"Terrible Queer Creatures - Homosexuality in Irish History"

Image via WikipediaI can't go to this next week but its always good to do some promo work. :-)


======
Via Equal-L:
======

Invitation – The Directors of Wordwell would like to invite you

to the launch by Ruairi Quinn TD with contributions by Jeff Dudgeon
(founder member of the Northern Ireland Gay Rights Association)

of "Terrible Queer Creatures – Homosexuality in Irish History" by
Brian Lacey.

Venue: Oak Room, Mansion House, Dawson Street, Dublin 2
At: 6.00 p.m.,
On: Thursday, 25th September 2008.

Regrets only
Helen Dunne Tel: 01–2947860
Email: helen@wordwellbooks.com
==================================

Liked it.

Nominate it.

Heads of the Civil Partnerships Bill 2008

Image via Wikipedia

Alright most of you will be aware at this stage within the LGBT circles at least that this afternoon a certain Heads of Bill was published. Those of you who are regular readers of this particular blog(1. Whining you say, 2. A Plea for the extension of Civil Marriage, 3. Launch of MarriagEquality) will be aware of my own opinions on this issue. I believe that there should be a plethora of relationship type recognitions, including Civil marriage, Civil Partnership, Civil unions. I further believe that this should be extended to all members of Irish society, Heterosexual or Homosexual or Trans.

On a First glance, the Heads of the CP Bill appear to cover everything which I expected it to cover.

• registration,
• Head 50: Declarations as to civil partnership status.
  Provide that:
  “(1) The court may, on application to it in that behalf by either of the civil partners concerned or by any other person who, in the opinion of the court, has a sufficient interest in the matter, by order make one or more of the following declarations in relation to a civil partnership, that is to say:
  ( a ) a declaration that the civil partnership was at its inception a valid civil partnership,
  ( b ) a declaration that the civil partnership subsisted on a date specified in the application,
  ( c ) a declaration that the civil partnership did not subsist on a date so specified, not being the date of the inception of the civil partnership,
  (d ) a declaration that the validity of a dissolution of a civil partnership, annulment or legal separation obtained under the civil law of any other country or jurisdiction in respect of the civil partnership is not entitled to recognition in the State.
  
• recognition of equivalent relationships from abroad
• Head 52: Recognition of foreign relationships
  Provide that:
  “(1) The Minister may, by order, declare that a class of legal relationship entered by two parties of the same sex shall be entitled to be recognised as a civil partnership if under the law of the jurisdiction in which the legal relationship was entered –
  (a)
  the legal relationship is exclusive in nature,
  (b)
  the relationship is permanent unless the parties dissolve the relationship through the courts,
  (c)
  the legal relationship is confined to couples of the same sex or of the opposite sex, and couples of the same sex entering the legal relationship may not be within the forbidden degrees of relationship to each other,
  (d)
  the rights and obligations attendant on the relationship, in the opinion of the Minister, are sufficient to indicate that the relationship is of a comparable status with a civil partnership.
  (2) The Minister shall consult with An tArd-Chláraitheoir prior to making an order under subsection (1).
  (3) An order under subsection (1) shall entitle and oblige the parties to such a legal relationship to be treated as civil partners under the law of the State from
  (a) the date of making of the order, or
  (b) the date of entering the relationship,
  whichever is the later.
  (4) Notice of an order under subsection (1) shall be provided to the Oireachtas in the usual way, and shall also be provided to –
  (a) an tArd-Chláraitheoir,
  (b) INIS,
  (c) the Revenue Commissioners, and
  (d) the Department of Social and Family Affairs.”
  
• immigration:
  

• Head 28: Immigration
  Provide that for the purposes of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008,
  “member of the family” and “dependent”, in relation to a person, includes a person with whom the first named person is registered in a civil partnership, provided that the civil partnership subsists at the relevant time.
  The relevant provisions are in sections 36 and 50 of that Bill.
  Provide for
  the making of provisions paralleling those relating to marriage of foreign nationals [in section 123 of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008] in relation to registering civil partnerships.

• Succession:

• Head 29: Succession
  Provide that the Succession Act is amended:
  (1)
  in section 3 (1) after the definition of “administrator” by the insertion of “civil partner” has the meaning assigned to it by Head 2 of the Civil Partnership Act [2008];
  (2)
  in section 3(1) by the substitution of the definition of “legal right” with the following:
  “legal right” means
  a.
  the right of a spouse under section 111 to a share in the estate of a deceased person;
  b.
  the right of a civil partner under section 111A to a share in the estate of a deceased person
  (3)
  By the insertion in section 56 after each occurrence of the word “spouse” of the words “or civil partner”, and cognate expressions to be construed accordingly;
  (4)
  By the insertion in section 58 (6) after the word “spouse” of “or civil partner”.
  (5)
  By the insertion after section 67 of a provision conferring on a civil partner of a deceased who dies intestate the same share as a spouse of an intestate deceased subject to the rights of a former spouse and ensuring that the rights of children of the deceased are respected;
  (6)
  By the insertion in section 68 of “nor civil partner” after “spouse”;
  (7)
  By the insertion in section 69 of “nor civil partner” after each occurrence of the word “spouse”;
  (8)
  By the insertion in section 70 of “nor civil partner” after “spouse”;
  (9)
  By the insertion in section 82 of “or civil partner” after “spouse”;
  (10)
  By the insertion in section 83 of “or civil partner” after “spouse”;
  (11)
  By the insertion in section 85 of “or registration in a civil partnership” after each occurrence of “marriage”;
  (12)
  By the insertion in the title of Part IX of “, or civil partner” after “spouse”;
  (13)
  By the insertion in section 109 (1) of “or civil partner” after each occurrence of the word “spouse”;
  (14)
  By the insertion after section 111 of a new section 111A conferring on a civil partner of a testator a right to the estate of the deceased the same as the right of a spouse subject to the rights of a former spouse and ensuring that the rights of children of the deceased are respected;
  (15)
  By the insertion in section 112 after the words “section 111” of “or the right of a civil partner under section 111A”;
  (16)
  By the insertion of a new section 113A:
  “The legal right of a civil partner may be renounced in an ante-registration contract made in writing between the parties to an intended civil partnership or may be renounced in writing by the civil partner after registration in a civil partnership and during the lifetime of the testator.”
  (17)
  By the insertion in section 114 of “or civil partner” after each occurrence of the word “spouse”;
  (18)
  By the insertion in section 115 other than in subsection (6) of that section of “or civil partner” after each occurrence of the word “spouse”;
  (19)
  By the insertion after subsection (2) of section 120 of a new subsection 2A:
  40
  “(2A) Where a civil partner has deserted his or her civil partner for two years or more and that desertion has continued up to the death of the deceased, the first-named civil partner shall be precluded from taking any share in the estate of the deceased as a legal right or on intestacy”;
  (20)
  By the insertion in section 120(4) of “or the civil partner” after the word “spouse”;
  (21)
  By the insertion in section 121 of “or civil partner” after each occurrence of the word “spouse”.
  
  

  
  
• dissolution

• Head 14: Registration of decrees of dissolution.
  Provide along the following lines:
  “(1) When a court grants a decree of dissolution, an officer of the Courts Service authorised in that behalf by the Courts Service, shall, as soon as may be, enter or cause to be entered in the register of decrees of dissolution the particulars in relation to the matter specified in Part 6A of the First Schedule as inserted by Head 22.
  (2) When a court grants a decree of nullity, an officer of the Courts Service, authorised in that behalf by the Courts Service, shall, as soon as may be, enter or cause to be entered in the register of decrees of nullity the particulars in relation to the matter specified in Part 7A of the First Schedule as inserted by Head 22.
  (3) An officer of the Courts Service, authorised in that behalf by the Courts Service, may amend or cancel or cause to be amended or cancelled an entry in a register referred to in subsection (1) or (2).
  (4) The Courts Service shall notify an tArd-Chláraitheoir of an amendment or cancellation under subsection (3).
  (5) This section shall have effect notwithstanding any statutory provision that conflicts with it.”

  
  
• maintenance, support and shared homes

• Head 26: Pensions
  Provide that where a contingent or survivor’s benefit or pension is provided by an employer or by a pension scheme for the spouse of a person, equivalent benefits must be provided for a registered civil partner.

• Head 34: Shared Home
  Provide that:
  “(1) In this Act "shared home" means, primarily, a dwelling in which registered civil partners ordinarily reside. The expression comprises, in addition, a dwelling in which a civil partner whose protection is in issue ordinarily resides or, if that civil partner has left the other civil partner, ordinarily resided before so leaving.
  (2) In subsection (1), 'dwelling' means any building or part of a building occupied as a separate dwelling and includes any garden or other land usually occupied with the dwelling, being land that is subsidiary and ancillary to it, is required for amenity or convenience and is not being used or developed primarily for commercial purposes, and includes a structure that is not permanently attached to the ground and a vehicle, or vessel, whether mobile or not, occupied as a separate dwelling.”
  

Ok well the obvious ones which it does not deal with is Adoption and Children. As this is a Any Sex document there will be parents entering into these CP's and their Children will not have as much protections as those children in a married relationship. Will this be dealt with it in the forthcoming Adoptions Bill 2008? I don't believe so.

Second point: Instead of producing a 175 page heads of Bill, which lists amendments to every significant piece of Irish legislation which deals with relationships, a simple amendment to the Civil Registrations Act 2004, to allow for a gender neutral version of marriage would have been just as easily done.

Am I happy with it. No. Is it a start.Yes. Just like a lot of things, "Could do better" does apply. It does not mean however I will be giving up a campaign for the lifting of the ban on same-sex marriage. But they had better hurry the *bleep* on and push it through the house before they forget about it....or the yogurt will get the better of them....

Liked it.

Nominate it.

Obama & Hillary

I found this picture online.....Highly amusing. :-) Unfortunately I never saved the url so I can't credit it but I assume its from a pageant or something. But Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton are still fighting it out as of this morning, with RTE reporting that she is still defiantly confident that she can secure the Party nomination.....

Liked it?

Nominate it.

Related articles

• Clinton Could Face Uneasy Return To The Senate [via Zemanta]
• Pres. Carter says it's over for Clinton [via Zemanta]

Public Funding of Political Parties and Ireland

-----------------------
Has the time come for Public Funding of Irish Political Parties?
-----------------------

Ok I will not be the first to comment nor will I be the last. I am delighted that Fianna Fáil have dropped their Fundraising tent at the Galway Races. To summarize Mary O Rourke, on the Pat Kenny Show earlier this morning, it was something for the bigwigs and "the fashion was crazy & it was not just the women". She also stated that there was something wrong with arriving in Helicopters to the event, by invitation, and having champers whilst looking out at the world go by.

O'Cuiv this morning was also welcoming the decision, but also made the point that it is time for Fianna Fáil supporters to begin to contribute more to the Party coffers on a more regular basis. I would tend to agree with O'Cuiv and O'Rourke on this one but perhaps now is the time that parties would become publicly funded, to reduce the utter insanity in spending which comes with Campaigning.

Fundraising for any event is a such a tedious, time-consuming but ultimately necessary part of Everyday life. We have all done the bake-sales, the Gala Dinners, the Table-quizes, the Christmas Draws. Whatever we can do to help out whatever cause we are supporting at the time. And Jaysus do we know how to support our causes here in this little Republic.

In 2004, following the wake of the Tsunami in the South Pacific, we contributed €80 million of €100 million of the Irish Contibution towards the rescue effort. The remaining €20 million came from the Irish Government. The 2007 Trocaire Lentan Appeal raised €11.65 million from the generosity of Irish People. All worthy contributions and causes, regardless of some people's apprehension of where the money is being spent, appeal to people altruistic nature.

Whilst not wishing to dictate to Fianna Fáil supporters or Fine Gael supporters or any Irish political party I am curious to know why they have not been contributing to their Party of Choice (ie the one's who elected the 77 of the 166 TD's) in their droves. I know that some branches of Fianna Fáil do not have a membership fee for being a member of the party. Surely this would be a relatively good source of Income for the party. A Card-carrying member of a Political Party. Now that would be a novelty.

No No I think a question needs to be seriously posed. If as O'Cuiv says that "FF needs more money from its members" because "it would be possible given the enormous membership of Fianna Fáil", Then we have to examine the Election spending from last year's General Election. FF spent some €10 million on the General Election. Fine Gael spent €4.3 million in the same campaign. Those are obscene amounts of money. Perhaps then it is now time to consider Public funding of parties and the removal of the need "for more money from..members".


Oh but wait, Frank Connolly, Justine McCarthy & Emma Browne reported that

Fianna Fáil has built up the kitty of €3.5m from its current and accumulated party leader's allowances, paid by the exchequer. According to the Standards in Public Offices Commission's (SIPO) most recent report, the party received €2.473m in 2005 to add to its existing surplus of €994,658. Fine Gael, in contrast, had no money left over from previous allocations.

Source: Village Magazine (September, 2006)

So lets see initially I was going to go and say that perhaps we should scrap Private donations and go with Public funding of Political Parties. Well that what Village found out was Indirect Public Funding of Political Parties. However I think perhaps Direct Public Funding is still a route that we should go down. We can accuse those in power of abusing their position and contributing to a charity ie themselves. However with the Public Funding of Parties, we can at least regulate somewhat how much obscene money is spent on a General Election.

I appreciate that some people will disagree with my sentiments. They will argue that they are over-paid, under-worked, un-representative and now You want to offer more money to run their campaigns when the Elections run around. Fair enough.

Public funding would have to be accompanied by other reforms within the political arena, such as a limitation of terms TDs are allowed to be served to reduce Family Dynasty's (Honestly a Political "career" is a stupid Idea; It is a duty, which one serves not a Career!), a reduction to a relatively OK Salary, Prohibition of getting a Pension until one retires from Work & not from the Dáil etc. Unless those reforms come along, no public will nor should agree with Public Funding of parties; However how many Nurses could €10 million pay for? How many School teachers would €10 million pay for? (€10million divided by €36,000/annum=277). Perhaps Public Funding is worth it in the long run, if it means that more Services become available.

For some more Information on Public Funding see here:

• Germany's Bundestag: - A Hybrid Model:
  
• USA's Federal Election Commission, An Evaluation of Public Funding since the 1960s.

Liked it?

Nominate it.

The Problems with Mary Coughlan

Image via WikipediaAs of last week, Ms. Coughlan T.D., was elevated to the position of Táinaiste in our dear little Republic. Ordinarily one would be congratulatory of such a move. The distinct lack of female role models in Dáil Éireann, by comparison to our European counterparts is shocking; 13 out of 166 TD's in the last General Election. That statistic is something which needs to be examined by the major, and minor Parties and seek to encourage more participation within the Political process.

So what is my problem with Mary Coughlan. Well nobody will deny that she has done a pretty good job in Agriculture. Between the pro-activeness following the outbreak of Blue Tounge in the UK and the measures that were enforced here, as well as beginning the World Trade Talks and the usual jaunts to and from Europe. She has been a relatively reliable safe bet for those who need her to be just that.

No my issue with the new Táiniste is her track record to date regarding LGBT issues. Ms. Coughlan's previous role in the Department of Social and Family affairs (Thats the one that Mary Hanafin got shifted to, from Education). In the early 2000s, a particular case went through the Equality Tribunal regarding a bus pass extension for a gentleman's partner in Dublin. Social and Family Affairs rejected this and a case was brought through the Tribunal on the grounds of discrimination on the Sexual Orientation. As there was nothing up to that point in law which warranted the Department's actions, the case was deemed a prima facia case and it proceeded in the Tribunal.

However by the time it came for review in the Tribunal it was in 2002/early 2003 when Ms. Coughlan was Minister for Social and Family Affairs. Realising the possible implications from loosing the case, it was settled out of court with a discretionary action by the Department which resulted in the Injustice committed being resolved and thus not setting a precedent in the Tribunal.

Coughlan came into Social and Family Affairs at a time when some €500 million worth of cut backs needed to be instigated. The vast majority of this appeared in the Social Welfare Miscellaneous Act 2003. What also appeared in that act was the stipulation that any benefits accrued to spouses of benefit recipitants was within the confines of Marriage. This was the first definition of what marriage is in Irish Law, as defined as one man and one woman. I might also so add, that despite precedent in the High Court of defining marriage as such, including Revenue's Oxford Dictionary definition; The Ultimate Interpreter of the Irish Constitution is the Supreme Court who have not yet been asked to define what marriage is, either positively or negatively.

This also meant that under art 14.1.a of the Equal Status Act nobody will be able to take a case to the Tribunal on these grounds again. 14.1.a exempts any law which is already enacted, regardless of whether this is a discrimination measure.

Perhaps it is the case that Ms. Coughlan has changed her ways, whilst she was in Agriculture. Perhaps I shaln't hold my breath too much. Perhaps she was not the instigator and it was some random Civil Servant who noticed the loophole and didn't realise the consequences. Then again perhaps not. I will live in hope that perhaps she has changed. We shall wait and see. We will also wait and hope she doesn't screw it up.


For more information on the new Minister for Justice, Noel Ahern see Maman Poullet's here:

Liked it.

Nominate it.