Reconciling Competing Rights

As a unionist, attending Féile an Phobail for the first time was a little daunting, but in general I have found the discussion and debate sessions enjoyable and welcoming to all viewpoints. (I think this year will be the fourth occasion that I have attended.) Hence, I am surprised to see Féile cancelling an event organised by the Women’s Rights Network called Respect, Rights and Reality on the grounds that this event would “promote campaigns against rights for the transgender community.”

In a country where we used literally to murder each other over differing political attitudes, we have learned to tolerate those with different opinions to ours, so why do issues like this generate such black and white thinking.

When I was a young student in QUB back in 1980, student debates could be heated affairs, but even though people were being murdered on a weekly basis, there seemed to be an agreement that it was possible to disagree without necessarily being motivated by evil intent; there was enough complexity in the situation for different interpretations to be permissible. Yet when I spoke in favour of gay rights, or in favour of a woman’s right to choose abortion, there was no such tolerance. Having spoken in favour of a woman’s right to make that difficult choice one evening, I was literally surrounded by angry students accusing me of supporting the murder of babies.

Competing Rights

To an extent, I could understand the anger that evening. The right of the foetus to survive and the right of the woman to have control over her own body clash; they are completely incompatible and if the woman’s right triumphs, then the foetus cannot survive. If you genuinely believe that a foetus is a human being, then killing it must seem like murder.

As with the abortion issue, the rights of women to ‘women-only spaces’ or women-only sport seems to conflict directly with what trans women see as their right to be treated as women. To some this issue is so black and white that even to describes someone as a trans woman, rather than just a woman will be seen as an act of bigotry.

When the human rights of two groups clash, it is too easy to react with anger and outrage. We need to try to be proportional and ensure that both groups are listened to, that their fears are acknowledged and that solutions are proportional.

When I was teaching in secondary school, we focused on practical solutions for toilet access rather than debating trans rights. We had disabled toilets available with a key and any pupil who was trans, was able to ask for one of those keys and conflict was avoided. To some this lack of clarity may seem a cop-out, but female pupils had their access to female only spaces, while trans pupils had access to suitable toilets. This allowed our trans pupils to avoid being the focus of attention – if only life could be so simple outside schools.

Cancelling Debate

A statement from Féile includes the following: “Féile an Phobail was unaware from the initial submission that this event would promote campaigns against rights for the transgender community.

“Féile an Phobail takes pride in standing up for those who are marginalised and attacked.”

There seems to be a suggestion that Féile was not fully informed of who would be on the panel and they may be concerned that the panel is unbalanced and that the debate will encourage unwanted focus on trans people.

Such concerns may be valid, but to ban this event entirely smacks of censorship of reasonable political discussion – could a rebalancing of the panel have been considered? And does every panel have to be ‘balanced’?