LGBT Noise have sent out the following APB on their Facebook page and mailing list. Get writing!
_________

The Civil Partnership Bill is currently making its way through the many stages and committees of the Oireachtas. Noise have been informed that the Justice Committee have been inundated with letters from ultra-conservative letter writers expressing opposition to gay people being granted any form of rights. Many conservatives are describing Civil Partnership as being the same as marriage; this is far from true. It lacks a great deal of the rights, responsibilities and protections of marriage. Crucially, it ignores the rights of children being raised in LGBT families and says that LGBT people do not even have families.

The Civil Partnership Bill forces couples to participate in their own discrimination and officially makes LGBT people second-class citizens.

In a week when a staunchly Catholic nation, Mexico, granted marriage equality and parental rights to its gay citizens Ireland is, incredibly, still debating the withholding of rights to its citizens based on sexual identity.

Noise urges you to write to the clerk of the Justice Committee, Mr Alan Guidon alan.guidon@oireachtas.ie before Thursday the 24th of March, expressing your views on Civil Partnership and why it doesn’t go far enough. Tell them we demand equality.

Love and noise,
The Noise Team

No related posts.

The Irish Times filler, and a patron of the Iona Institute, seemed to be concerned that his words on “gender” were misinterpreted as referring to transsexuality and homosexuality. (She also seemed compelled to tell everyone that Benny also didn’t use the phrase, “rock star”. Whatever.)

His speech to the Vatican Curia was delivered in Italian, save for the word “gender” which he said in English. A full – unofficial – translation into English of his speech, by the coadjutor of Lancaster, Bishop Michael Campbell, is available here. Make of it what you will. Do note, however, that in Italian there does not appear to be a word equivalent to the English word, “gender” – I’m no speaker of Italian, so I’m open to correction on this, but there appears only to be the words “sesso” (meaning “sex”) and “genere” (which can also have a generic meaning such as “type” or “genre”).

Now, even if O’Brien is correct – and I don’t accept that the Pope’s deliberate use of ambiguous terminology proves the media reports incorrect – this one speech does not somehow counter his previous statements, whether as Pope or as Cardinal Ratzinger. His Christmas message, indeed, refers to Humanae Vitae, the 1968 encyclical by Pope Paul VI – presumably the inspiration for Monty Python’s “Every Sperm is Sacred” ditty.

Before his speech, the Vatican was (once again) uniting with unusual allies – the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, or OIC – in vehemently opposing a proposal for a non-binding UN declaration which calls for the respect of human rights regardless of sexual orientation. (Note: The Vatican is a state, but is not a member state in the UN – it has permanent observer status.)

Following his speech, the Vatican is now considering breaking a long-held convention whereby Italian law applies in the Vatican State, unless there is “radical incompatibility” with Canon Law. It’s not like Italian legislators are the epitome of, say, liberal secularism – some (me, for example) would argue that Italy is a deeply conservative society. Not, it would seem, conservative enough for the Holy See.

Earlier in 2008, the Vatican released its “Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in the Admission and Formation of Candidates for the Priesthood”, which describes “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” as “grave immaturity”, and follows up on the 2005 document, “Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies”. This latter document also refers to “[d]eep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are … also objectively disordered”.

Oh yes, and the 2008 UN lobbying wasn’t the first for the Pontificate. In 2003, the Brazil government proposed a resolution – which would have been binding – for states to agree to the promotion of the human rights of all people, regardless of sexual orientation. At its first proposal, the resolution was deferred to the next sitting of the UN’s commission on human rights in 2004, following intensive lobbying by the Vatican and the OIC. The proposal was postponed again, then, to be considered in 2005, following similar lobbying by the Vatican and friends. Needless to say, the proposal simply seemed to have dropped off the agenda of the UN.

The proposal was the first time a resolution specifically addressing human rights abuses based on sexual orientation had ever been put forward at the Commission. It was not, however, the first time Benedict effectively condoned violence against LGBT people. The following bears repeating: as far back as 1986, he was spouting hatred towards gays. As Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was Pope John Paul II’s chief policy maker (as head of The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – formerly known as the Inquisition), he issued a “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexuals” (indeed).

The Letter includes:

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase (No. 10).

What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well (No. 11)

In other words, incitement or violence towards gays is bad, but since they’re abnormal freaks then they’re just asking for it – particularly if basic fairness and equality is afforded to them.

Oh, and the above quote was preceded by this:

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Charming.

___________

Lead image is taken from ILGA-Europe, “Handbook on monitoring and reporting homophobic and transphobic incidents,” 2008. The image is used in good faith, without intending any infringement, and will be removed if requested.

Related posts:

1. The election: It’s the economy, stupid! …Isn’t it?

I don’t suppose the Iona Institute will be satisfied until Ireland has reverted to the days of 1950s Ireland, when we were dictated to by the Catholic hierarchy, personified by John Charles McQuaid. Anyone who is unfamiliar, should read (for example) the literature of Edna O’Brien.

Shall we re-introduce book banning? And churching? And prohibition of contraception? Why not also re-introduce the ban on married women working in the civil service? And “conjugal rights” (a hideous concept, which was only outlawed in the past few years in this country)?

While the likes of Quinn might have the practiced hand of the Roman Catholic church’s “communications” and PR machine to gloss their aims, by the Iona Institute’s logic, it’s a short leap to the evangelical end-of-days Christian extremism and absolute intolerance of dissent.

Why not simply surrender our democratic and civic duties and freedoms to living in a dangerous, deluded theocracy, where a Catholic version of Shariah law reigns supreme?

We have been warned..

No related posts.

The paper reports that Senator Rónán Mullen has been appointed to the body, upon the invitation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheal Martin. Seemingly, Mullen has not been appointed simply due to the fact that he is a member of the houses of parliament, but because “[b]oth Fianna Fail and Fine Gael favour his inclusion because Mullen can speak for conservative Catholics, who are said to have opposed the Lisbon treaty in June”.

I’m sorry, what?!

This is Fianna Fail and Fine Gael who resoundly failed in their attempts to present any kind of a convincing campaign to voters, and who were comprehensively out-manoeuvred by questionable, and un-representative entities, who introduced to the electorate irrelevant issues as part of their scare tactics.

[Disclosure: I personally had my own serious reservations against provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, but if found the "No" campaign in this country entirely irrelevant to its contents.]

This is Rónán Mullen who was formerly communications officer for the Archdiocese of Dublin; who approves of Opus Dei’s “intellectual engagement with their faith”; who connects himself with the Pro-Life Campaign and the Iona Institute; who, not content with railing against equality for same-sex couples, has recently rounded upon straight couples who are cohabiting and unmarried (aka “living in sin”). [No link to his article, I'm afraid, as Mullen's anti-Irish overloards don't see fit to publish their Irish edition online.] He is opposed the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade. And in his latest opinion piece on Europe, he has argued against the EU’s “secularist trend” (huh?) which “inhibits freedom of conscience” (are we living in parallel dimensions?).

According to the Times, Mullen will propose measures to ensure that Irish policy on “sensitive social issues” will not be overridden by the European courts. The paper references stem-cell research, but as we can see from the above, his idea of “senstivie social issues” has a far broader reach than that.

And just what, exactly, do these issues have to do with the Lisbon Treaty? Feck all.

What next? Will we be ensuring our national legislation is Shariah law-compliant? Shall we consult Ireland’s Rabbis, too, to ensure that there is nothing contrary to the Torah (Leviticus, anyone?) Clearly the ideas of the Enlightenment – about, oh, three centuries old now – have bypassed our little island.

Update:
The European Commission in Dublin is hosting the first of a series of debates tomorrow, entitled: “Ireland in Europe – A Loss of Christian Memory?” And surprise, surprise, but Mullen and his Iona Institute buddy, David Quinn, are on the discussion panel. More info here.

Related posts:

1. Irish support same-sex marriage
2. Marriage: The Gold Standard?

Dying for the sins of humanity? Sharing Christian charity? Tolerance and love for fellow human beings?

Oh no, the Christian right have more important things to worry about: In today’s modern world, nothing is too mundane or absurd as to escape the attentions of the crazies of the religious right in their preparations for Armageddon.

Let’s have a quick look at five classic examples from the past few years, shall we?

First of all, one we all might remember: the epitome of Satanic forces at work, corrupting the eternal souls of our children from their very own telly-boxes. Yes, it’s the sinister perfidious purple deviant that is (dramatic pause) Tinky Winky. You heard me – it’s a Teletubbies character.

This foul beast (a) is purple, (b) its aerial – as opposed to the acceptable cranial protrusions of the other Teletubbies- is triangular, and (c) it has a handbag, no less – and cerise-pink into the bargain! Oh indeed, this nefarious being is clearly a serious threat to the moral fibre of society. At no other time in human history has it been more pertinent to ask, “Won’t somebody please think of the children!”

Oh, but the damnation doesn’t end there, no – it’s just the beginning. Who remembers (another dramatic pause) SpongeBob SquarePants?!

If you thought Tinky Winky’s gender-bending ways (what?) were something to worry about, they were nothing compared to SpongeBob’s carry-on with his friend Patrick. (Please ask any children to leave the room before scrolling to this next description.) Would you Adam and Steve it, but Bob the sponge brazenly HELD HANDS with Patrick the star-fish. I mean, if these creatures get the benefit of an evolutionary mutation which provides them with hands (oh, wait – did I mention the E-word?), then egads don’t have them touching!

Next up, is when Hallmark – unlike many governments – chose to recognise same-sex marriage. The company brought out a range of cards, which promptly faced a predictable and begrudging response from the religious conservatives. Lord knows that society will crumble if a happy homo-couple were to receive a card through the post congratulating their relationship. The centuries-old greetings card tradition – and the entirety of straight coupledom – is clearly under threat! It’s probably all SpongeBobs’ fault, of course..

Time for a snack? Well, don’t make it McDonald’s. Is it because of the potential damage to our health caused by gorging on McBurgers and McChips? Hell no! It’s because McDonald’s apparently have put their tuppence-worth in with some quare Chamber of Commerce association in the United States. Silly Ronald. That wasn’t a wise business decision; it wasn’t clogging the arteries of the gays everywhere: it was condemning our souls to eternal damnation!

Finally (for now), there’s the absurd denial around the conservative religious world of the validity of evolution. That’s right – you may be familiar with the suggestion that the earth and all that’s in it is a few thousand years old. Mm. That’s based on tracing back through the generations of people mentioned in The Bible! (And, as we all know, the only people who have existed in all of time are those mentioned in The Bible.) Jesus wept.

And don’t forget, people, that the future President of the United States of America – and, as we are so often told, Leader of the Free World – could soon be one Ms Sarah Palin (taking into consideration McCain’s health and age). This is the beauty-pageant queen, book-banning, creationist, religious conservative, and now very, very powerful Sarah Palin.

The Enlightenment may well never have happened. Watch out, world.

No related posts.

Eileen Flynn was dismissed from her job as a teacher in the early 1980s, after it was discovered that she was in a relationship with a man who was separated from his wife.

The High Court ruled that the school was right to do so, and the Court relied on now defunct Canadian law to justify its decision.

When I say “defunct”, I mean that the interpretation of the law was since overturned in Canada; in Ireland, however, that law still holds.

What happened?

Ms Flynn had begun a relationship with a married man, whose wife had left him not long before. Now, remember, kids: this was 1980s Ireland, so divorce wasn’t an option for Flynn’s love interest; moreover, their relationship was a private and personal matter, not related to Flynn’s professional life, as a teacher.

Oh, but that didn’t matter a whit to the religious who ran her school, nor to the busy-bodies of her town who made formal complaints about her personal life to the school principal. They threatened her with being sacked unless – as the High Court later put it – “a remarkable improvement in the unhappy situation took place”. Flynn was eventually sacked, and every appeal by her was rejected: by the Employment Appeals Tribunal, by the Circuit Court, and ultimately by the High Court.

The decision of the High Court was never appealed, and has not been overturned by any High Court or Supreme Court judgement since.

The fact, then, is that schools of a religious ethos can to this day rely on the High Court’s decision in this case to justify sacking anyone they regard as contrary to their ethos. In theory, that could be anyone who so much as “lives in sin” with their partner, let alone the queers.

The Times quotes in their article one Sr. Rosemary Duffy of the Holy Faith Order – which ran Flynn’s school – who wrote to them in 1995:

“Eileen Flynn was dismissed because in the town where most of the pupils and parents of the school lived she openly and despite warnings to the contrary continued to live a lifestyle flagrantly in conflict with the norms which the school sought to promote.”

1995. And don’t her words echo the kind of attitudes so frequently thrown at gays, lesbians, bis, and trans people?

It remains to be seen whether the courts in Ireland would overturn the 1985 decision. But just in case they did, Bertie Ahern’s government saw to it to ensure that a religious ethos clause, in respect of any institution, was inserted into equality legislation. Oh, and religious leaders have secured a similar proviso in EU equality laws, too, so the hurdles for equality and fairness are pretty high. Who needs Shariah law, when we already have Canon law right here and now?

One heartening point in Flynn’s story exists, however, that she eventually married and had a fulfilled life with her partner and children:

Eileen Flynn went on to marry Richie Roche over a decade ago. She … is survived by her husband and their five children.

And for that, I am glad.

Eileen Flynn: RIP.

—-

Other blogs discussing this topic:
- Bock the Robber
- Maman Poulet
- The Anti-Room
- An Fear Rua
- Cllr Joe Ryan

Related posts:

1. A port in a storm?
2. Calzona Get Married on Grey’s

Irony upon irony is heaped upon a particular Rev. David Allison and his worldview.

The precious pastor recently added the following to a sign belonging to his church: “I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It Then I Went To Hell”. Really, Reverend, what exactly are you trying to say? What’s your message? I’m not entirely sure, but it could be something to do with a certain song by Katy Perry. Don’t quote me on that.

Apparently, the sign was taken down within 24 hours, however, in part due to the fact that many of the older members of his congregation just didn’t get it.

The funny thing is that the bauld Perry is no less than the daughter of – not one, but two – evangelist preachers.

Oh, and I do like the name of the town where this all took place: Blacklick.

(Fnarr.)

Oh, and Feminist Avengers have a wee snippet of what followed after the sign was taken down.

No related posts.

The Irish Times reports today that members of Italy’s mafia meted out a punishment of gang rape against one of their number they suspected of being gay. The man was raped while in prison two years ago by eight others, resulting in him requiring medical treatment. None of his attackers were punished by the authorities.

Having recently watched Suddenly, Last Winter, a documentary on Italy and same-sex relationships, I really wouldn’t be surprised if Italian mainstream society agreed with this attack. Some of the opinions voiced in that film were deeply vicious and homophobic.

Religion was frequently at the source of the hatred of gays in the film. With the likes of the Iona Institute having a disproportionately loud voice in this country, not to mention the likes of Iris Robinson in Northern Ireland, we in Irish society need to be vigilant against the language and attitudes of hatred around us.

Prominent members of this society – public figures and those in the media – have a duty and a responsibility when discussing issues relating to minorities – including lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans people. The logical outcome, otherwise, of intolerant or hateful statements is the type of violence mentioned above.

Current Pope Benedict XVI – formerly Cardinal Ratzinger (and not Nazinger, ahem) – stated in the 1980s when he was head of the Vatican’s policy division, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (previously known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition):

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase (No. 10).

What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well (No. 11)

–
You might also like to read: Freedom of expression or incitement to hatred?

No related posts.