David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I found this failure astonishing but equally astonishing to me at the time was the response I received when I mentioned the case to some friends who were part of the legal establishment. According to them, while it was a pity about Ms Flynn, she was a provo. I have no idea whether that statement was a libel or true but I could not care less what her political sympathies were because they had nothing to do with her fitness to teach, unless she was teaching some kind of extraordinary violence, which I do not believe for one moment was the case. Eileen Flynn was a good mother and teacher and her case has echoes for me because the day after I acknowledged my sexuality publicly for the first time, which was in 1970, concerned colleagues told me I could lose my job. This was in Trinity College so one can imagine what it must have been like in those days for a teacher in a secondary or primary school.

This Bill is a remarkable and wonderful development and I am pleased it will pass without the House dividing on it, which is a further splendid example of co-operation in the Seanad. I remember when the original legislation was introduced. I was naive to the extent that I could not believe that sections were being introduced providing for exemptions from the legislation's provisions. I speak as an imperfect but practising Christian. It seems extraordinary that the Christian churches would want to be exempt from equality and a requirement to treat people as individuals with dignity, which is at the very centre of the gospels. The Minister who introduced the Bill, Mr. Mervyn Taylor, was an extremely decent man, although he and I had different opinions on the situation in the Middle East. He explained to us that providing for exemptions was the only way the Government could possibly get equality legislation through the House. The former Senator Joe O'Toole and I tabled amendments and fought the exemptions on the principle that there should be equality. We argued that the proposal was a serious derogation from this principle which would have an intimidating and awful effect. As a member of the Irish Federation of University Teachers, we fought on behalf of two lecturers in Maynooth but the college got away with its actions on the basis that it was the pontifical university.

One must ask what ethos would need this kind of absurd protection and for what reason. I draw Senators' attention to a very good article published on 4 August 2007 by a legal scholar, Dr. Mark Coen of Trinity College, in which he isolated some of the principles involved in this issue. While he also addressed the gay issue, he noted that the law places employees, including heterosexual cohabitees, in an invidious position where they are employed by a religious organisation. While this may appear to be a theoretical matter, Senators should note a case in Scotland where a gardener in a public school attended a gay rights march, was dismissed, took a case and the court found against him on the basis that the group involved had every right to dismiss him. This is utterly wrong.

Senator Bacik described the Bill as slightly conservative. I believe its proposers have got the mix right, although I remain to be persuaded. If they wish to be more radical, there is nobody who likes to be radical more than me. As a former teacher, it is my view that if one wants to teach something and communicate it properly, one should believe it. My religion would have been ruined if I had been taught religion by an atheist because I would have smelled the person's lack of belief from yards off. While I would not have condemned the person, I would have known he or she was not sincere. I do not believe atheists, who are decent people by and large, should be forced to be untrue to themselves. For this reason, they should be relieved from teaching religion. For God's sake, let us have people who believe teaching religion. The ideal position would be if families were to do the teaching. However, while parents insist on ethos here, there and everywhere else, they do not want to be bothered teaching their children, leading by example and showing them how wonderful and beautiful religion is. I would not have been bothered if somebody had taught Buddhism, one of the great religions. I do not see anything in the Bill to suggest aggressive secularism or any of the other things for which we are usually attacked.

I hate the idea of a religious ethos, whether Protestant or Catholic. On the other hand, I remember arguing for what one could describe as the religious ethos in a hospital environment, namely, the Protestant ethos, simply because it appeared that it could encompass the Catholic ethos while giving freedom of choice and providing for a particular relationship between patient and doctor that was inviolable. For that reason, I preferred the Protestant ethos in the hospital setting to the imposition of a religious point of view on matters such as the availability of certain operations and procedures. I have no problem if that position appears sectarian.

Homophobic bullying is a serious problem. I salute the organisation BeLonGTo. It was wonderful that it got Síle de Valera, with her iconic surname, to launch its first posters on bullying. It is worrying, however, that 80% of bullying in schools has a homophobic element and 80% of it is never addressed because people are still afraid. For this reason, I salute those members of the Irish National Teachers Organisation - I remember speaking at their conference - who have been so brave and wonderful and who, in their vulnerability, stood up and acknowledged their sexuality.