2004 Citizenship Referendum – 10 years on. June 6, 2014Posted by admin in racism.
Ten years ago the Irish government engineered a referendum that removed the right to citizenship to children born in Ireland of ‘non-nationals’. While there is much attention right now to the political generation of racism in Europe during a recession, by so-called ‘populist’ parties, it is worth remembering that this was enthusiastic, boom-time crisis racism, engineered by statist mandarins and the liberal political centre.
It singled out women of colour as welfare tourists and parasites, jetting in to give birth and abuse the nation’s hospitality. On the cusp of EU expansion the government of Ahern and McDowell knew exactly what they were fomenting; the chance for a symbolic performance of sovereignty, a collective blast on the dog whistle, and a license for bartstool mythologies to be circulated as bracing common sense.
They told us that this was necessary to ensure safe and adequate maternity services in Ireland. They told us it was critical to the integrity of the nation’s sovereignty. They told us that it was just a practical measure, all part of managing prosperity. They told us that it was important to ensure that the generosity of the social welfare system was not abused.
After Savita, after the Troika, after the deliberate transfer of public wealth, after the replacement of exotic anchor babies with common or garden welfare fraudsters, how’s that commonsense looking?
The 2004 referendum had a specific racializing impact, and predominantly hidden but frequently profound and disastrous impacts on lives, relationships, and families. But it was also a trial run for the kind of governance that doesn’t limit itself to one ‘problem population’, but continues to produce them when necessary, and has done relentlessly and remorselessly over the last years.
Come and mark the referendum, 10 years on – not as a past event to be commemorated and mourned, but as a collective shame that needs addressing, and as a form of exclusionary violence that can be continually extended, and that needs to be opposed.
The 2004 Citizenship Referendum – the damage done.
Join us at 1 pm on Wednesday June 11th outside the Dail when we mark ten years since the 2004 Citizenship Referendum was passed. We are marking this by holding a solidarity event for all who live in Ireland.
The referendum stopped the automatic right of children born in Ireland from having the rights of citizenship. Birth right citizenship entitlement was changed to blood-based citizenship entitlement granted only to children born in Ireland one of whose parents is a citizen, or entitled to citizenship. Over the last ten years, this referendum has divided families, divided the entire population, and caused countless hardships for thousands of people in this country. It needs to be repealed.
There will be no politicians’ speeches at the event – there was enough of those 10 years ago. Instead we will have a soapbox where people can recount how the referendum has affected their lives, and where there will be readings and music.
Kimberlé Crenshaw at the LSE March 27, 2014Posted by admin in Gender Issues, racism.
1 comment so far
Just last night and now online
Intersectionalism has stirred plenty of heat and also many positives on the left, within feminism, here and on both side of the Atlantic. So it may be useful get past the call outs, strawmen, vampire castles and hear from the women who coin the idea way back in 1989.
Audio available here
Direct Provision: An Open Prison March 13, 2014Posted by admin in Community, Inequality, racism.
add a comment
Disgraceful scenes in Serbia, where the U21 game with England ended in chaos following racist abuse of some of the English players. The English manager, Stuart Pearce (quoted in the thread title), the players, and supporters, as well as the media, are rightly outraged. This has come up in comments on another thread a while ago but I don’t know about everybody else, but I’m finding this very hard to take in the aftermath of the whole John Terry thing. Rio Ferdinand dropped because his brother was on the receiving end of racial abuse from the England captain, who was then taken to the European championships by a manager who played in apartheid South Africa. Terry was then given a short and less harsh ban than a foreign player. Ferdinand then finds out he’s definitely not in the next squad because Roy Hodgson told some guy on the tube. England player after England player then comes out to say what a great guy Terry is. Respect indeed.
The idea of the English FA as the champion of anti-racism in football is now blatantly a ridiculous idea but you’d think the whole incident had never happened. Somebody in the English media and the football world needs to stand up and point out the emperor has no clothes.
Some GAA leaders’ understanding of racism June 25, 2012Posted by Tomboktu in Gaelic Football, racism.
Last week, the national media reported that two wexford club players have been suspended for eight weeks because they made racist remarks about another player, Lee Chin, during a club game (reports in the Examiner here and here, Independent here, Times here, and RTÉ here). They were suspended by the Central Competitions Control Committee in Wexford GAA.
The following day, the Examiner reported (here) that the president of the GAA, Liam O’Neill, said “This has been dealt with in an exemplary fashion”.
Not enough information has been published about the details of the incident to enable us to judge if the eight-week suspension is strong enough. However, the Irish Times points out that the suspension is the minumum possible when a player has been found guilty of discrediting the GAA.
Worse, though, are the widely reported remarks of the Wexford GAA chairman, Diarmuid Devereux. It was fine when he said: “Any form of racism in the GAA cannot be tolerated. It is terrible that Lee was subjected to these comments on a GAA pitch and the players involved should be ashamed of their behaviour.”
But he displayed poor understanding of racism when he pointed out five facts about the vicitm of the racism: “Lee Chin is a Wexford man, born in Wexford, educated in Wexford, living and working in Wexford.”
Suppose instead for a moment that none of this were true. Imagine that instead Lee Chin had been born in Australia or China, that he is a Chinese citizen, was educated in Australia, and was not working or studying in Ireland. (That last one point is a stretch if he’s playing GAA football, but not impossible. People have been left in the asylum process for years without a right to work, or, if over 18, a right to education.) If that alternative were the case, would that make it OK for opponents to make racist remarks about him in a club game?
The reason the remarks during the game were wrong was that they were racist, not because he is a Wexford man. But by bringing up that part of Lee Chin’s background in a context where another part of it — his ethnic background — is the motivation for the wrong done to him, the GAA county chairman has not simply confused the matter, but lent credence to the idea that nationality or ethnic background are relevant in attacking racism. The irony is that this is precisely the same problem that is the source of racism: the use of nationality or ethnic background when it is not relevant.
I agree with Devereux’s conclusion: “The hope I have is that through education and promotion of ethnic policy, we will rid Gaelic games of such abuse.” The hope I have is that he undergoes some of that education. And Liam O’Neillmight benefit from some too.
 If none of the other facts were true, I suspect a player would would probably have to be living in Wexford to be allowed to play for a club there, meaning one of the five facts would have to be true, but that does not undermine my criticism of the serious flaw in Diarmuid Devereux’s thinking.
Apply the law, Judge Teehan. August 13, 2011Posted by Tomboktu in Human Rights, Inequality, Judiciary, racism, Rights.
A judge’s job is to apply the law, as set out by the Oireachtas. That task is subject to the Constitution and EU law.
I am trying to figure out Judge Tom Teehan’s thought process in doing his job in a recent case. In fact, it looks to me like he didn’t do it correctly. The case was the appeal against a decision in favour of a teenager called John Stokes. He is a Traveller, and had been refused entry to a secondary school of his choice. (Actually, it was his mother’s choice, but when you’re at the younger end of your teens, that’s how these things are decided.)
To tee-up my point, let me quote the three relevant pieces of law.
Exhibit A, Section 7(2) of the Equal Status Act:
(2) An educational establishment shall not discriminate in relation to—
(a) the admission or the terms or conditions of admission of a person as a student to the establishment,
Exhibit B, Section 3(1) of the Equal Status Act (this was amended by the Equality Act 2004, and it is the current wording I quote here):
(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—
(c) where an apparently neutral provision puts a person referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary
And the final piece of law, Exhibit C, the section 3(2) of the Equal Status Act which is referred to in Exhibit B:
(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:
(i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the “Traveller community ground”) […]
The key piece is Exhibit B. The starting point of it — in fact the core purpose of it — is that an apparently neutral rule cannot be used to discriminate on the Traveller ground. It then allows an exception to that: the rule “is objectively justified by a legitimate aim”, and sets a standard for that exception: “the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary”.
Now, I know some disagree with this law (I don’t), but whether or not it should be the law is beside the point here. The fact is that the democratically elected Oireachtas decided that this is what the law is, and the judge’s job is to apply the law.
The rule the school used to exclude John Stokes was that his father had not been a pupil at the school, and when the school was over-subscribed it gave places to the sons of past-pupils first before running a draw for others.
The judge summarised the situation and said:
Accordingly, it can be stated unequivocally that the “parental rule” — an ostensibly neutral provision as provided for by the amended section 3(1)(c) of the Equal Status Act — is discriminatory against Travellers.
He then said that the question that arises is whether the school can invoke the exception:
[T]he onus is on the [school]
(A) to objectively justify the there was a legitimate aim;
(B) to prove that the measure was proportionate; and
(C) to establish that such measure was necessary.
In paragraph 17 of the his judgement, Judge Teehan said*:
17. With regard to the question of the legitimacy of the aim, [John Stokes] adverted in argument to the school’s Admissions Policy, and the lack of any direct correlation between the stated aims and the “parental rule”. Dealing with “Goals”, one of the criteria referred to is “supporting the family ethos within education”. While this goes on to justify the “sibling rule”, with no reference to parents, I find that the overall aim of the [school’s] Board in introducing the “parental rule” is entirely in keeping with this goal and the “characteristic spirit of the school”, a concept to which it must have regard with section 15(2)(b) and (d) of the Education Act 1998. The [school] has thus objectively justified to the satisfaction of this Court that the aim of the Board in this regard was wholly legitimate.
Now, the judge goes on to deal with the second and third components of the exception — the bits about ‘proportionate’ and ‘necessary’ — but I stop here at the first stage and ask: what on earth did the judge think he was doing finding a ‘father rule’ was legitimate? That finding completely rejects the the intention of the Oireachtas, and the judge has failed in his duty to apply the law as set by the democratic legislature. (Nor he is not invoking a higher authority such as the Constitution or an over-riding EU law.)
Let us remind the judge: the core purpose of the law you were meant to apply is to prohibit discrimination against Travellers. Now, ask the question: how do you get to be a Traveller? The answer, of course, is by being the son or daughter of a Traveller. I can think of no other way of becoming a Traveller. And the rule the school used to give preference to non-Travellers — which the Judge did find is discriminatory — uses that very criteria of who your father (in this case) is, and that rule is, he says, a ‘legitimate aim’?
If the judgment is not overturned, the idea of a ‘legitimate aim’ will be allowed to be so wide, so flexible, that all somebody has to do to get away with undermining the intention of the Oireachtas would be to define an aim that is based not on your membership per se of a group that is the subject of the discrimination at hand, but on the process by which you come to be a member of that group.
Do you want to exclude people who have a disability? Then write a rule that discriminates against anybody who has had an accident that severed their spinal cord, or who in utero experienced a bio-chemical assault that irrepairably damaged the genes that control the development of hearing, etc.,
I wonder would Judge Teehan have tried his logic with a rule that permitted lower pay for people formed from the merging of a human sperm containing an X chromosome with a human egg. That would have been an ingenious way to overturn the Oireachtas’s intentions on gender discrimination.
*To make it easier to follow, I have replaced the words ‘respondent’ with ‘John Stokes’, and ‘appelant’ with ‘school’ in the quoted text.
On the day Mladic has been arrested May 26, 2011Posted by Tomboktu in Human Rights, racism.
There has been plenty of commentary on the significance of the arrest today in Vojvodina of General Ratko Mladic. I first read the following three comments in 1998, when Mark Danner first published them in the New York Review of Book. They still haunt.
When the truck stopped, we immediately heard shooting outside; stones were bouncing off the [truck’s] tarpaulin. The Cetniks told us to get out, five at a time. I was in the middle of the group, and the men in the front didn’t want to get out. They were terrified, they started pulling back. But we had no choice, and when it was my turn to get out with five others, I saw dead bodies everywhere…. A Cetnik said, “Come on [Turk], find some space.”… They ordered us to lie down, and as I threw myself on the ground, I heard gunfire. I was hit in my right arm and three bullets went through the right side of my torso.
We came near to what I saw through my right eye was a wooded area. They took us off the truck in twos and led us out to some kind of meadow. People started taking off blindfolds and yelling in fear because the meadow was littered with corpses. I was put in the front row, but I fell over to the left before the first shots were fired so that bodies fell on top of me….
About an hour later, I Iooked up and saw dead bodies everywhere. They were bringing in more trucks with more people to be executed. After a bulldozer driver walked away, I crawled over dead bodies and into the forest.
Strike! November 1, 2010Posted by Tomboktu in Culture, History, Human Rights, Labour relations, racism, Trade Unions, Workers Rights.
1 comment so far
Don’t miss STRIKE! – a play about the most dangerous shop workers in the world.
STRIKE! is a fictionalised account of the famous anti-apartheid shop strike on Henry Street in the 1980s. We are back after a sell out show in the Samuel Beckett for a week in May 2010 where it received a great reaction from audiences each night.
The play is running for three weeks – two weeks in the Samuel Beckett Theatre, Trinity College from Tuesday 26 October to Saturday 6 November. Then we will run for 5 nights in the axis: Ballymun from Tuesday 9 to Saturday 13 November.
Written and directed by Tracy Ryan, STRIKE! uses visuals and music of the time to tell the story of a group of young people who went on strike to protest against apartheid and confronted the establishment, caused a state of emergency in South Africa and eventually saw the banning of South African produce in Ireland.
A clip of the show is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwhSKoAj0p0
More about STRIKE!
In Dublin in 1984, the economy was failing, unemployment was rife and 10 young women and one young man were about to change the world. In July a shop worker on Henry Street refused to sell South African fruit to a store customer and was suspended. Ten colleagues followed her out on strike; they thought it would last 2 weeks – it went on for nearly three years.
Come and see STRIKE!
Samuel Beckett Theatre, Trinity College Dublin
Tuesday 26 October to Saturday 6 Nov. at 7.30 pm
Matinee on Saturday 29 and November 6 at 2.30 pm
Tickets €15.99; €11.99 concession; €9.99 matinee and for group rate of 10
Box office: Book online at www.tcd.ie/drama or by phone at 01 – 896 2461
Tuesday 9 to Saturday 13 November at 8 pm
Tickets €14.99; €11.99 concession; €9.99 for group rate of 10
Box office: Book online at www.axis-ballymun.ie or by phone at 01 – 883 2100
Dept Education disconnectedness – a case study October 10, 2009Posted by Tomboktu in Education, Human Rights, racism, Rights, Sex, Uncategorized.
Even if there hadn’t been a scandal over the Ceann Comhairle or negotiations on a revised programme for government, parliamentary question no. 1271 last Tuesday would have had to struggle to get any attention. For starters, it was for written answer; further, it was for answer on a day when the Dáil returned after a break (and thus it was included in a long list of answers that had built up over a fortnight); finally, it was about an issue many would consider to be a minority interest. But question no. 1271 does merit some attention, not just for that subject matter, but possibly more so for what the answer reveals about the lack of even the most simple joined up administration in our government.
The (possibly) minority-interest issue is homophobic bullying in schools. The question, from Labour’s Ruairi Quinn, asked for statistics on what school inspectors found about school policies and practices on the issue during their routine whole school evaluations.
Minister Batt O’Keeffe uses three paragraphs of his answer to set out the law on school codes of behaviour, to outline administrative provisions on school policies on bullying, and to summarise what inspectors do – and what they don’t do – when conducting a Whole School Evaluation. It is not until then that Deputy Quinn’s question is answered:
The [Whole School Evaluation] reports published by my Department in 2008, and 2009 to date, have not explicitly identified problems with homophobic bullying, nor have school policies and practices to deal with such behaviour in individual schools been identified by inspectors as causes for concern.
The reason for this is
The review of anti-bullying policy during a [Whole School Evaluation] does not focus explicitly on any single category of bullying or harassment such as homophobic bullying.
Now, it’s not as if the Department of Education doesn’t know that there is a problem here. Ruairi Quinn’s question hints at that when he sets out the timeframe for the statistics he wanted as being “since the second report on homophobic bullying in schools was published”. That reference in Ruairi Quinn’s question is not the clearest, but I think reasonable to suggest that it refers to two reports on research by Dr James Norman and his colleagues in DCU’s School of Education. And my reason for thinking these were what Ruairi Quinn was referring to? You see, the studies were commissioned by the Department itself, and Ministers in the Dpeartment launched them with press releases.
The first report – dated 2004 – found that 79 percent of a large sample of SPHE teachers had enocountered instances of verbal homophobic bullying in the school term in which the research was conducted. Physical homphobic bullying was observed less frequently at 16 percent (still worrying), but where that was witnessed, there was a very high incidence of repeated physical homophobic bullying (87 percent). (I also wonder if there is any form of physical bullying that would not come within the ambit of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act.) The report also found that 90 percent of the school’s policies did not refer to homophobic bullying.
The second research report, published in 2006, used a different approach. It went into significant depth in five schools, interviewing 100 teachers, parents and students (that is, 100 in total, not 100 of each). All of the students in that study reported that homophobic insults – ‘slagging’ using words like ‘faggot’, ‘queer’, or ‘dyke’ – are pervasive, and the researchers found that the evidence suggests “parents and teachers accept these terms as normal behaviour”. (I don’t know if there is research on equivalent racist or sectarian insults, but I doubt it would suggest that parents and teachers accept such terms as ‘normal behaviour’.)
The good news in Minister O’Keefe’s answer to the parliamentary question is that
My Department has also been working with the Gay Lesbian and Equality Network (GLEN) on the development of guidance material for school leaders in supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual students in second-level school. “Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Students in Post-Primary Schools: Guidance for Principals and School Leaders” produced in association with the education partners and published jointly by GLEN and my Department, will be launched next week [by Minister of State Seán Haughey TD] and circulated to schools.
Maybe I am excessively cyncial, but I think two characteristics of that announcement tell us more than the Minister probably intended. It sends a signal that a junior minister is launching the report – and at that, a junior minister with no particular responsibility in this area (Seán Haughey’s three-fold remit is school transport, lifeling learning, and educational disadvantage). Perhaps more significant is that fact that the guidance has been produced in association with an NGO. That is not the situation with the Department’s Guidelines on Traveller Education in Second-Level Schools or its Guidelines for Developing a School Substance Use Policy,
Ultimately, though, the Department’s publishing of guidance is not a sign that it is addressing the issue in a meaningful way. The Department is failing in its duty because in the two school years since the Norman reports were published, not even once have inspectors used their routine Whole School Evaluations to check whether a school has taken any steps to deal with the problem – never mind assess the quality of those steps. Putting the issue of homophobic bullying on the agenda in just a handful of schools each year would not entail a disruption of the WSE process – it already entails sampling in the subject areas. However, for all schools to see a paragraph on findings on the matter in the reports when they come to be published – and schools do check the published reports – would make clear that homophobic bullying is an issue that is open to being checked and reported on. That would be a low-cost way to provoke schools to be sure their house was in order before a WSE team announced their imminent arrival. And it would show some joined-up administration in the Department of Education.
Here is the full text of the question and answer:
1271. Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Minister for Education and Science the information available to him since the second report on homophobic bullying in schools was published on the number of whole school evaluations conducted in second level schools, Youthreach centres, Traveller training centres and in special schools in which inspectors have explicitly identified problems with homophobic bullying; the number of schools in which adequate and effective policies and practices are in place to deal with homophobic bullying; the number of schools in which inspectors recommended the school should make improvements or introduce effective policies to tackle homophobic bullying. [34428/09]
Minister for Education and Science (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): As the Deputy is aware the board of management of each school is required to prepare a code of behaviour in accordance with the Education (Welfare) Act 2000. My Department further requires each school to have in place a policy which includes specific measures to deal with bullying behaviour, within the framework of an overall school code of behaviour and discipline. Such a code, developed through consultation with the whole school community and properly implemented, can be the most influential measure in countering bullying behaviour in schools.
My Department has issued guidelines as an aid to schools in devising measures to prevent and deal with instances of bullying behaviour and to increase awareness among school management authorities of their responsibilities in this regard. These guidelines were drawn up following consultation with representatives of school management, teachers and parents, and are sufficiently flexible to allow each school authority to adapt them to suit the particular needs of their school. My Department has also been working with the Gay Lesbian and Equality Network (GLEN) on the development of guidance material for school leaders in supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual students in second-level school. “Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Students in Post-Primary Schools: Guidance for Principals and School Leaders” produced in association with the education partners and published jointly by GLEN and my Department, will be launched next week [by Minister of State Sean Haughey TD] and circulated to schools.
As part of a whole-school evaluation each school’s code of behaviour is requested and reviewed by the inspection team, along with other key school policy documents. The extent to which the policy is in line with the Department’s published Guidelines on Countering Bullying is considered. If a school does not have a legally required policy, inspectors will recommend that the school’s management address this as a matter of priority. In addition, where policies are found not to be in line with Department guidelines a policy review is recommended. This advice is given orally to the staff of the school and the board of management, as appropriate, and included in the published report of the inspection.
The review of anti-bullying policy during a WSE does not focus explicitly on any single category of bullying or harassment such as homophobic bullying. The WSE reports published by my Department in 2008, and 2009 to date, have not explicitly identified problems with homophobic bullying, nor have school policies and practices to deal with such behaviour in individual schools been identified by inspectors as causes for concern. The reports for the period, therefore, do not make specific recommendations to schools regarding improving approaches to tackling homophobic bullying.