In which Garret Fitzgerald invades a TV studio and debates feminism

Garret Fitzgerald as Taoiseach in the 1980’s

Much recent commentary about Garret Fitzgerald after he died during the queen’s visit (18 May). Here's an episode from his life that I hoped to learn more about, but which sadly attracted few mentions.

First a bit of context. On 14 April 1971 the Irish women’s liberation movement was launched at a packed meeting in Dublin’s Mansion House.  I strongly recommend this 28 minute episode of RTÉ radio’s History Show (1 May 2011) where these events are recalled by three of the movement’s founder members. (The link should open an mp3 file.) “We had no idea if anyone would turn up - we thought there might only be 20 women there in the Mansion House” says one. Another describes a woman taking the microphone and announcing “I am an unmarried mother”; and tells of the stamping of feet, the cheering, the tears, that greeted this statement.  Because up to that point in time no-one in Ireland had ever uttered the words “I am an unmarried mother”; the phrase was only ever whispered in hushed tones, and used about someone else.

Now we skip backwards five weeks to 6 March 1971. To a debate on the Late Late Show on RTÉ television presented by Gay Byrne. A group of feminists formed the panel promoting equal pay, equality before the law, contraception, as well as justice for deserted wives and unmarried mothers. This broadcast is credited with attracting publicity to the movement and making the Mansion House meeting a few weeks later the storming success that it was. 

Saturday 22 May 1971. Women at Dublin's Connolly Station ready to board the "Contraceptive Train" to Belfast. This was 6 weeks after the Mansion House meeting. Hear more on The History Show. This photo may have originally appeared in the Irish Times.

So what of Garret Fitzgerald?  At this time he was 45, a TD, but 10 years before being Taoiseach.  And he was there in the television studio.

But here's the point of the story : he wasn’t invited.

It seems the feminists’ appearance that night on the Late Late Show generated such heated argument that Fitzgerald left his fireside and took it upon himself to turn up in the studio to discuss the problems with the women on the panel. But in the words of one of them, June Levine, “a free-for-all screaming match followed between Garret Fitzgerald and various women in the audience”. (footnote 1)

Another, Mary Kenny, describes the event like this:

Gay Byrne host of Late Late Show 

“Halfway through the programme, Gay Byrne suddenly announced that Garret FitzGerald had been sitting watching the show at home and had felt so engaged by the subject that he asked if he could come and join us, and Gay had eagerly agreed.

"The announcement was greeted by a sustained, and entirely spontaneous, orchestra of booing from the assembled group of women, panel and audience. 'You're hijacking our show!' we cried. There was huge resentment, both of Gay and of Garret, that these two men couldn't have let the women have their say, uninterrupted, without trying to muscle in on the act. Garret, all innocence, protested that he was a male feminist. Oh, yeah? Maybe so, we all agreed afterwards, but he is also a politician. And a politician knows just when to jump on a bandwagon. Even if he was sincere - and he certainly was sincere - the prevailing feeling of the sisters was that men just won't let women speak without putting their oar in. It's the 'pasha complex': in a harem of women under the Ottomans, you had to have the male, the pasha, take charge.” (footnote 2)

I should dearly like to get hold of a recording of that Late Late Show but I've checked with the RTÉ archives, and none exists. Recollections differ. The three women on the recent History Show that I mentioned above, seem to recall the audience being rather quiet.

Just a few more comments about Garret Fitzgerald. To tell the truth, until he died I had him filed away in my head under miscellaneous conservative politicians. But all commentators seem to agree that he was special in some interesting ways.  He was a top intellectual in economics and statistics. (In reference to which Charlie Haughey - routinely described in the obits as “Garret’s nemesis” – made a habit of calling him “Dr Fitzgerald” as a put-down). To the end of his life he was extremely open to the ideas of young people.

As Fine Gael leader Fitzgerald launched a social reform programme aimed at secularising the Republic to make it more attractive to Protestants in the north. He championed reforms concerning divorce, contraception and abortion, and faced stern opposition from the Catholic church, and some within his own party.  He believed in being ahead of public opinion, not in focus group politics.  In office he lost on divorce (badly), lost on abortion, but won on contraception. But it’s generally accepted that divorce wouldn't have become legal as soon as it eventually did (1995) without Fitzgerald having blazed the trail. The consensus is that he laid the groundwork for social progress in Ireland.  He sounds to me like an all round good egg.

By the way I'm not sure it’s technically possible for a man to be a feminist.

Footnotes

(1)    June Levine, Sisters: the personal story of an Irish feminist, Dublin, 1982, p.166.  She was one of the panellists that night

(2)   Mary Kenny, Irish Independent, 20 May 2011. Also on the panel.

Links (First is to The Irish Times, the rest are Wikipedia):-

IWLM : BROKEN LINK This is a personal account from Mary Maher, a journalist with The Irish Times, a founder member of the IWLM, and a platform speaker at the Mansion House meeting. Also includes report on the contraceptive train from the Irish Times archives

Divorce : GF was hammered two to one in the 1986 referendum, but it passed by narrow majority 9 years later.

Contraception : GF succeeded in a liberalising the law in 1985.

Abortion : in 1983 the constitution was amended to ban abortion. GF unsuccessfully campaigned against the ban. It remains banned under the constitution

Mismanaged banks? Less pay for shop workers! Sorted!

Minister Bruton: Isolated. Good job too.
Stick him on a desert island to encourage the others

The media here are reporting that Enterprise Minister Richard Bruton is looked “increasingly isolated”. Good job too. I'm getting hot under the collar.  Takes me back to the mother and father of a row on just this issue when I was a union convenor 10 years ago in York.  When’s the demo that’s what I want to know.  I've heard various union leaders on the radio in the last 24 hrs but can't find any campaigning material yet.  Soon I hope.

Ah yes, I forgot to mention what this whole thing’s about. Bruton is mounting an assault on premium Sunday and overtime pay rates for low-paid workers, and correspondents are reporting that Taoiseach Enda Kenny and cabinet colleagues are distancing themselves from him on the issue.

Kenny called Bruton’s proposals the “publication of a personal agenda". And an RTÉ correspondent reported on the radio an hour ago that Kenny gave Bruton bad body language in the Dáil today.  If the Labour Party who are in this coalition government allow this through … well lets hope not, they are making the right noises at the moment …

I don’t quite follow the technicalities, but it seems Bruton is intending to cut Sunday pay (and maybe other premium rates it’s not clear at present) by monkeying around with the terms of employment rights orders (ERO) or registered employment agreements (REA).  The sectors that will suffer include hotels, restaurants, hairdressing, contract cleaning, security, grocery, retail and tailoring.

EROs fix minimum pay and conditions in sectors based on the deliberations of a joint labour committee of union and employer representatives with an independent chairman. REAs are collective agreements between employers and unions which are registered with the Labour Court and are enforceable in law.

There's a Duffy-Walsh report, which recommends overhauling the basic framework of the existing joint labour committee/registered employment agreement system for setting wages. But Bruton has gone further than this and has announced his assault on premium pay rates.

Explainer in the Irish Times.

Mr. Gandhi what do you think of western civilisation?

I imagine we've all sent or received this postcard at some stage in our lives. But is it true?

Gandhi's famous reply to a reporter's question about western civilisation features in any compendium of Gandhi quotations, but none that I have seen supply the time and place where this encounter is supposed to have occurred.

I think it may be apocryphal. On the other hand, the question would be a perfectly sensible one for a reporter seeking a quote, and the answer is one which I'm sure Gandhi would have been delighted to have thought of, even if he didn’t.  It would have been quite in character, since he is credited with an impish sense of humour.

Western civilisation was a frequent theme in Gandhi’s writing and speeches. He did not hold it in high regard. For example, this from a speech to Young India, 8th September 1920. Speaking of the recently ended First World War he said:

“The last War however has shown, as nothing else has, the Satanic nature of the civilization that dominates Europe today.”

I wonder if the what-do-you-think-of-western-civilisation thing appeared in the 1982 Richard Attenborough film.  I doubt it.  Cliché. 

For language nerds, the joke relies on a sort of pun. It may have a special grammatical name, unknown to me. When the Reporter uses the word civilisation, he uses it as an abstract noun, meaning a society which is city-based. When Mr Gandhi uses the word (and I hope I have this right) he is using it as a gerund, that is a part of the verb "to civilise". So it means an action or process, which instils admirable, or acceptable, norms of behaviour.

Royal visit - I got it wrong

I retract my statement about the absence of interest in the queen’s visit. 

Queen Elizabeth lays a wreath at the Garden of Remembrance honouring those who fought against the British crown

It’s been huge news in Ireland. Today’s Irish Examiner leader says “It has probably been the most memorable and successful visit of any head of state since the visit of US President John F Kennedy in 1963” and I've spoken to people who strongly share that positive view. And moreover (to their own surprise) found themselves quite moved by it.

The Queen and President at Islandbridge where world war dead are buried

Principal comments I have heard are

• We’re so relieved she’s got back without a terrorist incident – it would have been the end of us if that had happened.  For many people this is the number one comment. 

• Pride in Ireland. We did it well.  Especial praise for President Mary McAleese. Her grace and dignity, her speech at Dublin Castle, and in particular her remarks on her pride in Irish nationalism, and that we meet the Queen as an equal (yes for some that does still need mentioning).

• The well-judged symmetry of the two wreath-laying ceremonies, one to honour those who fought Britain for Irish freedom, the other to honour those who had fought for Britain in two world wars (more on this theme below).

• The Queen bowed her head at the Garden of Remembrance. This is the shrine to those who have died fighting against the British for Irish freedom.

• She said that with the benefit of historical hindsight we can all think of things that should have been done differently or not at all.  This was at the state dinner at Dublin Castle on the 2nd day of the visit. (See video below.)

• She smiled a lot. The walkabout in Cork just before she went home was hugely appreciated, especially here in Cork.

• It was right that the GAA welcomed her at Croke Park; and the GAA President was right to refer to Bloody Sunday (more on this below).

• Frequent comments that Mary McAleese should be allowed to serve a third term (not allowed, to the regret of many, under the constitution).

A few more words on a couple of themes that have been prominent in the media these past few days. Firstly, the symmetry of the two wreath-laying ceremonies. The first of these was at the Garden of Remembrance (honouring those who have died fighting against the British) and the second was at Islandbridge, which is where the Irish fallen from two world wars are laid to rest.  It has been repeatedly commented that until recently the Irish dead from the First World War have been passed over in embarrassed silence. A bit like Vietnam veterans in America.  Fighting for the imperialist oppressor. Mary McAleese is credited with putting an end to this shameful amnesia and neglect. (This is a big subject which deserves as essay in itself.  RTÉ radio did an excellent series in 2008 called Our War, and you can listen to two episodes that touch on the amnesia theme here.

Great War Debate (79 mins)
Thomas Davis Lecture (25 mins)

Shameful amnesia and neglect is a tendentious term of course, and dedicated republicans might dispute it.   

Next,  about Croke Park, the national stadium of the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA). On 21st November 1920 at a Dublin-Tipperary football match, 14 people lost their lives when British forces entered the stadium and started shooting. Included in the dead were Michael Hogan, a player on the Tipperary team. The Hogan Stand is named in his honour. Also Thomas Ryan, shot on his knees whispering an act of contrition to Hogan. Full story on the GAA website.

In a dignified speech to welcome the Queen, the President of the GAA Christy Cooney referred to this event. The consensus is that the GAA was right to welcome her and that Christy Cooney was right to refer to Bloody Sunday. He didn't, in point of fact, name it. He referred to it oblquely, with the phrase "including those that died in this place".

However those who oppose the Queen’s visit find it particularly obnoxious that she should have been welcomed at Croke Park.

Forelock-tugging is another accusation that has been levelled in connection with the visit in general, for example a reader’s letter in yesterday's Examiner from Dominic Carroll, Ardfield, Co Cork. He derided “the forelock-tugging shoneens who this week bent the knee to Mrs Windsor of London” and especially the academic staff of Trinity College Dublin who “lined up like schoolchildren as they awaited a few words of condescension from the royal personage; it was stomach-turning” he says. 

There will be more letters like this in the next few days but in my neck of the woods my sense is that they are in a small minority of opinion. You may ask if the opinions I hear are taylored out of politeness to my English ears. I don’t think so.

Here are the videos and full text of the speeches at Dublin Castle on the Wednesday 18th.

Full text of President Mary McAleese's speech
Full text of speech by Queen Elizabeth II

The Queen video. Watch the first 3 minutes in particular. “Differently or not at all” comes at 2:24.

President Mary McAllese video.  Reflects on difficult centuries, 4:25. Deeply proud, 5:40

Religious reactions to bin Laden killing

Bin Laden was killed on May 2nd. We saw what Jessica Dovey blogged. So what did religious leaders have to say?  Here's a selection, in no particular order.

Church of England 

Initially Lambeth Palace refused to comment on the death of Bin Laden but, when asked at a press conference what he thought of the killing, The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams replied: "I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling; it doesn't look as if justice is seen to be done.

"I don't know the full details any more than anyone else. I think it's also true that different versions of events have not done a great deal to help.

"In such circumstances, when we are faced with someone who was manifestly a war criminal in terms of the atrocities inflicted, it is important that justice is seen to be done." 

Note sure of the date, probably 4th May. Earlier, the archbishop of York gave a measured response to the dramatic events in Pakistan, saying people should not celebrate Bin Laden's death and that the terror chief was "evil but not Satan".

The Vatican

Vatican press chief Fr Federico Lombardi issued a statement on 2nd May. He pointed out the role Bin Laden had played in the promotion of “division and hatred between people," but continued "Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices but reflects on the serious responsibility of each and every one of us before God and before man, and hopes and commits himself so that no event be an opportunity for further growth of hatred, but for peace."

A Quaker comment

"William Penn said 'A good end cannot sanctify evil means, nor must we ever do evil that good may come of it'.  Was the summary execution an evil means to bring about a good end?  An opportunity to demonstrate to the world what separates those who value life from the terrorist has been lost."

The following reactions all come from the USA, between 2nd and 9th May

New York: Fr Stephen Mimnaugh at Manhattan’s St Francis of Assisi church (Roman Catholic)

"Justice may have been served, but we Catholics never rejoice in the death of a human being."  He went on to cite the next comment from James Martin.

It’s relevant to note that Fr Stephen Mimnaugh is successor to Mychal F. Judge, Chaplain of the Fire Department of New York, and the first recorded victim of the September 11, 2001 attack.  He was a Roman Catholic priest of the Franciscan Order of Friars Minor.

James Martin, an Amercan Jesuit priest

He wrote in America, a weekly Catholic magazine, that "no matter how monstrous" a person is, "as a Christian, I am asked to pray for him and, at some point, forgive him."

Brook Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The Rev David Howard

The Rev David Howard shouted his approval from outside his church. A prominent sign publicising the sermon Howard planned proclaimed: "Osama bin Laden, Satan and the Final Victory of Jesus".

The Rev Howard said : "We should pray for bad people, evil people, that when we pray to God he will change their lives. But if he won’t change their lives, especially those who have a lot of power to hurt a lot of people, you pray for their end because they’re causing so much pain. You pray somehow God will take them out. The Bible is very clear that God is in control and every person in power is because God put them there.

"He can put them there, he can keep them there or he can take them out. That’s his prerogative."

Imam Hassan al-Qazwini at the Islamic Centre of America in the Detroit, one of American’s largest mosques

Imam Hassan al-Qazwini told worshippers. : "There is no doubt that this man was a thug, he was a murderer," Imam Hassan al-Qazwini told worshippers. "His hands were stained by the blood of thousands of innocent people — Muslims and non-Muslims alike."   Delivering his sermon in a hall filled to capacity, he said the Koran is clear that someone who kills one innocent person "is doomed to hell forever." And he was incensed that bin Laden "committed atrocities against innocent people ... while he was calling ‘Allahu akbar’, or ‘God is great’."

Armitage Baptist Church in Chicago, Pastor Charles Lyons 

Pastor Lyons told his congregation that sometimes "evil must be stopped."

"We do not rejoice in the death of the man named Osama bin Laden (but)... truth provides a platform for justice."

Church member Angelia Parker said bin Laden’s death should have been a time for contemplation, not cheering in the streets. "I think that was kind of weird," she said. "It was like, ‘Are you kidding me?’ We are celebrating this person’s death? We didn’t celebrate in the streets when Saddam Hussein was killed."

The Rev Bill Kelly, priest at Saint Mary of the Assumption in Dedham, near Boston (not sure of denomination, Roman Catholic at a guess)

The Rev Kelly said he was taken aback because he detected bloodlust. But he added that the emotional reaction is understandable.

Congregation Neve Shalom, a Conservative Jewish synagogue in Metuchen, New Jersey, Rabbi Gerald Zelizer

Rabbi Zelizer said that according to the Talmud, if someone is trying to kill you, "you are obligated - not permitted - to kill that person before he kills you."

"But that obligation does not carry with it at all the privilege of rejoicing."

As services ended, a heated debate over how to respond broke out. Kathryn Zahler said that taking delight in anyone’s death feels un-Jewish. But Mindy Epstein disagreed. "I don’t care if that makes me a non-Jew or not," she said. "Put it on pay-for-view for the (September 11) victims."

Sources

Church of England : The Guardian 5th May

Vatican :  Catholic News Service
Quaker comment from The Friend website

USA reactions:  Irish Examiner 10th May 

The woodland garden in May

I wish I could show you a before and after picture. Before would show a scene of destruction, my woodland garden cluttered with a straggling heap of sawn off branches and leaves. Today it's not nearly as bad as it was the day before yesterday and by tonight it'll be almost back to normal. Actually better than normal because I've had two large limbs lopped off an old apple tree, and this has let a lot of light in, and will allow my hedge to flourish unhindered. It’s not the first time I've found myself wishing, near the completion of big task, that I could show a picture of how daunting it appeared at the start.

But that’s the very reason I didn’t take the photo. Because I was too daunted.

So here are some pictures I took on the 4th of this month before the tree lopping took place. And yes I know I chose the very worst month to be lopping limbs off trees but when a neighbour shows up with a chainsaw, you just need to seize the opportunity.

The visit of Queen Elizabeth to Ireland

The visit of Queen Elizabeth (tomorrow) “has Ireland in a frenzy” according to yesterday’s Irish Mail on Sunday (that’s the Irish edition of the London paper of that name). I'm not sure that’s true. It’s a topic of conversation right enough and the most common sentiment I've heard expressed is “I just hope nothing happens and she gets back all right”.  The visit cropped up in the sauna at the swimming pool in Fermoy today. A man recalled the day in 1979 that Lord Louis Mountbatten, the Queen's cousin, was killed by an IRA bomb on his boat on a lake in Ireland. He said he was in a pub in Cork that day and the prevailing mood was disgust and anger at the deed; but the British press misrepresented the mood in Ireland to be one of rejoicing. (What the truth behind that is I don’t know, that’s just what be said.)

I've seen the visit described as the biggest security operation in the history of the State. The Irish Government is allowing 120 armed British police officers to patrol the streets of Irish cities to protect the Queen during the visit. Oddly, this hasn’t provoked as much hostile reaction as I expected when I first heard the news (which was yesterday).  There'll be no walkabouts in fact it's been said she'll be driving through empty streets, so strict is the security.

A few weeks ago there was a lively exchange of readers letters in the Irish Examiner on the topic of the Queen’s visit. Here are three of them, just a small sample to give a flavour of it.  (The paper used to be called the Cork Examiner and judging from the letters page it still has a largely Cork readership.)

(1) From James O’Leary, Bantry, Co Cork, Thursday, April 14

It’s hard to forget British sins of the past

Is there anyone out there who feels like me? All the PC brigade will frown, but this upcoming royal visit sticks in my craw. I’ve heard all the "build a bridge and get over it" comments and how friendly and different things are now and history should be left in the past, but I still cannot swallow it.

Am I to celebrate the arrival in my country the very epitome of a regime that has persecuted, maimed, murdered and destroyed so many of my countrymen? Am I to stand and wave my Union Jack like an obedient little colonist of yesteryear eager to catch a glimpse of an aging monarch? I feel I would be betraying not only the ghosts of generations before me but of a still living generation who have experienced the special treatment of crown forces. They were batoned at Burntollet for having the cheek to demand one man one vote. They were shot dead in Derry marching for civil rights. They were maimed and killed by rubber bullets. They were let starve to death rather than given their rights. I could go on and on but I am supposed to forget all these things because its all behind us now. I might be able to forget it if it weren’t for a line from Donegal to Louth which divides my land. This division of my country is upheld by forces who pledge loyalty to this visitor.

I think Yeats’ lines are more apt today then they were pre-1916 "Romantic Ireland is dead and gone, it’s with O’Leary in the grave."

(2) From Raymond White, Ballinspittle, Kinsale, Co Cork, Thursday, April 28

They gave us a lot, so let’s welcome the queen (this one cries out for the title "what the British did for us")

Barack Obama’s and Queen Elizabeth’s visits are a badly-needed boost for financially ailing Ireland and should be welcomed by all.

The queen’s visit is much longer and a blessing. Britain is our nearest neighbour and our biggest trading partner, and with the huge Irish-English population living a few miles from us, they are our best tourist visitors.

We should extend a "céad míle fáilte" to them and anyone else who wants to visit our Island. Remember, they built our universities, churches (ie Maynooth 1795), they constructed our lighthouses, our houses of parliament, bridges and viaducts. They built the big houses, which are tourist attractions today, the Grand and Royal Canals and our railway stations.

Under their supervision, railway tracks were built from most main cities to towns and villages throughout the country only for us to rip them up and sell off everything for scrap.

Our lifeboats are still controlled from Britain, they gave us St Patrick to convert us, and the English flag carries his cross.

Our prized Book of Kells was printed in Lindisfarne in northeast England and was brought over to Kells for safe keeping as the Viking attacks were sweeping westward. They built our main army barracks and firing ranges, which are still in use today but sadly falling into decay.

When our main ports — ie Lough Swilly, Beare Island and Spike island — were handed back to us in 1938, they were fully equipped. Yet, once again, everything was ripped apart, large guns scrapped and sold off, and generators and other equipment went in all directions.

Now we are trying to fix up those sites — that is what is left over — and open them up as tourist attractions.

The British took our cattle and produce during the First and Second World Wars and, yes we know that bad deeds were carried out on all sides, but I know for sure that we got the best of the colonial powers. Would we be better off under the Belgians, Dutch, Portuguese, Germans, or Spanish who slaughtered everyone during their conquest?

If the royals from those countries came here, would there be a protest? Let’s get on with life and promote our country.

(3) From Cormac Cahill, Maryborough Woods, Douglas, Cork, Monday, May 2

The harsh reality of life under British rule

Raymond White (April 28) thanks the English for all they gave us, or rather had us build for them, and says we should be grateful that we didn’t have worse overlords like the Spanish, who perhaps may have slaughtered us.

We did not get to chose our colonial masters and if we had I am sure we would have chosen none, thank you.

Yet, Ireland suffered multiple famines, numerous bouts of ethnic cleansing and forced expatriation through our history with England.

There is a school of thought out there that says we should forget this and move on.

There is another school of thought says no, especially as the British flag flies over six of our counties.

Wherever one stands on the issue of history, the revisionist phenomenon as displayed by Mr White of thinking of our time under our colonial masters as an enlightened walk in the park where we were shown how to behave properly is delusional.

Such thinking merely feeds into a latent nationalism in many Irish people, and would have me rather join with the protesters than the growing brigades of fawning sleveens.

Another string of letters explored the anti-royalist theme: an hereditary monarch is illegitimate and has no place in a republic ... yes but she's been chosen as head of state by the British people ... oh yeah when was that then.

Finally, the Sinn Fein line is that the royal visit is “premature”.