line that might devalue life. This requires major safeguards but is not impossible and has featured in legislation in other countries.
The other two matters, the amendment and hate speech law, appear to have attracted particular ire on the basis or how gender features in the proposals. Gender has been the central issue in the culture wars between an authoritarian stain of the left and the religious or conservative right. Neither is representative of the great swathe of people who don’t subscribe to either extreme and the conflict should not be allowed to interfere in responding to needs and mores in the modern world.
Yet the smart money says that these issues are likely to be longfingered because each and all of them could raise problems with elements of the tail, and the main parties will shy away from expending any political capital on them.
The corresponding tail in the outgoing government — The Greens — had a major influence on the administration. The party managed — as it had promised — to get legislation implemented that recognised the perils of climate change. The Greens’ fidelity was to policy and that cost them in the end, not least because other political entities saw that they could be scapegoated for the changes that are required, both legally and morally.
There will be no such fear of policy driving the incoming tail. In all likelihood, their influence will be in what will not get done rather than attempting to implement laws to effect positive change. They most certainly will not be driven by a vision about how they would like to see the country develop if any such vision discommodes even a single potential voter. In that respect, at least this will be a very different government but it’s difficult to see how the country, present or future, will be better off as a result.