Order of Business - 12th November 2008

Order of Business - 12th November 2008
Senator David Norris: I am aware that there is an EU happiness index. Is there also an irony index because we need to examine the whole issue of irony? I ask this question seriously. The Leader indicated he had to deal with a backlog of issues raised by Senators on the Order of Business. Is the obvious course of action not to face the ironies implicit in that statement and expand the only part of business in which people are interested or which is covered, namely, the Order of Business? If we have nothing else to discuss, why are we restricting Senators’ contributions and creating a backlog? That seems to be ironic.
I will not lose my wig because a Czech Alf Garnett shared his smoked salmon in the Shelbourne with an Irish Berlusconi from the English midlands, although I have to say——
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should put questions to the Leader.
Senator David Norris: I am asking whether the Leader has seen the irony in this and in the fact that he can rabbit on over there. Government Members are making idiots of themselves if they give the Czech President the oxygen of publicity.
Senator Jim Walsh: Maybe the Senator could change that.
Senator David Norris: At the same time, we had in this country, by invitation of the Government, a succession of European Prime Ministers who told the Irish electorate which way to vote. We even had one in this House, the President of the European Parliament, yet when the Czech President, with whom I disagree, is brought over here we do not allow him to say his piece. That, too, is ironic.
It is even more sinister that, despite the interference by the Government in the composition of people addressing this issue, no one representing the argument in favour of militarisation of the European Union, as envisaged by the Lisbon treaty, has spoken here. The militarisation of the EU is one of the reasons I became one of the first to speak against the treaty in the House.
While I am on the issue of irony, has anybody else noticed that in recent discussions on the family and civil partnership, it has been argued by conservative religious elements both inside and outside the House that the family can only be maintained by an architecture of inequality and discrimination against other citizens? I find this viewpoint astonishing. It is also astonishing that the newspapers today report a case concerning an unfortunate young woman who took a case on the validity of a provision concerning the right to redress before the Residential Institutions Redress Board for those aged 18 to 21 years. We will have another large bill presented to us, as is appropriate, owing to the negligence displayed by the Government in negotiating the deal with the church. As regards the irony of the church lecturing about the family, let us look at the record of the Ferns Report and all the other issues and let us be a little more tentative before we attack individual citizens.
Senator Jim Walsh: What about the boys in the Kincora home? The Senator is being very lop-sided in his commentary.
Senator David Norris: I take all cases on board. The Senator will find that I take on board all of them——
Senator Jim Walsh: No, you do not.
Senator David Norris: ——but you, Sir, are a bigot and I know that very well.
Senator Cecilia Keaveney: I hope people will not judge any profession on the basis of a small number of people who have misbehaved.
Senator David Norris: Is the Senator referring to the Czech President?