It is very welcome news that the House of Lords has called for a proper public consultation on the controversial Relationship and Sexuality Education Regulations, about to be imposed by Secretary of State Chris Heaton-Harris MP. They have quite properly understood that there is a wide range of strongly-felt views on this highly sensitive issue.
Their lordships clearly recognise that parents, school governors and teachers here would be very interested in providing their crucial views. This is a modest, though significant protest against the Westminster government, who in the process of imposing this abortion-related legislation, have completely ignored the right of parents to choose what sort of sexual education their children should receive.
The failure to respect the autonomy of parents in this sensitive area is alarming and contrary to any elementary concept of democratic choice. The government should carefully reflect on the European Convention, which states that in the exercise of education, the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.
What is interesting is the fact that these regulations, if imposed, will put Northern Ireland at variance with England. Even in Heaton-Harris’s constituency of Daventry, in England, there is more weight put on the wider ethos of the school, the religious background of pupils and the resulting faith perspectives on relationships and sex.
Incredulously, the NIO in their explanatory memorandum have without any hint of irony stated that these draft regulations would have “no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sector”. What planet are they living on? With the probability that devolution will be restored in the autumn, Heaton-Harris should concede to holding a public consultation, the results of which could be examined and dealt with by the assembly, which under the case-law of the ECHR is the rightful legislative forum for enacting such contentious legislation.
If devolution is to be truly meaningful, then this direct rule Westminster legislation should rightly be a matter for our local democratically elected assembly to determine.
Of course, readers should bear in mind that this is the same Heaton- Harris who wishes to deprive victims of the Troubles their lawful right to justice and truth.
ALBAN MAGINNESS
Belfast BT15
Read More
- School pupils to get information about access to abortion and contraception services
- Protestant churches express 'deep concern' over changes to sex education in schools
Moving border poll goalposts
Cormac Moore contends that Britain is unlikely to move the goalposts for a border poll on Irish unity (June 28). He is mistaken. In a crucial sense, Britain has already moved the goalposts, to the disadvantage of advocates of Irish unity.
The Good Friday Agreement (GFA) has two distinct sets of goalposts or thresholds: one for triggering a border poll and one for winning a border poll. Mr Moore is concerned primarily with the latter and notes that the GFA threshold for Irish unity winning a border poll – 50 per cent plus one of the votes cast – remains in place. From various quarters there is relentless pressure, so far unsuccessful, to change this threshold in a way that makes Irish unity impossible.
If one threshold remains, the other is gone. The goalposts for triggering a border poll are no longer where the GFA put them. The agreement obliges the Secretary of State to call a poll if he believes it likely that a majority of voters would support Irish unity. Court rulings and the position of the Northern Ireland Office have rendered meaningless the Secretary of State’s so-called “mandatory duty” to call a poll in this circumstance.
In the McCord case, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Secretary of State can exercise “political judgment” to override opinion poll or other empirical evidence that a likely majority for unity exists. That is, the court changed the goalposts for triggering a border poll from ‘likely majority’ to whatever nebulous calculus the Secretary of State’s ‘political judgment’ might entail.
During the same case, the NIO effectively altered the triggering goalposts from ‘likely majority’ to ‘certain majority’. The NIO was not clear what ‘certain’ means. But what is clear is that ‘certain’ is a much higher threshold than is ‘likely’, and using it diminishes the prospect of the Secretary of State ever triggering a
border poll.
Contrary to what Mr Moore suggests, elements of the British state continue to move the goalposts to the detriment of Irish unity, just as they did during the pivotal years of partition.
MIKE BURKE
Associate Professor Emeritus,
Toronto Metropolitan University
The smell of an Orange card being played
Last week the DUP submitted their renegotiation document. Then the News Letter publishes a letter from a logistics expert on suggested problems being caused by the framework and coincidentally the Belfast Telegraph published an opinion piece by the very same man on the very same issue. The only thing missing was a major statement on the matter from an Orange Order logistics supremo.
I spent 20 years working with global forwarders and carriers involved in logistics and I learned that painting logistics on your truck does not make an old-fashioned trucking company, who resists change and investment, a logistics company. UPS delivers packages each business day to 11 million delivery customers in more than 220 countries and regions, 24.3 million packages per day.
So-called NI logistics companies can’t handle one border for a handful of customers. I smell an Orange card being played.
HUGH DOYLE
Clontarf, Dublin
People in glass houses...
Manus McDaid’s letter – ‘SF’s attitude perfectly legitimate’ (June 26) – reminds me of the one about people in glass houses. How did Mary Lou get her job and Michelle O’Neill be appointed First Minister? (There was a secret vote later, when John O’Dowd tried to have a debate about choices).
I have a question. Say Mary Lou becomes taoiseach and, for whatever reason, she has to stand down. How would the leader of our country be chosen? What does SF’s constitution say about that?
At least the DUP had an open election for leader and (recently) deputy leader. It appears that SF leaders emerge or are picked. By whom?
SEAN MALONE
Warrenpoint, Co Down
