Simon Harris plays to the gallery again

In response to comments by the Bishop of Ephin around artificial contraception, Health minister Simon Harris had this to say:

Please just make it stop! Increasing access to & availability of contraception is and will remain public health policy. Religion plays an important role for many on an individual basis - but it will not determine health and social policy in our country any more.

At a time when himself and the Taoiseach are under increased pressure in relation to the Cervical cancer scandal, Simon Harris has decided that it's time for a decoy. Knowing that church-bashing is in vogue, and still basking in the glow of the recent referendum victory, he's jumped onto twitter to lambast a Catholic bishop for saying something...well Catholic.

It is hard to think of something more inconsequential that the pronouncements of clerics on the subject of contraception in 2018 Ireland. But Harris, aware of the growing constituency of irrational anti-religious ideologues in Ireland, could not resist the opportunity to set out his cool secular credentials once again and in the process divert attention away from important issues. And the ideologues are already lapping it up.

The great irony of course is that Harris' comments in fact violate the principles of secularism. Let us recount what has happened here. A member of the clergy has expressed a view that the principles of the Papal Encyclical, Humanae Vitea, have been ignored for too long. In other words, a member of civil society is simply offering a moral opinion on something.

In response, Harris looks to close down any debate before it can even begin by prescribing the terms of the debate. So, he says that religion plays an important role for many on an individual basis but will not determine health and social policy anymore.

Hold on a second - is this not a democracy? Religion will play the role people want it to play (which as it happens is quite little at the present time) - that's not for Harris to decide. Afterall, if people have certain views of a religious nature and desire those rules to be reflected in the laws of the land, then religion, in an indirect way, will determine our health and social policy, whether Harris likes it or not.

And if some respond that in a secular republic personal moral views should not be forced on people generally, well that's what happens in a democracy or indeed any polity involving a social contract. Moral views are forced on people all the time. In the recent referendum to repeal the 8th amendment, the moral views of two thirds of people to the effect that the unborn child did not have the right to life was forced on the other third who believed it did.

Indeed, there is no such thing as a personal moral view. Moral views by their nature are views that apply generally to other people. If it does not apply to others it can scarcely be called a moral view.

What has happened here is that Harris has proclaimed a particular view to be off-bounds - "please make it stop" - before it is even debated because it emanates from a religious organisation and goes against his own view. It's the equivalent of somebody from a union proposing increasing the minimum wage and a minister responding in the following way:

Please just make it stop! Keeping minimum wage at current level is and will remain public finance policy. Unions play an important role for many on an individual basis - but they will not determine finance policy in our country any more.

Secularism is about separation of church and state. It does not mean that the church refrain from many comments of a moral nature (i.e applying to other people, the horror!) in the sphere of civic society. Telling the church to "stop" making such comments violates the principle of secularism as it involves the state going deep into the territory of public discourse and policing opinions.

Accommodating Unionists

The latest from Mary Lou:

Reflecting on what accommodations might be made for unionists if a united Ireland was to come to pass, the Sinn Féin president also indicated she would be prepared to accept a different flag and national anthem. 

“I, as with every other person who argues for a new united Ireland, will honour the flag of that island, will honour the dawning of that new opportunity and I would be proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with my fellow citizens, irrespective of religious creed, political background cultural background, irrespective of everything that has gone before. And I would proudly sing the anthem or anthems of that Ireland.”

Most of the focus has been on her comments in relation to the timing of a referendum on a United Ireland and whether it should be triggered by a hard Brexit.

The main question that arises for me though is why accommodations need to be made for unionists? Firstly, unionism is by definition opposed to an independent United Ireland (and let's not forget that implicit in the idea of a united Ireland is an independent Ireland). British unionism is incompatible and irreconcilable with the nationalist and republican idea of a United Ireland. It is perfectly valid to speak of ex-Unionists, Ulster protestant, the cultural British etc. But one cannot speak of accommodating unionism itself for that would undermine the very integrity of the Nation as a concept. The nation cannot include people who owe political allegiance to another nation over it, or subscribe to a political ideology that is inherently hostile to the nation.

Secondly, the notion of an accommodation suggests that Irish nationalism as it currently stands is not accommodating. Mary Lou speaks of a new Ireland, with new flags and anthems. But there would only be a need for new symbols if there was something wrong with the existing ones. This feeds into the classic slur against Irish nationalism that it is tribal, ethno-sectarian and essentialist. The flag and anthem, as representations of this exclusionary nationalism, are seen as problematic. This argument usually involves a false equivalence with northern Unionism. The solution is typically a modern, secular third way that transcends tribal divisions.

At the end of the day, though, the flag represents the ideals of the 1916 rising. I would invite people to show me which parts of the associated proclamation espouse principles that threaten Ulster protestants? If the flag or the anthem do not represent those people, it is because they themselves historically have chosen not to be represented by it because of the democratic and egalitarian principles it stands for.

There is no doubting the wisdom of getting Unionists to buy into a United Ireland, thereby becoming ex-unionists. While a majority of 50%+1 is all that is required, it would be ideal to get as many ex-unionists on board as possible. The language of accommodation is ill-conceived however, and the idea that the already accommodating Irish nation needs to somehow become more accommodating just to facilitate an already failing unionism is a nonsense.