Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Socialist Party and the Anti-Austerity Alliance for putting forward this Bill. There is no doubt that the "Yes" vote in the marriage equality referendum was a watershed in Irish life and is hugely welcome. Much of the time, we in this House debate issues that are not so positive or fight over what is good or bad, so it was nice to see the political parties in this House united and to see the overwhelming body of opinion in the country demand and succeed in achieving a significant and progressive change.

The Yes Equality slogan brilliantly captured the mood. There is no doubt that the resonance Yes Equality went way beyond the issue of LGBT rights. It is phenomenal that we got to a point where the overwhelming majority of people, young and old, supported marriage equality. There may have been a generational aspect to the issue, but I was inspired by the fact that right across the generations people embraced the "Yes" vote and the need to see people as human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation. The victory for the "Yes" campaign was mammoth, but the point is that the notion of equality resonated far further than LGBT rights.

It is a logical follow-on from the sentiment that drove the "Yes" vote that the desire and demand for equality should now run through every aspect of life and endeavour in society. This Bill is part of following through on that sentiment and demand for a society where equality is a reality and where discrimination on grounds of religion, sexual orientation, race, Traveller status, disability or any sort of discrimination or prejudice is anathema. It is part of the demand to sweep out any discrimination and to legislate for that. In this case it is in the area of employment and the right for all citizens to be treated without prejudice, regardless of their status.

As some Members have mentioned, this Bill speaks to the insistence that a demand or slogan that has been around a long time - the separation of church and State - must be translated by this House into reality. This is what people want and it must happen. It is unacceptable that this policy would persist in any shape or form. I was talking to a teacher earlier and asked to what extent he believed discrimination in this regard persists. He told me that because of the change in sentiment and in the views of people generally, he could not think of many instances of discrimination being persistent, because such is the tide of popular opinion and sentiment that discrimination is being swept aside. That is great but our laws must now reflect that change.

It is telling that the political system is always behind and always catching up with the progress that is being made by ordinary people demanding change. The conservative mentality of looking over the shoulder that often persists in conventional political life is slow to make change, even when the tide of public opinion and sentiment has long since decided such changes are necessary. This Bill is a catching up exercise as much as anything else in seeking to pass legislation and demanding that our laws reflect the wishes, views and sentiments of the people for equality.

It is important to reflect the left wing point of view, that in demanding this equality and in demanding an end to any discrimination in this regard, we are not - as we are often portrayed - anti-religion and seeking to snuff out people's right to their religious beliefs and ethos. On the contrary, it has never been true of the genuine left tradition that it has sought to deny people the right to express their religious views.

I will divert slightly, but since we are all in agreement on this, it is worth making the historical point that the Bolsheviks in Russia had a surprising view, but perhaps not so surprising if one understands their politics. One of the key arguments made by Lenin in his famous pamphlet - What is To Be Done? - was that the job of revolutionary socialists was to defend the rights of religious minorities in Russia against, at the time, the vicious persecution by the tsarist regime which had orthodox Christianity as the dominant religion. Lenin was at pains to defend a religious sect, called the old believers. Similarly, the Bolsheviks defended the rights of Jews who suffered horrendously from pogroms under that regime. This was not because they had any belief or commitment. By and large, they supported a secular society, where there would be separation of church and state, but they were adamant that people should have the right to freedom of religious expression.

On the one hand, the Bill demands an end to discrimination on religious or any other grounds but, on the other hand, it demands that people have the right to preserve their own ethos and develop organisations or institutions which promote that ethos. They should be allowed to discriminate in favour of that ethos only where it is absolutely necessary for the specific promotion of that ethos and it should not cross over into other areas in terms of the delivery of services. The obvious examples that have been mentioned include schools and hospitals, for example, where it is utterly unacceptable that preserving a particular religious ethos, or any other ethos, should cross over into the preservation of the ethos becoming an excuse to discriminate against people or to deny them vital services to which they have a right, for example, a woman’s right to choose or whatever else it might be. The Bill strikes a vital balance in that regard.

I am pleased the Government has welcomed the Bill. It is entirely in line with the sentiment that came from the referendum. I hope the Government will progress the Bill beyond Second Stage to ensure the legislative changes being sought become law as soon as possible. The demand for equality is not just in regard to social issues but at every level of society, including economic equality. On that front, we have a hell of a long way to go. In fact, economic inequality has got worse not better under the Government. That is the next big crusade.

See this speech in context