In that context, this from his blog yesterday in the wake of Tuesday's debate at Stormont, was a revealing comment:
Equality cannot and should not be built on good relations."Cannot"? "Should not"?
We'll leave his definition of "equality" (which I suspect will differ substantially from the textbook version) for the moment; the first truth to highlight here is that by saying "equality" and "good relations" are of identical value one is not denying the vital importance of the former for any fully operating democracy as McKay is alleging. The second simple truth is "equality" which rests on the foundation of "good relations" is much more likely to be sustainable in the long-term than the version built on the kind of communal one-upmanship McKay and his party specialises in.
That latter approach has resulted in the areas where McKay garners much of his support in North Antrim (e.g N.Ireland's latest Capital of Sectarianism, Rasharkin) possessing a sad lack of both "equality" and "good relations". But since it has also won him both electoral support and an Assembly seat, I can't really see him changing the approach anytime soon.
7 comments:
So, what exactly is your problem with the MacBride principles or the idea that there should be a statuatory duty to promote equality exactly?
Unionists would be better off sing these to their advantage rather than moaning.
"During the debate yesterday we argued that putting Good Relations on a par with equality would lead to cases where equality would be undermined on the basis of good relations. "
Strikes me as 100% accurate. What is this "Good relations"? Equality law can be defined. Laws can be defined when people do stuff wrong and then enforced. How do you legislate "Good Relations" exactly?
Good relatyions come from when both communitie are free to express themselves, confident in themselves and protected from unair discrimination. It does not come from subverting these things to try and get along.
"So, what exactly is your problem with the MacBride principles or the idea that there should be a statuatory duty to promote equality exactly?"
That's weaker than your usual and exactly the same strawman argument McKay attempted- disagreeing with the SF approach on this does not mean that you dispute the necessity of equality legislation. I dealt with it on my point 1 in the post.
"During the debate yesterday we argued that putting Good Relations on a par with equality would lead to cases where equality would be undermined on the basis of good relations."
Equality against discrimination is dealt with by legislation, attempting to achieve "good relations" is not- the purpose of the debate, as I understood it, was to ascertian whether both are equally desireable within a divided society.
McKay and his party took the Mugabe approach (ie the metaphorical "burn the white bastards out in the name of what we define as *equality*) on that one, whereas McDevitt (and it's not often that I agree with him these days) and his party took the Mandela approach- when different groups exist within a society their fears and dreams are of equal importance. Build "equality" (in the non-legislative sense) on community relations and you've got a much better chance of it succeeding. If you watch the film "Invicta" you'll see again and again Mandela adopting that approach. Certainly SA is not yet a perfect or racially harmonious society but it's light years further along the road than Zimbabwe.
"Good relatyions come from when both communitie are free to express themselves, confident in themselves and protected from unair discrimination."
So in your book "good relations" doesn't need any interaction between those and other different groups? Complete residential and workplace segregation would produce the same situation that you've described.
That would suit McKay, his party and much of the Unionist establishment down to the ground but it isn't a workable defintion of "good relations" by any stretch if the imagination.
That's weaker than your usual and exactly the same strawman argument McKay attempted- disagreeing with the SF approach on this does not mean that you dispute the necessity of equality legislation. I dealt with it on my point 1 in the post.
No, you had a pop against "equality" - repeated here - when Daithi clearly laid out the principles he was talking about
Equality against discrimination is dealt with by legislation, attempting to achieve "good relations" is not- the purpose of the debate, as I understood it, was to ascertian whether both are equally desireable within a divided society.
No, they are not "equally desirable". Good communitiy relations is a very desirable thing. But it is in no way as desirable as equality. That's one has some very strong legislation, and the other has flowery language.
McKay and his party took the Mugabe approach (ie the metaphorical "burn the white bastards out in the name of what we define as *equality*) on that one, whereas McDevitt (and it's not often that I agree with him these days) and his party took the Mandela approach- when different groups exist within a society their fears and dreams are of equal importance. Build "equality" (in the non-legislative sense) on community relations and you've got a much better chance of it succeeding. If you watch the film "Invicta" you'll see again and again Mandela adopting that approach. Certainly SA is not yet a perfect or racially harmonious society but it's light years further along the road than Zimbabwe.
I do not care about "equality in the non legislative sense". It is utterly meaningless. The Assembly is a legislative body. It should focus on what it can do ie legislation and executive action rather than waffle.
And the black population of SA is still up shit creek. You cannot build equality on good community relations. Did the Civil Rights marchers in the US demand some good relations to build on? No, they demand action and legislation now. Thankfully we are long past that point, but the primacy of equality remains.
So in your book "good relations" doesn't need any interaction between those and other different groups? Complete residential and workplace segregation would produce the same situation that you've described.
That would suit McKay, his party and much of the Unionist establishment down to the ground but it isn't a workable defintion of "good relations" by any stretch if the imagination.
And you have the cheek to talk of straw men? We don't have workplace segregation. Legislation has seen to that. People are entitled to buy houses where they want. Anything else is unworkable. I think there needs to be interaction, I just think that government interaction in this sphere is often wrong headed and counter productive (and you a conservative!). Thinks I like - strong rights legislation that applies both way, removing barriers that prevent people coming together, allowing people to express themselves freely and fully - if there things you can't handle being very specific about what it is you don't like to avoid personalising it, creating spaces and places where they can meet, and perhaps the odd nudge in the right direction. What I don't like, is outright social engineering by people they think they know better and even worse if it knocks any of the above.
As a republican, I believe deeply in removing barriers between the two communities here because even if we get a United Ireland without some harmony, it will be unfulfilled until the ideals of the flag are met. I just don't think this is the right way to go about it. There are things where SF's attitude disappoint me, but this isn't one of them.
Your comments zone just ate a large comment. In summary:
US Civil Rights protestors didn't demand nebulous community relations, they demanded action and legislation and worried about GR later. That is entirely correct. The Africa comparison is way way off skew. GR is desirable but equality always and everywhere must retain primacy. "Non legislative equality" is meaningless especially to a body that is essentially a legislative entity. It should focus on what it can do and stop waffling.
As a republican who believes in the ideals of a flag, reconciliation is a must. I just don't think government can provide it and is more likely to be counter productive. So I like things like removing barriers and creating spaces and keeping anything you think needs changing about the other side focused very narrowly. Perhaps the odd nudge. I dislike people who think they know better telling people they find distasteful for what to do. And you a Conservative apparently, and all.
You know when you have good GR by the by? When you don't need a strategy for it.
"No, you had a pop against "equality" - repeated here - when Daithi clearly laid out the principles he was talking about"
"Equality cannot and should not be built on good relations".
"Cannot"? "Should not"?
That's what he said and that's the crux of my criticism. "Cannot" is highly debatable- he's arguing that in a society where better inter-group relations are improving, it doesn't become easier for a more equal society to be built? Rubbish. "Should not" is just pure shameful.
...the first truth to highlight here is that by saying "equality" and "good relations" are of identical value one is not denying the vital importance of the former for any fully operating democracy as McKay is alleging
And that in no way can be construed as me having a pop against equality.
"No, they are not "equally desirable". Good communitiy relations is a very desirable thing. But it is in no way as desirable as equality. That's one has some very strong legislation, and the other has flowery language."
We are talking theoreticals here; unlike McKay, I'd argue in the perfect society good community relations and equality can and should work in tandem because in the end that makes true equality more likely to flourish. Pass all the equality legislation in the world, if you're not making simulataneously headway with how people (individually or collectively) think about others, then you haven't achieved your ultimate goal.
"I do not care about "equality in the non legislative sense". It is utterly meaningless. The Assembly is a legislative body. It should focus on what it can do ie legislation and executive action rather than waffle."
Equality legislation is already in place and guaranteed by Brussels and Westminster, so our joke parliament doesn't need to bother itself about. So that only leaves the intangibles, good relations and equality in the "non-legislative" sense. And it's not meaningless, it's the right to be considered equal, irrespective of creed, gender race, sexual orientation. Law can guarantee that in the workplace, it can't guarantee it in peoples' minds and until that happens, you don't have anything approaching true equality.
(continued)
"And the black population of SA is still up shit creek. You cannot build equality on good community relations. Did the Civil Rights marchers in the US demand some good relations to build on? No, they demand action and legislation now. Thankfully we are long past that point, but the primacy of equality remains."
Given the choice between SA and Zimbabwe, I know where I think the vast majority of poeple of all colours would rather live. I wasn't saying SA was the final product, I was saying the approach initially started by Mandela, intertwining equality with good relations, as a much better chance of succeeding. Re the fight for civil rights in the southern US. Again, like in Southern Africa, there were two different approaches, MLK's and Malcolm X. MLK had the foresight to see that a civil rights movement which was happy to embrace the white students and other liberals prepared to work for them had a much better chance of succeeding. The dream wasn't merely a legal framework to achieve true equality. Malcolm X (a very narrow self-defined version of equality achieved through separation) took the Mugabe (and McKay) approach- which has achieved more in terms of long-term?
"We don't have workplace segregation. Legislation has seen to that."
You know we still have workplace and residential segregation- and until a person can feel free to work or live anywhere in Northern Ireland, irrespective of his religion or political views, then you don't have true equality (if you want a definition of non-legislative equality, that's as close as you can get).
"..I just think that government interaction in this sphere is often wrong headed and counter productive (and you a conservative!)."
If by government, you mean our Executive, then I wouldn't worry avout any interaction, wrong-headed or otherwise. For Sinn Fein and the DUP, improving relations obviously do not make sense from their own selfish political pov. If you mean generally, then I don't think you can "legislate" good relations. You can however have it as a guiding philosophy and there is nothing wrong with putting that philosophy on the same level as the attainment of equality.
"You know when you have good GR by the by? When you don't need a strategy for it"
That's the measurement, not the means of achieving it but before that happens, it has to be atleast set as an objective.
The Rowntree Trust seem to be closer in line with McDevitt than Mckay
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11462266
Post a Comment