Slugger O'Toole

Conversation, politics and stray insights

Political morality, power, education … believing you are right or being open to debate? #p4cmorals + What’s Platform for Change’s purpose?

Mon 24 February 2014, 11:48pm

Platform for Change’s look at political morality suffered from wet weather, a low turnout, an imbalanced panel and a topic that the room tended to engage with in a relatively passionless way.

Robin Wilson chaired the evening, peppering the panellists’ contributions with quotations and observations. I’ve noted my sense of what I heard in the post below. However, for more full and exact quotes you’ll need to listen to the embedded audio. [Parts one, two, three, four]

part 1 p4cmorals John Joanne MalachiJohn O’Doherty (Rainbow Project) unpicked some of the higher profile moral issues, and described the Minister Edwin Poots as spending tens of thousands of pounds supporting pointless opposition to changes on blood donation from sexually active gay men, or same sex couples adopting.

Joanne Stuart (business consultant) spoke personally, commenting that businesses have to adhere to strict equality legislation and have “to accept everyone’s beliefs within the workplace”. Businesses want “stable, open society, where people want to live and work and be accepted”. Would like to move from popular decision-making to a more evidence-based approach.

Malachi O’Doherty (writer and commentator) brought a bit of balance to the panel (which was devoid of any conservative faith-based voice) and asked whether we could have a 1950s or 1980s sense of public morality to which everyone could be called to adhere to … or whether the notion of morality should be ditched and people held to a set of guidelines no matter what they believed. Morality for a lot of people – including most of the ones who want to be MLAs – was not an optional extra on their lives. He accepted that some would see politicians as hypocrites. He noted that fervent evangelicals and moral liberals equally ‘believe’ that they are right and neither will really weigh up the issues and enter into debate.

Apparently Diane Dodds (DUP MLA) declined an invitation to attend. A pity other representatives of conservative faith weren’t approached: many DUP Belfast Councillors would have been idea panelists. Bernadette Smyth from Precious Life also declined to attend.

part 2 p4cmorals Clare Dave EdnaClaire Bailey (Green Party) ably stood in for Steven Agnew who was stuck up at the Assembly arguing about his climate change amendment. Are homosexuality and abortion public morals or a personal issue. Surely transparency in political donations and environmental destruction should be higher priority public morals. Legislation needs to be based on evidence in order to for the best of all people.

Dave Archard (QUB political philosopher) approached the issue via American philosopher John Rawls who believed that consensus could only be achieved by coercion! Dave responded to Malachi saying that he could think of many secular liberals who were hypocritical and inconsistent. He reminded the audience that Rawls believed that a separation of church and state needs to be a two way separation.

Edna Longley (emeritus professor and cultural critic) described political parties as being conditioned by their historic ties to the Protestant or Catholic churches. Politicians sound like Old Testament prophets or Popes. She wondered at the Attorney General John Larkin’s recent public questioning of the Supreme Court ruling [which upheld a judgement against Christian guesthouse owners] and his suggestion that they had misunderstood the orthodox church position. Edna though that perhaps the Supreme Court had understood it all too well. The orthodox Christian position has shifted and been contended over the years.

part 3 p4cmorals Q and AThe Q&A afterwards wondered whether or not the suggested immorality of elected representatives reflected the public at large. There was a lot of support for the removal of religious instruction (rather than all religion) from education.

Dave Archard stood up for religion saying that it shouldn’t be condemned out of hand as it offers much good – and is recognised as such elsewhere in the UK as well as in other countries. The Catholic church’s strong contributions in South America were one example. However a particular type of religiosity is what is being disputed. Later he also defended politicians, and criticised Russell Brand’s remarks in his Newsnight interview. Dave also remarked that the biggest barrier to progressive transformation in some democracies have been the courts.

Shimna Integrated College and its principal Kevin Lambe got a mention as an example of educational leadership around a range of diversity issues, not just LGBT. John O’Doherty noted that the Rainbow Project works with and in schools right across the educational spectrum.

Malachi explained that DUP and Sinn Fein’s survival depends on continued division and ossification that is toxic.

Clause 6 of the Human Trafficking bill was described as “a solution without a problem”.

The Northern Ireland Life & Times survey points to a societal shift in attitudes towards same sex relationships and marriage. Why are our politicians not reflecting society when we vote for them?

John O’Doherty talked about “Power, Money, Compromise and Fear”.

part 4 p4cmorals Q and AWhile the Malachi O’Doherty and Dave Archard managed to keep the panel from disappearing down a centre-left secular plughole, the conversation was devalued by the absence of one or two robust defenders of some of the moral values that were being so questioned and discredited. Intriguingly one of the issues highlighted in the event’s promotional material – the potential political censorship of the Reduced Shakespeare Company’s production at The Mill in Newtownabbey – wasn’t mentioned. Neither was there any real discussion around whether the Executive and Assembly were dealing adequately with poverty in Northern Ireland, or the morality issues behind delaying or implementing the welfare reform bill.

Malachi finished his opening talk saying “it’s a ferment of debate and will be for a very long time.” He might be right!

Platform for Change’s are organising a European Election candidate hustings on the evening of Monday 28 April in the Ormeau Avenue Holiday Inn. All Euro candidates will be invited, on the proviso they speak about European issues (including how the EU affects NI).

- – -

I’m no long certain what Platform for Change’s purpose is.

In the four or five years since its launch Platform for Change has failed to become a source of challenge or policy development. Nights out for social liberals are well and good – and I’m not knocking social liberals or nights out – but the Green-Labour-soft Conservative-sometimes Alliance attendees are hardly being empowered to change anything. The very fact that those involved with NI21 don’t turn up is damning.

Platform for Change has been at its strongest when it’s been shining a spotlight on consensus between parties. Their flag event was probably their most timely and constructive intervention in Belfast politics. But its softly, softly approach has generated some light but practically no heat.

I can’t see any evidence in party or Executive policy that the “three demanding issues” P4C picked out at their launch event have moved an inch: education, Sustainable development, and Intercultural dialogue/community relations. To recap on their February 2010 statements:

Education …

“The vista of unregulated chaos issuing from the abolition of academic selection at 11 should be ended by moving as quickly as possible to a system of examination-based progress at 14. Schools are already organising into area-based partnerships: this should be accelerated so that all pupils have access to the maximum range of curricular choice. To promote intercultural dialogue, area-based partnerships should, as far as is practicable, involve collaborative networks of de facto Protestant, Catholic, integrated and Irish-medium schools.”

Sustainable development …

“Energy policy, economic development, public buildings, public housing stock, investment in innovation, training, transport, planning—all these are devolved. Through adopting a Green New Deal approach the executive could secure and create jobs—from ‘green collar’ insulation jobs to high-tech engineering jobs which build on Northern Ireland’s traditional strengths—and can start to transform our economy while simultaneously tackling fuel poverty.”

Intercultural dialogue / Community relations …

commitments to “intercultural education, including non-formal education, should be a priority across the education system; ‘shared neighbourhoods’ should become the model, and protected by vigorous pursuit of the perpetrators of intimidation, not rehousing of their victims; the Police Service of Northern Ireland must ensure everyone can enjoy the rule of law, providing the necessary security to remove the ‘peace walls’; and the public realm should be protected as the property of all, with zero tolerance of sectarian appropriation by flags and emblems.”

It’s either time for a name change to Platform for Discussion, or time for Platform for Change to reboot.

Share 'Political morality, power, education … believing you are right or being open to debate? #p4cmorals + What’s Platform for Change’s purpose?' on Delicious Share 'Political morality, power, education … believing you are right or being open to debate? #p4cmorals + What’s Platform for Change’s purpose?' on Digg Share 'Political morality, power, education … believing you are right or being open to debate? #p4cmorals + What’s Platform for Change’s purpose?' on Facebook Share 'Political morality, power, education … believing you are right or being open to debate? #p4cmorals + What’s Platform for Change’s purpose?' on Google+ Share 'Political morality, power, education … believing you are right or being open to debate? #p4cmorals + What’s Platform for Change’s purpose?' on LinkedIn Share 'Political morality, power, education … believing you are right or being open to debate? #p4cmorals + What’s Platform for Change’s purpose?' on Pinterest Share 'Political morality, power, education … believing you are right or being open to debate? #p4cmorals + What’s Platform for Change’s purpose?' on reddit Share 'Political morality, power, education … believing you are right or being open to debate? #p4cmorals + What’s Platform for Change’s purpose?' on StumbleUpon Share 'Political morality, power, education … believing you are right or being open to debate? #p4cmorals + What’s Platform for Change’s purpose?' on Twitter Share 'Political morality, power, education … believing you are right or being open to debate? #p4cmorals + What’s Platform for Change’s purpose?' on Add to Bookmarks Share 'Political morality, power, education … believing you are right or being open to debate? #p4cmorals + What’s Platform for Change’s purpose?' on Email Share 'Political morality, power, education … believing you are right or being open to debate? #p4cmorals + What’s Platform for Change’s purpose?' on Print Friendly

Comments (10)

  1. A couple of points if I may.
    PFC always suffers from having too many people on a panel. With respect to Joanne Stuart, I am not sure that a personal opinion was really adding anything.
    Diane Dodds did the right thing in not attending…Robin Wilson was a tad dismissive of her and of Bernadette Smyth.
    but is there any point in any opponent of Integrated Education (PFC last June) or Secular Morality (tonight) actually attending a PFC event with a hostile audience. or indeed SF or DUP people.
    Indeed one person in the audience who outed himself as a SDLP member got an audible groan from the audience.
    PFC events are for PFC people.

    It is of course incorrect for PFC to portray this all as a struggle between Secular Morality (theirs) and Religious Morality (DUP kind).
    many people struggle with their own sense of morality, somewhere in between.
    Indeed the Secular Moralists can be as intolerant as Christian Right Moralists.
    A plague on both their houses.

    Strange that going to the event, I thought of how in my adult lifetime that Contraception was actually illegal in the Republic of Ireland….and cowardly politicians got off the hook by claiming that changes were forced on them by Europe.
    I was wondering if anyone would mention Direct Rule as a way out…Edna Longley referenced this.
    I think she also noted that it was the Republic which was once depicted as Confessional.
    Surprisingly…or possibly not…nobody mentioned the contradiction of unionists not implementing British laws.

    Robin Wilson was too anxious to get panellists back on message when they strayed off the PFC agenda.
    For example John O’Doherty noted that his Rainbow project got good receptions in State and catholic schools. It was not the case necessarily in Integrated Schools….it was at this point Mr Wilson brought up Shimna.
    likewise John O’Doherty mentioned the effectiveness of Jim Allister in Opposition and he was prompted to mention Steven Agnew (much more a PFC favourite).

    A low key event.
    And really just another case of the usual suspects in the audience riding the same hobby horses.
    Will be interesting to see if Diane Dodds and Martina Anderson accept an invitation to engage with a PFC audience with other Euro candidates.
    No reason why they should.
    The sense of “entitlement” and superiority ofa PFC audience cant be attractive.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  2. > likewise John O’Doherty mentioned the effectiveness of Jim Allister in Opposition and he was prompted to mention Steven Agnew (much more a PFC favourite).

    Oddly, no one mentioned NI21 … and there was no sign of the otherwise active NI21 group at QUB in the audience. Maybe NI21 are post-Platform for Change.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  3. BifterGreenthumb (profile) says:

    “Are homosexuality and abortion public morals or a personal issue.”

    Homosexuality doesn’t affect anybody apart from the consenting adults involved. It is obviously a private/personal issue and any legislation that discriminates against homosexuals is unjustified and therefore immoral. Any (pseudo-)moral judgement against homosexuality is based on intolerant religious belief and has no place in public discourse.

    While I am instinctively pro-choice abortion is a much more difficult issue when it comes to the public or private/personal debate than homosexuality. If an unborn baby is ‘person’ then it should have rights and the mother/parents’ decision shouldn’t be the deciding factor as the rights of the child need to be taken into consideration. This makes it a public issue as society should protect the unborn person. However I would be sceptical that a cluster of cells counts as a person.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  4. NI21….out of sight and out of mind.
    NI21 seems to have faltered a bit lately.
    But three or four years ago, people might have looked on PFC as “progressives” coming together.
    It seems “looser” now.
    Labour NI seem are suffering from some kinda depression.
    People seem to have used PFC as a means of choosing a Party to go with and a certain amount of political musical chairs has been going on.
    Labour to Green
    UUP to NI21 and so on.
    So it seems more fractured and political points to score on other “progressive rivals”.
    It looks like a movement whose time has past.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  5. Just to add…that as their panel last night had a basic PFC manifesto of Secular Morality….it excluded not just the more fundamentalist morality of Diane Dodds and Pro Choice Group….a little too snakily for my liking…..the real voice marginalised last night was the moderate religious person.
    And that should have disappointed the “churchy” progressives.
    Too many anti-religious broad brush last night.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  6. IJP (profile) says:

    FJH and I are really going to have to stop agreeing like this!

    Frankly, it’s easy to arrange a “debate” on your own terms, get everyone to agree, and then go off feeling content with the world. But it doesn’t actually achieve anything!

    The PfC agenda, or anything like it, will only realistically be achieved by reducing the combined DUP/SF Assembly factions to a minority. What has PfC ever achieved to that end?

    Maybe NI21 were out knocking doors, which may achieve something. I know Alliance were.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  7. It was going so well until IJP mentioned Alliance….

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  8. Charles_Gould (profile) says:

    FJH and IJP: get a room.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  9. FuturePhysicist (profile) says:

    In the four or five years since its launch Platform for Change has failed to become a source of challenge or policy development. Nights out for social liberals are well and good – and I’m not knocking social liberals or nights out – but the Green-Labour-soft Conservative-sometimes Alliance attendees are hardly being empowered to change anything. The very fact that those involved with NI21 don’t turn up is damning.

    Platform for Change has been at its strongest when it’s been shining a spotlight on consensus between parties. Their flag event was probably their most timely and constructive intervention in Belfast politics. But its softly, softly approach has generated some light but practically no heat.

    I can’t see any evidence in party or Executive policy that the “three demanding issues” P4C picked out at their launch event have moved an inch: education, Sustainable development, and Intercultural dialogue/community relations. To recap on their February 2010 statements:

    It would adhere to a mental illness to think education, sustainable development and inter community dialogue issues would move a mere nanometer by complaining about them?

    It’s anti-action pro consequence!

    Platform fo change is a failure, who make the Executive and Stormont seem excellent by comparison.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  10. Adam Murray (profile) says:

    Given the review I doubt either Basil or John will be kicking themselves for missing this event.

    I attended a PfC event a while back in the wake of the flag protests and it was a lovely panel discussion… and that’s about it. There were no agreed actions, there was no follow up, but we’d all had a nice night out and a bit of a chat.

    Which is grand, people should get together more often and discuss these sorts of issues, but the current format and the infrequency of events begs the question of what is being achieved?

    The Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party and the anarchist collective Organise!, all meet on a regular basis and have these sort of panel debates. And the vast majority of people don’t know they even exist.

    Talking shops don’t bring action, and no action means no change. Alan’s final point about a change of name or a reboot seems to sum things up perfectly.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Slugger O'Toole Ltd. All rights reserved.
Powered by WordPress; produced by Puffbox.
100 queries. 0.647 seconds.