Which battles the left can win?
This is a comment on
Michael Taft's article "If it isn't class war, what do we call it":
I'm having trouble fitting it in his comments form...
Ever was it so Michael, ever was it so.
But I would disagree a bit with your arguments about the deficit and the public sector.
The problem is that the size of the public sector spend depends on the willingness of taxpayers to think socially.
Ireland is already an unsympathetic culture where thinking socially about shared problems seems to be an alien concept, one reason why the property bubble was cheered on by voters, and why there were few social dividends of the Celtic tiger beyond motorways.
The case for social goods is undermined by (perceived) inefficiency, unaccountability and (sometimes) unjustifiable salaries in some bits of the public sector.
As you know I'm sympathetic to your perspective, but I think where the left falls down all the time is in what you once referred to as "bringing the people with you".
Solidarity requires more than sectoral self interest, a big cultural shift if required
On the economic level, the use of the "public payroll" as a kind of Keynesian pump-prime is not going to create much stimulus in an small open economy like ours. And the primary structural deficit (separate to the banking blackhole), is still real - no matter how much we might dislike Colm McCarthy.
Even the most well-meaning government made up of gramsci-ist class warriors would have very very difficult choices to make.
The real mess is the EU. We've had market integration without either fiscal or cultural/identity integration, while at the same time removing many of the state mechanisms which once would have made the stimulus thing an option. And that was before we gave up our budgetary sovereignty through the guarantee etc.
The left needs to chose its battles carefully. We need a broad coalition to defend certain floors of decency and key social goods. The work of building a culture that sustains a more equal society is long term, that's for sure. The restoration of the 8.65 minimum wage, mandated clearly by the electorate is a small mercy, but it's something.
As regards the private sector, I think it's important to keep publicizing the facts about the profits being made, as you do. And to address spurious justifications of exploitation made by the likes of IBEC SFA and that other crowd...Keep it up.
Towards a modern republican curriculum
I have to marvel at the rearguard defence of the Catholic ethos in education being made by the usual apologists, let me highlight in this case
Breda O' Brien in today's Irish Times.
What I find most bizarre is the deployment of the language of inclusiveness and pluralism. I'm old enough to remember the constitutional clashes of the 1980s, when the Bishops still held strong sway in the public sphere. Then - representing a position of entrenched majority - the strategy was to contest the pluralistic basis of Garret Fitzgerald's constitutional crusade. Pluralism was a political expression of debased modern metaphysics, generated by relativism and subjectivism, as opposed to the moral objectivism of Thomas Acquinas. Because the bishops had a clear line to moral truth, minorities were not entitled to indulge moral choices stemming from other spiritual sources, or indeed human sources.
Now, two decades later we have a new discourse. What has changed? Simple, the Roman Catholic church is now a minority voice itself, in terms of serious compliant adherence to the Bishops moral guidance, and in terms of sway in the public sphere. Suddenly as a new minority, the rights of minorities are voices than cannot be excluded. The lexicon of "choice", once derided, is now adopted, e.g. in the case of parents rights. And plainly, "pluralism" is being advocated as a virtue.
Besides, the obvious self-serving strategic play involved here, what does it tell us? I think it shows that Catholic thought has not caught up with the implications of the enlightenment for the public sphere. And the thinking is actually not that developed, curiously sharing many of the contradictions of the multiculturalism derided by conservative culture-war pundits.
Part of the problem is a confusion as to what belongs in separate domains. In her article Breda seems to think that there is an equivalence between the teaching of politics in second level schools and the teaching of religion.
She writes:
However, such a secular ethos sends out a strong message to young people that while gender, skin colour and disability are all valuable and welcome in a diverse society, faith is so divisive it has to be parked outside the classroom door. Some have said that politics is parked in the same way, that the parents’ political affiliation is irrelevant, too. On the contrary, second-level schools at least, spend significant amounts of time trying to encourage political awareness and participation.
Leaving aside the fact that the time spent on CPSE is sparse, and relegated to the junior cycle, how can we confuse the teaching of a religion, and the teaching of citizenship? O Brien is actually arguing against herself. Parents do not chose their schools by political affiliation, not does the political affiliation of parents have any relevance to CPSE. And while skin colour, disability and gender are not left outside the classroom door, neither do they become a basis for curriculum content. Parents do not choose white schools nor ask for a white curriculum, and we would be concerned if they did.
Civic education is the means by which the state communicated its basic constitutive shared values: human rights, the rule of law, etc, to enable *all* of it's citizens regardless of difference to participate. Its content is informed by the shared basic assumptions of modern republics, the content being the outcome of conflicts of ideas and peoples in Europe over a number of centuries. Religious traditions made a contribution to these ideas, but the ideas were also to do with resolving conflict and finding a means of transcending group differences. These are the ideas the American founders called "self-evident" and which critiques of multiculturalism see as being essential to social integration in a modern republic. The "self-evidence" is a pragmatic claim to shared basic human assumptions.
Key to the modern republican idea is the idea of separating private and public. And there is sometimes a complex knot to be un-ravelled in deciding what is the correct domain for certain issues. There are the issues we agree are for the public domain, the issues we agree are private, and then there issues to be negotiated. Often a strong view on a substantive matter blinds people to the question of which domain is appropriate to the issue. In my view conservatives can be terribly confused about these domains, for instance, not realising that discrimination is not an issue of private morality, it is, rather, an issue of public morality.
Teaching of religion, i.e. metaphysical beliefs on which there is not shared agreement, (in fact which are highly contentious), is something that the state should have no role or interest in. As religion attempts to address ultimate questions of meaning, certainly it should not be characterized as a hobby. But is should not be part of the universal curriculum, and should not be sponsored by state-paid teachers. So yes, it should be a private matter.
I notice that Ruairi Quinn has suggested that religious educators should be allowed to use school buildings after school hours for religious education, and preparation for sacraments. This sounds like a pragmatic, and generous stance, reflecting the practical input of the religious into education over the many decades in which they dominated much public culture in this country. It is not mud-slinging to say:
Faith-based education, do it in your own time and pay your own teachers for it.
Clare Dunne's Living with Missy, a one person play
Shameless plug for my very talented niece:
Clare Dunne will present a one woman play, Living with Missy, at the Boy's School, Smock Alley Theatre, running from December 1st to December 5th 2009, nightly at 8pm.
An ordinary Dublin girl, stranded on a street with no one to talk to but herself, is forced to contemplate where she really is and might be going. Missy tells you her story through music, film, comedy and alcohol infused memories.
If you want to see something a little different in Dublin and possibly get a free drink, come see this exciting new piece of theatre being produced for the first time in Dublin after its successful UK debut.
Tickets from Central Ticket Bureau on 0818 205 205 or through www.claredunne.ie
UNICEF explains FYFFES deal
On August 6th 2009 I asked UNICEF some questions about their logo appearing on fyffes bananas.
Hi
I am concerned at seeing Unicef stickers on Fyffes bananas.
This seems to give them an ethical aura in competition with fair trade
bananas. I wonder has Unicef examined Fyffes record and how it their
policies impact on children in developing countries?
Could you please send me more information on the nature of your
agreement with Fyffes?
Does Unicef have a policy in support of fair trade?
Yours sincerely
Daniel Dunne
Today I received the following reply:
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Dear Mr. Dunne,
Thank you for your email; I welcome the opportunity to answer your queries. Sincere apologies for the long delay in this response, but I wanted to ensure all the information was correct and current.
Firstly, in relation to our examination of Fyffes as a suitable partner;
UNICEF Ireland adheres to an extensive process for corporate partnerships, which is managed at a global level. Fyffes were extensively screened both internally and by a third party prior to the launch of the partnership. This screening is ongoing, with an external review done on an annual basis.
We refer to Fyffes PLC Codes of Best Practice, membership of the ETI and the Global GAP accreditation as the precursors to our agreement to partnership consideration.
Fyffes Codes of Best Practice are designed to reduce the impact of agricultural production on the environment and to ensure safe working conditions and fair treatment for workers in compliance with internationally accepted labour standards and are subject to regular independent evaluation. Fyffes is also a member of the UK government-sponsored Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI). The ETI is an alliance of companies, non-governmental organisations and labour representative bodies. Its purpose is to promote and improve the conditions of workers worldwide. Fyffes is a founder member of Global GAP (formerly the European Retailers Environmental Protocol (EUREP)), established by major food retailers and their suppliers across Europe to address consumer concerns about food safety, environmental protection and worker welfare and to promote safe and sustainable agriculture. An extensive range of guidelines has been published on these matters, resulting in the Global Good Agricultural Practice (Global GAP). This standard establishes the minimum requirements to be met by growers of fruit and vegetables that supply European retailers. Fyffes first achieved Global GAP accreditation in 2003, in respect of the majority of the banana and pineapple farms from which it takes direct supplies, and this is renewed annually.
The extensive review of these policies and more was carried out by UNICEF’s partnership division in Geneva, and by Innovest Strategic Value Advisors, a specialised financial information services and investment advisory firm rigorously assessing corporate environmental performance.
Fyffes PLC is also happy to answer any queries you may have with regard to their support of ethical trading, labour policy and their environmental policy.
In answer to your question on the nature of the agreement with Fyffes;
In June 2008, UNICEF Ireland signed a five year contract with Fyffes PLC, with a minimum commitment of half a million euros towards child survival. The Fyffes donation is classified as 'Philanthropic' a fixed donation from the company that is unrelated to the sale of bananas. In 2008 alone Fyffes committed 2.4% of their 2007 operating profits to aid UNICEF child survival programs, which is a significant ethical contribution.
The five year partnership funds UNICEF's work in Mozambique combating the spread of malaria amongst orphaned and other vulnerable children. It is currently estimated that about 36,000 children under the age of five will die each year (about one child every fifteen minutes) in the country as a result of malaria. The funds allow UNICEF to do the following in Mozambique:
- Advocate with all the concerned Ministries and stakeholders, and leverage resources (incl. LLINs, test kits, drugs) for under-five children and pregnant women, with special attention to vulnerable groups;
- Support the scaling up of some key malaria control interventions (e.g.: Artemisinin Combination Therapies, Intermittent Preventive Treatment, introduction of home-based treatment, etc.);
- Distribute at least 40,000 Long Lasting Insecticidal Nests per year to pregnant women, HIV-positive children under five, and orphaned and vulnerable children (OVC) through health facilities in collaboration with NGOs and using a participatory communication toolkit to promote the correct use of the nets;
- Provide technical support for malaria prevention and control in Mozambique; and
- Support the implementation of the recently developed national communication strategy, through the utilisation of a strategic blend of integrated communication initiatives such as multimedia mobile units, community theatre and radio networks, to create a supportive/protective environment where individual behaviour changes are promoted and sustained.
Children who live to the age of five will usually gain some immunity and are less likely to die of malaria. However, when a woman becomes pregnant or a person suffers from a disease that compromises their immune system such as HIV/AIDS, malaria can result in death. HIV/AIDS has also become a major development threat in Mozambique with an estimated 1.8 million people living with HIV/AIDS in 2007. Malaria places a huge economic burden on the country, not only in terms of the cost of curing and preventing the disease, but also when parents are unable to work and children fall behind in their studies at schools.
Thanks to Fyffes’ funding, in 2009 alone at least 80% of vulnerable population groups (HIV positive children, children under five years of age, pregnant women and orphaned and vulnerable children) in six provinces are ensured prompt malaria treatment and protection from malaria, through the distribution of mosquito nets, the support of health facilities and community projects. Fyffes has committed to supporting this programme until 2012.
In response to your third question;
Through comprehensive screening, independent evaluation and ongoing monitoring of all potential and existing partners UNICEF ensures that it works with organisations that legally meet all partnership criteria, and even more so, respect and uphold the core values of UNICEF’s work.
When sourcing activities for products and services, UNICEF applies the highest standards relating to social responsibility, ethical procurement, and safety & regulatory compliance. All items and products made available for sale by UNICEF comply with the most stringent globally applicable regulations and standards - respecting and upholding the core values of our work worldwide for children.
UNICEF works worldwide to give children the best possible start in life by making sure they have access to healthcare, clean water and sanitation, nutrition and early education. When children receive the best start in life, they are more likely to survive the risky first years, to grow healthily, to have fewer illnesses and to fully develop thinking, language, emotional and social skills – in sum, to survive and to thrive. UNICEF is a humanitarian organisation - we work to protect and improve the lives of vulnerable children all over the world. We do not receive funding from the United Nations and rely solely on voluntary contributions on the back of campaigns such as the philanthropic partnership with Fyffes.
I hope I have gone some way towards answering your queries. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Kind regards,
Emily Ross MIAPR NUJ
Corporate Partnership Manager UNICEF Ireland 33 Lower Ormond Quay Dublin 1
Tel: +353 1 8783000
www.unicef.ie
For every child Health, Education, Equality, Protection ADVANCE HUMANITY
Joe Dunne wins inaugural Davy's Portrait Award
Yay!!! My brother, Joe Dunne's painting "Portrait of Cara" has won the Davy Portrait Awards for 2008.
Finally, Joe's amazing portraiture is receiving deserved recognition. (No bias here!)
Congratulations Joe!
This exhibition opens in November 2008 at the Naughton Gallery in Belfast and tours to Farmleigh House, Dublin in 2009.
Further information can be found at
http://www.davyportraitawards.com/More at
http://www.joedunne.net/
Wholesome tv and internet browsing
Having gotten rid of our sky subscription, we are happy to discover that we still get BBC1 and BBC2 for free (but not RTE or TG4 despite paying the licence fee, and their crappy analogue reception). Skipping through the hundreds of channels (past the very tempting Movies4men - also free) I discovered the
Community Channel, (channel 539) which is an absolute treasure chest of wholesome programming. So far I have watched documentaries on the producers of Bonita bananas (enduring all kinds of abuses as they strike for their rights in Ecuador); a documentary on
Divine Chocolate, who have a great fair trade partnership with farmers in Ghana; and a documentary on Excellent Development in Kenya. These are all
archived on the Community channel website.
Related links:
Excellent DevelopmentBanana link.and in recognition that it's not all high moral tone in Daniel's psyche!
Movies for MenLabels: community channel, development, fair trade
