David Norris (Independent)

First, I commend Senator Power, as it comes as a great relief to me not to be the person introducing such legislation, as well as to discover I no longer am the only gay in the village. I note another one has joined from the Minister's party in recent days, a development on which both he and his party must be congratulated. I also commend Senator Power on her flexibility. She has indicated she is prepared to have the Bill amended and will not press it further. She has started the process and discussion and a number of the Minister's comments have been extremely constructive and helpful, albeit not all of them, a point to which I will return in a minute, as I remember very well the cases he has cited. However, I make the point that people are afraid and have grounds to be so for as long as the sections under discussion exist. I was a Member of the House in 1998, when these provisions were put through by a very fine Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mervyn Taylor. He maintained that while there was no constitutional objection, it was politically impossibility to get the equality legislation through because of the conservatism within all the political parties, that this was the maximum achievable and it would be necessary to continue to discriminate against gay people. I believe that Joe O'Toole and I were about the only two Members who voted against it on that basis. This demonstrates how far we have changed and thank God for that

I also remember the case law that applied in the neighbouring island and how dangerous it was. Approximately 15 years ago, a young fellow, who was employed as a gardener in a public school in Scotland, attended a gay rights rally as a member of the public. Unbeknownst to himself, he was photographed and his photograph appeared in the local newspaper, after which he was dismissed simply for attending a rally. While he had never attempted to subvert anything or to attack the ethos, he was dismissed and that case was upheld in the courts in Britain. There is an impact on bullying and Members should not fool themselves that this has stopped. I am delighted there are people from BeLonG To in the Visitors Gallery, although I cannot see everyone terribly well. However, I attended the opening of the BeLonGTo premises 18 months ago by the former Minister of State, Barry Andrews, at which a 16-year-old youth told of how he had put up the officially sponsored anti-homophobic bullying posters in a Christian Brothers school in north Dublin city and was forced, in the presence of his classmates, by the brother in charge to take them down. His life was made so intolerable that he was obliged to leave the school. This still is going on. Perhaps five or eight years ago, I launched a book about bullying. which included a section on homophobic bullying. At that point, 80% of schoolyard bullying included a homophobic element and 80% of cases were not addressed because teachers were afraid. One key to that fear is section 37, a section I would like to see removed. It is also very important to consider the question of the equality tribunals because the existing five rights fora are being subsumed into a single two-tier system. My concern is the unique features of employment equality cases do not appear to have been given appropriate attention under this new arrangement. Perhaps the Minister will confirm the welcome reports that equal status cases will not be heard before the District Court as it is very important that they do not do so.

As for the Minister's speech, he spoke of the rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs and so on. I fully agree but as an Anglican, I am ashamed that it was my church, as well as the Roman Catholic Church, which insisted on denominational schooling. As a Christian, I do not believe that is proper and is one factor that has led to the situation in the North of Ireland. The Minister's cited the case of McGrath and Ó Ruairc v. The Trustees of Maynooth College. While I am unsure whether the Minister remembers the case, I remember it extremely well and I know the reason they were fired. They were fired because they left the priesthood and I believe one of them got married. They were teachers of history and that judgment was a disgrace. I do not care whether it came from the Supreme Court or from where it came as it was outrageous and certainly should be superseded. I certainly doubt whether that could happen in Maynooth now because the college has been separated into a pontifical university and a kind of secular institution. Mr. Justice Henchy was responsible, which just shows that an excellent judge can give a bad judgment. He gave a very good dissenting judgment in my own case. I welcome the Minister's helpful suggestions in outlining areas in which shading and nuancing must be included in the Bill and I believe Senator Power accepts this point.

I wish to make one comment on the contribution of the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, who stated, "I will repeat the sentiment expressed by the Minister, Deputy Shatter, lest there be any doubt - it is the position of this Government that we will ensure that discrimination against LGBT people, or against single mothers, will be brought to an end". If that is the case, I wish to see some action. For example, I refer to the most disgraceful example of child abuse perpetrated by the last Government, with the collaboration of a fair number of Members of this House, which allowed the non-recognition of the rights of children in same-sex marriage. It is the single provision that otherwise blights that otherwise excellent legislation. I was glad to see the Minister nodding and I hope it was in agreement. I hope this issue will be addressed because it constitutes a violation of the rights of children. While I note this commitment has now been made by two Ministers, let them live up to it. I do not believe there will be a Division in the House this evening and I believe this represents an important stage in the development of human rights. However, as a believing and practising Christian, I do not believe it goes far enough and would like to see the whole thing gone.

My final comment is that I was fascinated to hear Senator Jim D'Arcy state that he applied for and got a job even though he thought that someone who was an atheist could teach religion. I do not believe this because I believe children can pick up on sincerity. Children will know well if someone obviously thinks it is complete and utter poppycock. I would not have got the Senator's job because I would have agreed with the other fellow. I would have said the answer was "No", that such a person should teach geography or whatever and that someone else should be brought in. While one should not discriminate against such a person, I would not wish to be told something was true by someone who does not believe it, because I can smell dishonesty. Consequently, I think the Senator got the job on the wrong pretext.