Merit and not gender-based discrimination lies behind the work of the Equality Authority, argues Niall Crowley, in response to recent articles by John Waters
John Waters sets out his desire to play for Ireland, to "pull on the green jersey" (Opinion, June 10th). Such desire is laudable. He then establishes his ambition to score a hat-trick against Argentina.
Ambition on such a scale shapes our current World Cup successes - though it could be more usefully targeted at those against whom we are actually playing.
However, the leverage he seeks from the equality legislation to achieve his desires and ambitions is risible.
All the wit displayed and all the indignation deployed cannot change the fact that merit remains at the heart of our equality legislation. People are picked for their skill and ability.
That is why the World Cup is already a "showcase for our new multicultural and tolerant society".
But then that's just another inconvenient fact John Waters chose to ignore.
Fact didn't fare too well the previous week either when he took up the issue of adoptions by gay and lesbian couples (Opinion, June 3rd). Two opinions in a row and one more for the hat-trick.
At what point does opinion become a campaign?
Nothing, nothing, nothing John Waters declares is the sum of what the Equality Authority has done for single, separated or natural fathers. Yet he knows, because we debated this on radio, that this is not the whole truth.
The truth would require an acknowledgement that:
The Equality Authority has operated an open-door approach through these early years in our existence in responding to issues of discrimination. The Employment Equality Act 1998 and the Equal Status Act 2000 prohibits discrimination across nine grounds.
The issues raised by John Waters would relate to two of these: the gender and the family-status grounds. Very few complaints have been made by men under the gender ground, very few complaints at all have been made under the family-status ground. The demand has not been there despite a high profile of these issues.
The scope of the Equal Status Act is limited. It does not cover the exercise by the State of its functions - that is its powers and duties. The issues John Waters has been raising for these groups predominately relate to the functions of the State - where we currently have no mandate.
Court orders or action that is required by other pieces of legislation cannot be challenged under the Equal Status Act. Again many of John Waters's issues rest in this area. Again we have no mandate to act.
Detail is always the enemy of a good opinion. John Waters ignores these issues and moves quickly on to call for the disestablishment of the Equality Authority. For good measure, he also seeks a similar fate for the National Economic and Social Forum . . . again no shortage of ambition there. Yet this raises questions as to whether he has any commitment to equality at all.
Surely the interests of his constituents would be better served by a call to amend the equality legislation to develop its contribution on the issues he is concerned about.
In recommending that gay and lesbian couples should be able to apply to adopt and foster children, John Waters writes that the Equality Authority is in effect suggesting "that children be snatched from the arms of their natural fathers and given to gay men and women".
Divisions are created by this journalism where unity could be built - after all a number of these natural fathers and separated men are also gay men.
Study of the report would have established that our recommendation was based on the interests of the child being paramount. The recommendation seeks to ensure the child can maintain access to loving and nurturing relationships. Discriminating against gay and lesbian couples in this regard reduces the options for the child. That must surely be a difficult situation to defend.
The Exploring Masculinities programme for schools also comes under fire in these articles. No attempt is made to explore this programme: it is derided as the "reinvention of young men".
This ground-breaking programme deserves more. Far from imposing a value base, it seeks to build a critical faculty so that young men are aware of their own value base and are empowered to change and develop it as they wish.
The further extension of this programme has much to offer our diverse society as we seek to celebrate and accommodate our differences.
John Waters concludes unhappily that "in the new equality proofed dispensation, success along old-fashioned lines will not matter". This can only be true where old-fashioned success is achieved through discrimination, is affirmed through attitudes rooted in negative stereotypes and is perpetuated on the basis of such as one's gender, sexual orientation, age or ethnicity.
Success along such lines is anathema to the vibrant and competitive society to which John Waters himself appears to aspire.
The search for equality offers success based on merit, attitudes which celebrate diversity and institutions which reflect a diversity of needs and hopes in their composition and in the way they operate.
That is the potential of the "new equality proofed dispensation" - a potential from which Irish society can only benefit.
• Niall Crowley is chief executive of the Equality Authority