Compacted

I've a hard time pigeonholing Gerry Adams. Is he a man of destiny, who brought the extremists in from the cold? Is he a wily tactician, guiding Sinn Fein to reclaim the Republican mainstream in the south? Or is he the man best qualified to demonstrate what a cat's bum looks like by puckering his lips and holding his arm over his head? One thing's for certain, in the realm of details, he has as good a grip on them as Enda Kenny. And that doesn't bode well for anyone.

Nothing in the world of politics makes my heart leap with joy as much as a politician debating with the facts, or some convincing notion thereof. Even if it's tenuous from one end to the other. If it's watertight, if it possesses elegant logic, wrapped up in a bow of oratory ribbons, then stick me in the front row with popcorn and a copy of Thomas Paine's Common Sense. One thing is clear, though. There is not a single politician of note in the mainstream who has the savant-like grasp of data to win an argument, the skill to apply cool analysis and clear, concise language to discuss the topics of the day. There isn't even a decent rabble-rouser who can read his staffer's cheat notes these days. There is, not to put too fine a point on it, a distinct lack of politicians who can explain what the hell is going on. Not least, in the realm of Europe, not least the Fiscal Treaty.

To some, the Fiscal Compact sounds like an obscure brand of makeup. Some may even think it is. Very few might be able to explain what is in this short treaty, and even fewer will vote on its merits. As short as it is, 24 pages, as straightforward as it might be, we'll never know, cos we won't read it. To our detriment, we won't get a politician hard working enough or articulate enough to earn their wage and make a decent case for or against it. Enter big Gerry from Belf...I mean Louth.

Adams had to come clean when accused by FG's Paschal Donoghue of misrepresenting the views of leading Irish economists: Quotes were taken out of context, characterizing them as arguing against the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance. They were all, in fact, of the view that this treaty was the only show in town as far as ending the Eurocrisis was concerned. Cue Adams explaining that yes, it was arse, but, but, but. Cue also the sound of someone from his office opening up the Evening Herald Jobs Section.

This scene made Adams, whose place in history is assured, look like a rank amateur, and that maybe one day he wouldn't have his biography discussed by Mary Wilson some weekday evening. If Sinn Fein is to be a viable alternative to the current government, if it is to eclipse the carrion rump of FF, then it needs to know more, say more, make more sense and generally not come across like a bunch of gobshites who came down with the last shower. As Richard Boyd Barrett learned this week, when even Enda Kenny can score cheap debating points off you, that's not a good sign.

Richard Boyd Barrett in heated debate with Kenny (right)

In the head-to-head between the Adams and Kenny, the best beard and the best barnet in the Dail, Kenny was putting it up to Adams to defend his claim that the treaty would drive the destiny of the Irish electorate into the hands of unelected officials in Brussels or elsewhere. Adams' claim is obviously hokum. That EU train left the station some time ago. Moreover the treaty, a rerun of the stability pact supposedly agreed prior to the Euro's introduction, requires more than just a vacant soundbite. Similarly, Kenny's assertion that our little vote has nothing to do with anyone else in the whole wide world is also nonsense: Yes, it is interrelated with the Dutch elections, the German regional elections, the future of Merkozy (as long as THAT lasts) and more importantly, with the future of the country, which at any rate has been index-linked to continental Europe since 1973.

The vote is on the 31st of May. So far, a convincing argument for or against the treaty has been absent from the discourse. Since we can't even trust our politicians to tell us what to do, we may actually have to get up of our lazy, apathetic backsides and read the thing ourselves.

If you want to, you can read it here. Or print it out and Pritt-Stick it to your TD's head.

Fornication: First Offence.

I have to be perfectly honest. I love the whole renaissance for the 1980's and 90's. Wham Bars are back in the shops and I get to wear skinny yellow jeans without much risk of a beating. I even woke up this morning with Spandau Ballet stuck in my head.

What I don't love, in fact, what I hate, is the refrying of the X-Case judgement. In particular Michelle Mulherin's contribution to parliamentary democracy last week, when she managed, either by design or disaster, to make the X-Case an issue of sex and morality in society. Clearly the X-Case has about as much to do with sex and morality in society as sock puppets have to do with drive-by shootings. When saying something, we must remember to to be clear. A government, Helmut Schmidt once said, cannot be built on ambiguities. And definitely not, one might add, on plain confusion. Hats off to the Dail Technical Group, who showed the cojones no government since the early 90s has been able to show in attempting to enact legislation based on a Supreme Court judgement - Government by the book according to due process as set out in the constitution.

In making this bold step, however, they have opened the door to opponents of abortion in any circumstances to reopening the debate on the X-Case. Whilst they have the mic, they'll attempt to set the reset button on society's mores using this most inappropriate of contexts, namely legislation that emanates from a rape case.

Mulherin did exactly this, whether she likes it or not. In her use of the term 'fornication' to describe sex outside of marriage, she made a judgement call on those whose behaviour differs from hers. To say, 'Hey guys, there's a real problem with the way society has not recognized the repercussions of letting people do what they like without considering the consequences', is one thing, but she didn't do that. And this wasn't the place to do what she did.

The X-Case has been characterized by its opponents as legislation proposed to let people get off the hook for being in difficulty. Unfortunately for her, this goes against what she has said about the X-Case: that is, that she's accepts the judgement.


To prove a point, here, with thanks to broadsheet.ie, below is a key excerpt from Mulherin's interview with Brendan O'Connor last night on RTE TV, just to prove the point.

Mulherin: “I accept the X case in the sense that it decided that in a situation where the mother’s life was at risk then in that limited circumstance there could be a termination.

O’Connor: “And only in that limited circumstance?”

Mulherin: “Yes.”

Nothing too nutty there. Mulherin's point about our society was indeed valid: did we allow for freedom of choice to exist without the ability to consider the consequences? Do people have an adequate sense of personal responsibility in their actions, particularly in the most intimate context possible for a person? Are the Irish now a little too flaithulach for a fling and damn the consequences? The problem is, that this wasn't what she did. She dug out her old vinyl collection and played Des Hanafin's Greatest Hits at full blast instead. Now the neighbours are complaining and we all have to go to work tomorrow.

I don't mind people using religion to consider moral questions (I do, sometimes). I don't mind people being against abortion (nobody wins from it). What I object to is discourse which is ill conceived, ill expressed and ill defined; which is emotive, emotional and conducted with murky motives. Mulherin couldn't recognize the seriousness of the debate she was participating in and chose instead to use a word (fornication) which any fool can tell you has a negative connotation, to make her own point. She is a law graduate and is extremely articulate. You can't tell me she didn't realize that when choosing her words in the Dail last week, that she would cause a ruckus. Instead of raising an important issue in its own context, she made a judgement, in my view mischievously and without full respect for the debate that was at hand. And she made it when it was neither warranted nor appropriate.   

It's now 20 years since the X-Case. We have not progressed one bit since then, nor have we improved the standard of debate on this or any other issue. Intelligent, mature debate on serious questions, on issues which are immediately pressing, seems as far off from being realized as the X-Case judgement will be passed into law. Instead we have been treated to this tawdry sideshow. Thanks, Shelly!

No Job for a Lady

Watching Enda Kenny's speech at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis last weekend, mercifully less sub Kenneth Williams than usual, one thing struck me. Look around him. Right next to him, the dissidents, Simon Coveny, a knackered Richard Bruton and Lucinda Creighton. More striking still, of the twenty odd people sitting around him, bar five people, they were all men. In the words of Police Academy - "Johnsons, Lassard, as far as the eye can see." There's not a large representation of women in the Dail, 25 in all, 15% of the population of the Lower House. (See http://www.nwci.ie/blog/) The question is, why?

Penelope Keith plays an MP in 'No Job For A Lady'. 
Now get back in that kitchen and make us a rasher sangidge!

It seems odd, given that women are among the brightest minds in the Dail - Lucinda Creighton, brooding in the front row left of Enda, has been appallingly overlooked over the years. Rosin Shortall flexed her intellectual muscles in committees in the last Dail. In the past we had Liz O'Donnell, Olwyn Enright, Gemma Hussey, even, Mary O'Rourke and Mary Hanafin displayed considerable intellectual rigour in their time. Joan Burton was the Opposition Finance voice in the last Dail, when FG couldn't even decide who was leading the party.

In the shakedown following the last election, women remain underrepresented in Enda's government. But why?

Is it because:

• He's the fairest one of all?
• They're all taller than him?
• He has shoe envy?
• He doesn't want people with a better hair than him at the cabinet table?

I reckon this under-representation is because of a deeply ingrained institutional sexism, compounded by an deeper ingrained hostility in Irish politics towards education and cultivation. In our political class, does intellectualism hold the currency it does in the rest of Europe? Absolutely not. And it is the habitus of Leinster House, an unthinking 'it's always been this way' mindset.

Easy personal advancement in Irish politics is predicated on two things: expedience and (institutional) experience, and both genders have been complicit in this evolution. Being articulate, being well educated and intellectual is bad enough, but being female as well? No way.

So Joan Burton, loses out to Noonan and Howlin, so Creighton has to follow some truly uninspiring men around Brussels despite knowing her brief and knowing Europe better than anyone in the current government, with the exception of Noonan.

But this isn't just about women. Think of all the clever men who have lost out over the years because of this attitude towards intellect: Noel Brown, Justin Keating, James Dillon, David Andrews (Ray Burke's understudy!), Brian Lenihan Jr., who only belatedly got the nod from Bertie, and Martin Mansergh. All either didn't make it, or made it too late, and only when all other options were exhausted. Many more have avoided politics altogether and worked in the private sector.

It was Dr. Garret Fitzgerald who wrote in the journal Studies in 1964 about Ireland's prevailing hostility towards intellectualism. Each woman and man mentioned above is an intellectual on some level. The choice for them is a short lived career, the middle rung of junior ministerships, slumming it with with the backwoodsmen of this world, or rot in the Seanad making excellent speeches no one will hear, as Mary Robinson and Ivana Bacik have had to endure. Robinson broke free, and sure, look what happened. We had two former law professors in a row as President, making a mockery by stringing words together into 'ideas' and 'cogent thoughts'. Imagine if they'd had real power. But they wouldn't. Not unless a senior jock gets busted and Coach looks to the subs bench for a nerd to make up the numbers.

Thank God politics isn't the private sector, because as Bill Gates pointed out, a nerd will probably end up being your boss. For those brought up in the culture of Irish politics, if you're really unlucky, your boss might even be a woman. Here's the highlights of Enda's Ard Feis Speech, thanks to The Irish Examiner. Johnsons, Lassard...