Government Defeats Bill to Remove Section 37 Discrimination (Employment Equality Ac

ninty9er

Despite moves in recent days, the Minister for Justice (and Education), despite having had opportunity to amend the amendment decided that it would be best for government senators to vote down a bill whose aim was to remove section 37 exemptions to discrimination in the Employment Equality Act.

Their excuse - the bill doesn't go far enough and we'll come back to it. Delay tactics.

If that Bill had passed in the Seanad it could have been sent to the Dáil, back to committee and returned to the Seanad for signature by the President before hiring commences for September's new teachers and hospitals start taking interns (I believe yesterday was the start day for newbie docs)

Are you an NUI or TCD graduate?? Make sure you let your senators know where you stand on this. The voting record is at the end of the transcript.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2012/05/02/00007.asp

......Since I first proposed the Bill, I have endeavoured to do everything I can to build consensus to move it forward. I engaged with the other political parties and Independents. I made it clear that I am prepared to work with any Member on any amendment to make the Bill more effective. On Second Stage we are debating the general principles and on Committee Stage, as we do with other Bills, we can make sure everyone is happy with the precise wording. I had originally planned to bring the Bill into the House two months ago but I agreed to hold off at the request of the Government side to allow time to consult and collaborate on it. We have been doing that over the past two months but we must move on because this is an issue of immediate and pressing concern to so many people.

Under equality legislation, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee or potential employee on grounds including gender, civil status, family status and sexual orientation. However, section 37(1) of the Act provides an exemption for religious, educational or medical institutions under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes. It is widely considered that this section could be used to justify discrimination against an employee simply because he or she is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, separated, divorced, cohabiting outside marriage or an unmarried mother. Some people say this is a hypothetical problem and question whether such discrimination, even though it is legal, could take place. This week, we learned of an investigation by the Ombudsman for Children into a school in Tipperary that refused to enroll a 16 year old girl on the grounds that she was pregnant. Citing his duty to protect the honourable majority of his pupils, the principal stated the school should not be blamed for having a “moral code”. If such prejudice can be used against a teenage girl who wants to finish her education, I have no doubt that it can also be used to deny someone a job or promotion in a school or hospital.

People are at any immediate risk and putting this issue on the long finger will leave them vulnerable. GLEN and the teacher unions believe section 37(1) of the Employment Equality Act is causing real problems for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, LGBT, teachers. GLEN states that as a result of this provision, employees or prospective employees, whose lives may possibly be interpreted to be contrary to the religious ethos of some faiths, have lived in fear for their jobs and their prospects within employment. They acknowledge that no case has been taken under the Act but point out that it serves as a daily chill factor for LGBT teachers.....

While not perfect, moves in the right direction should not be shot down on the basis of not going far enough, there is no limit on the number of amendments that can be put, and the "not far enough" parts could have been put separately.


NB: I have a political conflict of interest in this, but I'm bringing it to people's attention so they can make their own decisions on it.

Annasopra

Firstly this seanad bill was 6 weeks ago so I'm not sure why the OP is bringing this up now

Secondly the bill had lots of flaws. It would not have prevented discrimination against single mothers, people with HIV, or transgendered people. On top of which it may well have fallen foul of article 44 of the constitution.

Thirdly while Senator Power should be commended on bringing the bill forward seeking a vote on it was incredibly divisive. A group of Senators (Bacik, Zappone, Power) were working towards an agreement Senator Power wouldn't put the matter to a vote, but would adjourn the debate, allowing government time to get proposals together. In order to encourage this, government was willing to put our own proposals by amending her legislation, giving her some credit for the change.

However, Senator Power decided late in the day that she wouldn't cooperate on this basis, and pushed the matter to a vote in the Seanad. That was unfortunate, and divisive at a time when there could have been a united Seanad agreeing to adjourn on the matter. Even Senator Zappone voted against the bill on the basis that she thought there was a lot of work to get cross-party agreement, and accepted our government commitments to continue to advance the matter.

It's puzzling why the OP thinks deeply flawed bill could have been passed so quickly and puzzling why FF took such a divisive approach on this bill.

Oh and yes I have a partisan conflict too (labour lgbt member)

stephen_n

Bad legislation isn't really better than none at all.

L1011

The FF bill is a half measure and passing it and then having to pass a proper bill to remove the bits that FF is scared of touching would be an utter waste of time and money; let alone the optics of letting FF claim credit for something that wasn't their idea and is only required due to them putting it in in the first place.

FF under Micky Martin = lets pretend we're not FF.

ninty9er

Progress is progress, and while the government had given a commitment to deal with and make amendments to the bill, it didn't.

You can moan all you like about it not going far enough, but someone actually tried to do something here and it was defeated by those who refused to put their own views forward on it.

L1011

ninty9er wrote: »

Progress is progress, and while the government had given a commitment to deal with and make amendments to the bill, it didn't.

You can moan all you like about it not going far enough, but someone actually tried to do something here and it was defeated by those who refused to put their own views forward on it.

Progress that costs time and money being fixed isn't worth it, and "progress is progress" doesn't deal with those issues AT ALL

The proper bill to do this will come from the Dail.

ninty9er

MYOB wrote: »

Progress that costs time and money being fixed isn't worth it, and "progress is progress" doesn't deal with those issues AT ALL

The proper bill to do this will come from the Dail.

It doesn't matter where a bill is initiated, it still has to go through the process. The Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality could have dealt with this bill and made any number of additions or amendments to it, but rather than enable that process the government members simply opposed it.

I'm not claiming the bill was perfect, but the government gave a commitment to engage with it, which it didn't.

Annasopra

ninty9er wrote: »

It doesn't matter where a bill is initiated, it still has to go through the process. The Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality could have dealt with this bill and made any number of additions or amendments to it, but rather than enable that process the government members simply opposed it.

I'm not claiming the bill was perfect, but the government gave a commitment to engage with it, which it didn't.

The government did actually consult with Senator Power and Senators Bacik and Zappone on this. Senator Zappone is not subject to a whip - she could have voted in favour but she chose not to because she was frustrated that cross partisan work into the issue was frustated by the divisive approach taken by Senator Power.

ninty9er

mango salsa wrote: »

Senator Power.

Who actually bothered to do something to address an issue. Labour will no doubt put forward something similar in a few months with a red rose on the front of it pronouncing it's commitment.

It's not really good enough.

Annasopra

ninty9er wrote: »

Who actually bothered to do something to address an issue. Labour will no doubt put forward something similar in a few months with a red rose on the front of it pronouncing it's commitment.

It's not really good enough.

Is this Senator Power who advised Education Minister Hanafin? FF were in power for 14 years - lots of opportunity to do something about it then.

I'm not sure what is not good enough though. Senator Powers bill was flawed so are you saying it's not good enough because the government didn't agree to flawed legislation.

SerialComplaint

ninty9er wrote: »

Who actually bothered to do something to address an issue.

Isn't a bit strange how she only bothered to do something AFTER her Government lost power after 17 years, and not BEFORE. Given all her years as Mother Mary Hanafin's advisor, she had plenty of time to further this agenda when she held power, but she was surprisingly silent then.

L1011

ninty9er wrote: »

It doesn't matter where a bill is initiated, it still has to go through the process. The Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality could have dealt with this bill and made any number of additions or amendments to it, but rather than enable that process the government members simply opposed it.

I'm not claiming the bill was perfect, but the government gave a commitment to engage with it, which it didn't.

Why bother trying to patch up a fatally flawed piece of attention seeking by someone who's been rejected by the people?

Silvics

Maybe Jerry Buttimer, Dominic Hannigan and John Lyons should cross the floor to vote for it. Put it to their own party" why would you discriminate against me?".

stephen_n

ninty9er wrote: »

Who actually bothered to do something to address an issue. Labour will no doubt put forward something similar in a few months with a red rose on the front of it pronouncing it's commitment.

It's not really good enough.

Something similar but not as intrinsically flawed. You seem more interested in Fianna FAIL proposing legislation than what the bill actually achieves. Why does it matter to you which party actually brings in the proper and effective legislation?

L1011

Silvics wrote: »

Maybe Jerry Buttimer, Dominic Hannigan and John Lyons should cross the floor to vote for it. Put it to their own party" why would you discriminate against me?".

They aren't Senators.

Their own parties are going to introduce a properly written version of this.


This was nothing other than a publicity stunt by a politician who failed to get elected by the people.

Silvics

MYOB wrote: »

They aren't Senators.

Their own parties are going to introduce a properly written version of this.


This was nothing other than a publicity stunt by a politician who failed to get elected by the people.

Hadn't realized she is only senator-she gets alot of publicity for one. Agree totally-failed politician, and from a party of opportunists with not a principle among them.

Captain Graphite

Fwiw I have no political allegiance but I actually quite like Averil Power. She doesn't strike me as the "typical self-serving FF'er" and I do believe she genuinely cares about this issue. If her political allegiance lay with a different party I think she'd have been been given a little more credit for this. Can't help wonder if she'd be taken more seriously if she became an independent.

Annasopra

Captain Graphite wrote: »

Fwiw I have no political allegiance but I actually quite like Averil Power. She doesn't strike me as the "typical self-serving FF'er" and I do believe she genuinely cares about this issue. If her political allegiance lay with a different party I think she'd have been been given a little more credit for this. Can't help wonder if she'd be taken more seriously if she became an independent.

That's why FF put her forward prominently because they know that people don't associate her with the FF of old.

I went to the conference on involving more women in politics. She opened her speech by stating that she joined ogra ff as a way of creating/furthering her own career. Not because she believed in FF, not because she was passionate about politics but because it would benefit her career.

Aside from all that she is impressive.

L1011

Power's media coverage comes from the fact that she's married to the political editor of the Independent. She got ridiculous amounts of coverage from them before she was even a Senator.