left tribune volume 4 issue 2

www.labouryouth.ie

www.facebook.com/labouryouth

www.twitter.com/labouryouth

www.flickr.com/labouryouth

Is Civil

Partnership

Enough?

Page 4

Research Ethics, Stem Cells, And Why We Should Care

Page 6

Who Is Really Effected By The “Difficult Decisions”

Page 8

Volume 5 Issue 2 - July 2010

Also: Why Labour Trumps Fine Gael Facebook: An Effective Tool, Or A Privacy Threat

RRP: €0.00

www.labouryouth.ie

Your National Youth Executive

National Chairperson — Rory Geraghty

As National Chairperson, Rory is

responsible for the smooth running of

Labour Youth as a whole, along with acting

as the public face of the organization. He is

also a member of the Executive Board of

the Labour Party.

Email: [email protected]

Vice Chair/Campaigns—Kirsten Gordon

As National Vice Chair and Campaigns

Officer, Kirsten is primarily responsible for

the formation and execution of Labour

Youth National Campaigns. She also acts

as Chair of the organization in Rory’s

absence.


National Secretary — Brian O’Connor

As National Secretary, Brian is responsible

for taking minutes at all Labour Youth

events, and at NYE meetings. He is also

responsible for correspondence, accounts

and fundraising.


Recruitment Officer — Cathal McCann

As National Recruitment Officer, Cathal is

responsible for the recruitment and

retention of new members. He is also the

primary coordinator for the National

Recruitment Campaign. He is currently

Labour Youth’s representative on the

Central Council of the Labour Party.


Communications Officer — Conor Ryan

As National Communications Officer, Conor

is the Chief Editor of the Left Tribune, and

Chairperson of the Left Tribune Editorial

Board and the AV Subcommittee. He is

also responsible for managing the overall

design strategy, and online presence of the

organization.


International Officer—Neil Warner

As International Officer, Neil is

responsible for representing the

organization at European level and

beyond.


Equality Officer — Colm Maguire

As National Equality Officer, Colm is

responsible for making sure the

organization is fair and equal to all.

He also liaises with Labour Women

and Labour LGBT.


Ed & Policy — Dean Duke

As Education and Policy Officer,

Dean is responsible for drafting

Labour Youth Policy Documents,

researching prospective Policy

Positions, LY Political Training and

Chairing the Policy Working Group.


Youth & Development—Neil Ward

As Youth & Development Officer,

Neil is the Labour Party Staff

Member responsible for the

administration of Labour Youth. He

is also a non-voting member of the

NYE.


PLEASE RECYCLE OR PASS ON

Table of Contents

Comrades and Friends,

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you this

special online edition of the Left Tribune. I hope that you

enjoy the changes we’ve made to this issue, and that the

excellent articles sent in by our membership provokes as

much thought in you as it did in me.

With our excellent turnout at National Conference, a

fantastic Tom Johnson Summer School, Branch Officer

Training Day and several successful campaigns behind

us including Sack the Government, Regulate Global

Finance Now, and Boycott Israel, it is safe to say that

Labour Youth has been keeping busy!

It has been a busy time too for the Party in general. With

Labour leading in the polls for the first time since its

inception almost 100 years ago, and Party Leader

Eamon Gilmore consistently leading in terms of

popularity, the country is at an impasse. People are tiring

of the dweedle-dumb and deedle-dee politics that have

dominated power in this nation since it’s foundation.

Labour must stand ready to both demand and deliver the

type of real change that people want and need to see. To

do this, we need to show the people that we are ready

and willing to lead — Labour must wait no longer! This

means that Labour Youth, alongside the entire Party,

must step up our game and gear up for what should be

the most important election this Party has ever fought.

The change we want to see could be on the horizon, but

it will not simply fall into our laps — we need to fight hard

for it! I hope you will join us in doing just that.

Conor Ryan

NYE Profile

Table of Contents & Editorial

Difficult Decisions… But For Who?

Of Ethics and Stem Cells

The (Many) Problems with Fine Gael

Civil Partnership Bill Reaction

Facebook: Friend & Foe?

Campaigns and Events

Poll Position?

Branch in Focus: DIT Labour

A Response on the SDLP Question

Book Review: On Liberty

Chief Editor: Conor Ryan

Editorial Board: Emer Sugrue, Kerrie Creedon,

Kerri Ryan, Sam Ryan, Audrey Walsh, Ray

Kelly

Contributors: Peter Kelleher, Luke Field,

Declan Meenegh, Dermot Harnett, David

Gibney, Liam McNulty, Glenn Fitzpatrick,

Neil Warner

Thanks to: Neil Ward

Interested in writing an article?


2 -

3 -

4 -

6 -

8 -

10 -

12 -

13 -

16-

17 -

18 -

20-

LETTER FROM THE CHAIR

Friends,

This has indeed been a most exciting time for us and the Party.

With opinion polls riding high and our Party Leader being the

most popular leader in the country, now is the time for Labour.

Over the last few months Labour Youth has had a number of

important successes, including my own election to the Party’s

Executive Board and most recently an absolutely brilliant Tom

Johnson Summer School in Kilkenny.

We must build on that strength going forward, we have two

years left at most until the next General Election so now is the

time for Labour Youth to go out and begin to work with all of

our candidates, canvassing hard until every door has been

knocked on and every potential voter spoken to. Over the com-

ing weeks, Labour Youth will be launching some Policy Docu-

ments and running a number of Campaigns, so please come

along and get involved. If you want a campaign to be run in

your area, let us know and we’ll see what we can do to help.

As always, you views, and concerns are most welcome, so

please don’t hesitate to contact the NYE if you have either.

Rory Geraghty

National Chairperson, Labour Youth

www.labouryouth.ie

Difficult Decisions…

To put it simply, fewer and fewer

people are becoming more and

more wealthy and the gap

between incomes of the highest

earners and the lowest earners is

increasing.

You may wonder whether this

report bears any relationship to

the Irish situation. Well a second

report published in June answers

that question. This report is by

Merrill Lynch Global Wealth

Management and Capgemini, and

it said that in 2009, Ireland‘s rich

grew by 10% with an additional

1,800 Irish people having investa-

ble assets of $1 million or more.

So in 2009, there were 18,100

millionaires in Ireland: an

increase from 16,300 in 2008. So

much for the recession. Even

better news is that the same report

says that in 2009 a further 18

Irish ―ultra-rich‖ were created

bringing the total up to 181.

These are individuals with

investable assets of $30 million or

more. So what does this all mean?

In early June the Boston

Consulting Group published a

report; ―Regaining Lost Ground:

Resurgent Markets and New Op-

portunities”, which is about

Global Wealth and it revealed

some stark facts about the global

economy. The report says that

Global wealth staged a

remarkable comeback in 2009,

increasing by 11.5%. Europe

remained the wealthiest region

with one third of the world‘s

wealth at $37.1 trillion. You‘ll be

surprised to hear that the Boston

Consulting Group say they expect

global wealth to grow at an

average annual rate of nearly 6%

from the year end 2009 through

2014.

Sounds like good news, doesn‘t

it? Unfortunately this doesn‘t tell

the whole story. According to the

report, the wealth they talk about

doesn‘t affect you or me. In fact,

the report says that wealth has

become more concentrated as it

grew last year. ―Millionaire

households represented less than

1% of all households but owned

about 38% of the world‘s wealth,

up from about 36% in 2008.‖

Over the past number of weeks

there have been two financial re-

ports which may have passed you

by relatively unnoticed. If it was-

n‘t for one or two reputable com-

mentators it may have passed the

mainstream media by without con-

sequence too. These reports

should be of great interest to the

majority of Irish workers, espe-

cially those who have lost jobs,

have had reduced terms and

conditions imposed on them, or

are struggling to make ends meet

for their families at the moment.

Over the past two years, ordinary

workers have been conditioned

into thinking that there is a

recession taking place in Ireland.

Technically, this may be true,

however, the implications and

choices available to Ireland and its

Government during this recession

aren‘t as straightforward as we

may be led to believe. Many of us

may now feel that there is no

money in this country and that we

have to ―take the pain‖, as it were,

and reluctantly accept cuts to our

hours, our pay and our

public services. We are led to be-

lieve that there is no real

alternative. I beg to differ.

“Fewer and fewer people are becoming

more and more wealthy and the gap between incomes of the highest earners

and the lowest earners is increasing.”

By David Gibney

But For Who?

Well it means that while we are all

in the grip of recession and

suffering the extreme

consequences, and bearing in

mind many of our children will

suffer them too as a result of

NAMA, the wealthiest people in

Ireland are getting wealthier. It

doesn‘t occur to our Government

that rather than take the approach

of slash and burn with the result-

ant persecution of low and middle

income families, they could just

try to redistribute this wealth

according to the principles of

fairness and equality through

proper taxation.

These rich people can easily

afford to pay their fair share of the

economic burden, so why is it that

our government is adamant that it

will be low paid public sector

workers, those on social welfare

and some of the most vulnerable

groups in society that suffer all the

consequences?

In this country we‘ve developed a

very sophisticated taxation system

which gives workers tax credits so

that workers only pay PAYE on

what they can actually afford to

pay. It‘s a form of social

protection. Instead of utilizing this

system our government has

ignored it and implemented the

crude income levy which impacts

hardest on the lowest earners. We

also had an increase in VAT by

half a percent which again impacts

hardest on the lowest income

families. It seems that our

politicians are determined to

maintain PAYE tax rates (which

are very favorable towards high

income earners) at any cost.

Think about it. Instead of

adjusting income tax rates for

high earners, they‘ve taken the

following actions:

Medical cards were removed

for certain people over 70;

Prescription and accident and

emergency charges were in-

creased;

Dental treatment was

withdrawn;

Social welfare has been cut;

The pay of public servants

earning under €30,000 a

year was reduced;

We gave billions to zombie

banks at the expense of the

welfare of future

generations;

Respite care has been with-

drawn from parents of chil-

dren with disabilities.

These are only some of the

―cutbacks‖ our government has

taken while they fondly remind

us that they are taking the

―difficult decisions‖. They tell us

there is no alternative to all these

actions but there clearly is. It‘s

called utilizing the taxation

system to create a fairer and

more balanced society.

It says a lot about the society we

live in and the people who run it

when unemployment and poverty

levels in Ireland are increasing at

a phenomenal rate and at the

same time we are creating more

and more wealthy and ultra

wealthy individuals. It appears

that these so called difficult

decisions taken by our

government are only going to be

difficult for certain people. I only

hope that the Irish voter remem-

bers these choices when the next

general election takes place.

They may be smiling, but the rest of us aren’t!

“It seems that our politicians

are determined to maintain

PAYE tax rates (which are

very favorable towards high

income earners) at any cost.“

www.labouryouth.ie

Of Ethics...

The first decade of the 21st

century has seen leaps and strides

in our understanding of cell

biology. We are potentially on the

cusp on a new era in cell biology,

one in which human cells, like

those of a salamander, might be

induced to divide and replace

those lost to injury or age. This

research however has brought

with it a bitterly fought debate

over the use of ―embryonic stem

cells‖. If we are to have any

meaningful debate, we need to

understand what we mean by

―stem cells‖ and why they matter.

Your body is a teeming

constellation of some 50 trillion

cells, comprising more than 200

types of wildly differing

characteristics. Each and every

cell in your body however can

trace its ancestry back to one

fertilized egg, a cell which

possessed unlimited potential to

divide and transform – in

biologists lingo, a ―pluripotent‖

cell . Over the course of develop-

ment, this potential was lost –

your cells ―differentiated‖ into

specialized types and lost their

ability to divide. Every one of

your cells now carries with it a

cellular memory that allows each

one to read a single set of genetic

instructions in a different way.

This defines not only its type, but

its ability to divide. Within your

neurons (the cells that make up

your nervous system and brain)

for instance, the genes encoding

muscle and bone have been

relegated to a compacted, silenced

form, as have the genes which

allow cell division. A ―stem cell‖

is a cell which retains, to one

degree or another, the potential to

divide and transform. Most cells,

when cultured in a Petri dish, will

give rise only to similar cell types,

and only for a limited time before

they cease to divide. Stem cells

however (with a great deal of

coddling) will divide indefinitely,

and can be induced to form many

types of cell.

Embryonic stem cells are those

found in developing embryos

around the time of implantation,

(when the embryo is still a micro-

scopic ―blastocyst‖, of a few thou-

sand cells) which can potentially

form a whole organism. Adult

stem cells exist in niches which

allow for instance, the production

of new blood cells and, to some

extent the generation of new

neurons. Adult stem cells are

reluctant to divide in comparison

with embryonic ones, and are

often difficult to obtain in quanti-

ty. Embryonic stem cells by con-

trast can be maintained in culture

indefinitely, and can produce far

greater quantities of tissue. It is by

regressing to an embryonic-like

state for instance, that a

salamander‘s cells can regenerate

its tail.

Implanted cells derived from

embryonic stem cells have been

used to stimulate the repair of

otherwise permanent spinal inju-

ries in mice. Moreover, a single

such cell can be altered genetically

and then used to create a

population of altered cells. For

instance, a complete set of

replacement cells for the blood

system can be created. This has

been used to cure several genetic

conditions like sickle cell

anaemia in mice. The potential

applications of such altered cells

are almost unlimited. For instance,

a HIV patient could be given

white blood cells engineered to

resist the virus, while a diabetic

patient could be given cells which

are able to produce insulin. The

potential for premature media

hype is unfortunately also

formidable.

By Dermot Harnett

And Stem Cells

A far less hyped but no less important

potential of stem cell research is the

experimental insight it can provide

into our understanding of biology.

Embryonic stem cell research has

contributed immensely to our

understanding of the molecules

behind cell identity and control,

including the consequences when it

goes awry - cancer. Stem cell biology

is also providing us with unique

insights into the processes behind

aging – which is in large part caused

by the depletion of adult stem cells.

Wildly optimistic speculation

notwithstanding, at present, our un-

derstanding of stem cells is very

much incomplete. Of particular

concern is that stem cells, being

prone to divide, might do so

inappropriately and form tumours

when implanted into patients. What is

required is a lot more research.

Probably the greatest advance in stem

cell biology last decade came in 2006

when researchers in Japan announced

that they could induce an embryonic-

like state in adult cells with genetic

manipulation. These ―induced plu-

ripotent stem cells‖ have been touted

as a practical solution to the debate

around stem cells, and the technique

has since been greatly improved.

Ethics aside, these cells are also a

great deal easier to obtain than are

blastocysts (human eggs are by

weight the most valuable substance

on earth). However, induced stem

cells are imperfect. Recent evidence

shows that induced stem cells differ

significantly from the real deal, both

in the molecular components of

cellular memory, and in experimental

measures of ―stemness‖ such as the

ability to divide and form complete,

healthy adult mice.

To be sure, stem cell induction is an

incredible breakthrough, and it may

one day render embryonic stem

cells almost unnecessary. This day

has yet to arrive however, and

unless we have blastocyst derived –

―true‖ embryonic stem cells to use

as a gold standard, it never will.

The debate around embryonic stem

cells is a continuation of the debate

around IVF and abortion. At what

stage do we begin to extend the

status of ―person‖ to a developing

embryo? Some contend that a sperm

and egg becomes a person at the

moment of fertilization, often but

not always for religious reasons.

Others, including (unsurprisingly)

myself and most other biologists, do

not.

Rational discussion on the matter is

in some ways limited – the

definition of ―person‖ is an arbitrary

choice for those of us without a

textbook on the subject. I find it odd

however that ―conception‖ has been

defined to occur at the moment of

fertilization. What has been created

at this moment is obviously not a

person, but rather a cell with the

potential to form one or more peo-

ple, given very specific conditions

and a good deal of luck (between

half and one quarter fail to implant,

raising the worrying prospect of a

purgatory populated largely by the

ghosts of failed blastocysts). If

―potential‖ human life qualifies for

rights, why do we not mourn the

passing of these blastocysts, or of

the many potential identical siblings

that exist in every blastocyst?

Why do we not condemn the

unfortunate women with

fertility conditions who

attempt to conceive in the

knowledge that they will

most likely fail? I also take

issue with the assertion of

those who, like the Irish

Time‘s Dick Alhstrom, cite

a ―gut reaction‖ as evidence

of the inherently immoral of

nature using blastocysts.

Besides the subjectivity of

such a claim, similar

arguments were once

brought to bear against

blood transfusions and organ

transplants, with which my

gut at least has no problem.

Moreover, the cells used for

embryonic cell lines are

generally the excess cells

generated by IVF, destined

for disposal. Most have

little problem with this

procedure, possibly because

public sentiment is easier to

stir up against research than

against unfortunate women

unable to conceive. The

people who carry out

research on embryonic stem

cells will work long hours

and only rarely be rewarded

and by progress. We and our

children, and theirs, will

benefit from this work. They

deserve our thanks, or at the

very least, a reasonable and

informed debate about their

life‘s work.

www.labouryouth.ie

The Many Problems

Labour ran Senator Alex White in

that election, someone who held

prominent roles in the unions

(USI and SIPTU), and someone

who has a proven track record

since the 2004 Local Elections

when he was elected to South

Dublin County Council for the

ward of Terenure – Rathfarnham,

serving as Deputy Mayor of

South Dublin during that time as

wells as serving as leader of the

Labour group in Seanad Éireann.

I believe the people of Dublin

South will elect Alex White to the

Dáil, whether that is in a General

Election in the near future or in

the second Dublin South by-

election of the 30th Dáil (if it ever

comes).

Polls are not to be taken as the

full truth but they do show a

snapshot of public opinion across

the nation and, in the case of a

series of polls, a trend over time.

Since Fianna Fáil‘s nose dive in

the polls, two trends have been

borne out. Firstly, while Fine

Gael has come out, on average as

the most popular party at around

30%-35%, Eamon Gilmore has

been the most popular leader,

achieving support ratings of

around 50% consistently.

In a separate document, titled

―The Third Way - A Fine Gael

Green Paper on Reform of Higher

Education‖, Fine Gael propose a

―contribution is 30% of the unit

cost of the students‘ education.‖

This is nothing more than a

graduate tax and is just as

regressive as the Government‘s

attempts to re-introduce college

fees through the back door by

increasing the registration fee.

Don‘t be surprised by this move

from Fine Gael, this is the Party

whose former leader; Alan Dukes

said that he ―didn‘t believe in

universal access to anything‖ on

an episode of Questions and

Answers. It was when Labour was

in Government that third level

fees were abolished and only with

Labour leading the next Govern-

ment can this be protected.

Does anyone remember George

Lee? The people of Dublin South

do. They are still suffering a

hangover from eight months of

―the George Lee effect‖. Fine

Gael acted in total disregard in

this instance. Rather than run a

local Councillor, who would have

known the voters and known the

ropes of being an elected

representative, they went, instead,

with an economist who openly

stated on Tonight with Vincent

Browne after his candidacy was

announced, that in 2002, he re-

jected a previous proposition to

run for Fine Gael in the General

Election of that year (probably

because he saw that Fine Gael

were going to haemorrhage seats

in that election).

I could use this article as an

opportunity to discredit Fine Gael

and Enda Kenny‘s poor leadership

(and I will) but that would be

pointless on its own if I didn‘t

complement it with a comparison

and an honest appraisal of our

party and our party leader‘s per-

formance of late.

Fine Gael‘s response to the current

financial cesspit bears little or no

difference with that of the present

Government. Fine Gael produced

its NEWERA document, which

states clearly that Fine Gael will

―look to sell ESB International,

Bord Gais and ESB PowerGen &

Supply, when market and other

conditions are appropriate.‖ In the

same paragraph, they comically

say ―We have learnt the lessons of

Eircom and will retain key

infrastructure in the ownership of

the State‖. If they truly believed

this, they wouldn‘t propose privat-

ising any state assets. Privatisation

of state assets is part of the failed

Neo-Liberal doctrine, as espoused

by the Progressive Democrats, that

has landed the economies of the

world into the current quagmire. If

the privatisation experiment has

taught us one thing, it is simply

not to do it.

“If the privatisation experiment has taught

us one thing, it is simply not to do it.”

By Peter Kelleher

With Fine Gael

I think what is far more interesting

is the full picture that these polls

paint. While Fine Gael have been

arguably the most popular party,

Enda Kenny hasn‘t come close to

being the most popular leader. In

one poll, he came behind Sinn

Féin leader, Gerry Adams in

popularity. While some people

may see Fine Gael as a party of

Government (less so no doubt

after the recent heave), more

people see Eamon Gilmore as a

more credible Taoiseach.

Last November, an telling outburst

by Dublin South-East TD,

Lucinda Creighton, brought Enda

Kenny‘s leadership into question.

She stated that she‘ll quit politics

if she doesn't become a cabinet

minister. Now, I don‘t think that

she is first-rate, ministerial

material. Remember, this is the

same woman who helped Young

Fine Gael come up with the

―Passion for Europe‖ sex scene

poster for the first Nice

Referendum. Young Fine Gael

continued this trend into the first

Lisbon referendum with the

―Enlarge Your Opportunities‖

poster. Hardly the kind of thinking

that is needed in Government right

now, especially with her

comments on Turkish membership

of the European Union. Whether

you agree with it or not, her

comments on immigration had

more than a little far-Right to

them.

She could have chosen to comment

on Turkey‘s human rights abuses,

but went down the anti-

immigration road. Perhaps the

blaming immigrants plays better

with the Fine Gael base. Along

with Leo Varadkar wanting to pay

unemployed non-nationals to leave

the country, Simon Coveney trying

to impalement, Neo-Liberal,

privatisation policies, Fine Gael

Senators openly disagreeing with

the leadership over the continued

existence of Seanad Éireann; and

the recent heave attempt by his

own Deputy Leader; Edna Kenny

is being shown as a weak leader.

Eamon Gilmore has no such issues

with other Labour TD‘s or the

party membership. He has the full

confidence of the Parliamentary

Labour Party and the party mem-

bership. Under his leadership, he

has been the only leader to ask the

tough questions to the Taoiseach,

and demand answers. Labour was

the only party, to correctly vote

against the blanket guarantee. The

Local and European Elections saw

three of four Labour candidates

elected to the European Parliament

and Joan Burton has exposed each

of Minister Brian Lenihan‘s

budgets as the most regressive

we‘ve ever had.

The electorate must be made

aware, that a Right wing, Fine

Gael Government will be little or

no different than the current Right

wing, Fianna Fáil Government.

Edna Kenny hasn‘t just lost the

respect of half his party of late, he

has lost control of his party‘s

members.

At the next election, the people

will have two real options: either

to vote for the same Civil War

parties and the same failed

politics or to vote for a new start

with The Labour Party and with

Eamon Gilmore as Taoiseach.

www.labouryouth.ie

On the 14th of December, 2006,

Labour Party TD Brendan

Howlin tabled a private member‘s

bill before Dáil Éireann – the

Civil Unions Bill. The timing of

the Bill was significant, as this

was the same day that the High

Court made its ruling that lesbian

couple Katherine Zappone and

Ann Louise Gilligan (who were

married in Canada, where same-

sex marriage is legal) could not

have their marriage recognised by

the Irish State for financial

purposes due to ―constitutional

incompatibility‖. Similar in thrust

to the Norris Bill, the bill

conferred all the rights of

marriage onto couples in a civil

union, but only applied to same-

sex couples. Furthermore, the bill

allowed for adoption by same-sex

couples in a civil union. Due to

further delaying tactics by the

Government, the bill fell when

the Dáil ended ahead of the 2007

General Election. The bill was

brought before the new Dáil in

October 2007, but was again

voted down as ―unconstitutional‖.

The current Civil Partnership Bill

is a highly watered-down version

of the previous bills. An obvious

and glaring difference, and

inadequacy, is the lack of

provision for adoption by same-

sex couples. There seems to be no

reason for this omission, as it

would not be incompatible with

the Irish Constitution in its

current form, and adoption of

children by individual members

of the LGBT community is

perfectly legal.

Back in 2004, prominent LGBT

activist Senator David Norris ta-

bled a private member‘s bill to

Seanad Éireann regarding

recognition for unmarried

cohabiting couples, without

distinction between heterosexual

relationships and same-sex

couples.

The bill was somewhat unusual in

that it was the first private

member‘s bill to be introduced in

the Seanad in over fifty years.

Taking a rather different line to

most civil union-related bills, this

bill simply stated that all the

rights of a married couple would

be available to a legally-

recognised cohabiting couple

rather than outlining the proposed

rights of a civil union. While the

bill was widely praised, it was

essentially filibustered by the

decision of the Government to

postpone a vote ―indefinitely‖.

This month, a bill on civil

partnerships passed through the

houses of the Oireachtas, moving

through the Dáil without need for

a vote, and being passed by the

Seanad on 48 votes to 4. Finally,

same-sex couples will be able to

have their relationships recognised

by the Irish State, and be afforded

a number of rights and protections

reflecting this. The bill also makes

these provisions for heterosexual

couples who have been cohabiting

for a long period of time, but who

are not married. The bill is the

third such piece of legislation to

have been brought before the Oi-

reachtas since the beginning of the

millennium, its predecessors being

the Norris Bill of 2004 and the

Civil Union Bills of 2006 and

2007.

“An obvious and glaring

difference, and

inadequacy, is the lack of

provision for adoption by

same-sex couples”

The Civil Partnership Bill:

By Luke Field

Certainly, the most urgent

development that will be sought

from this is to give same-sex

couples the right of adoption. It

could have far-reaching

implications for marriage within

Ireland as a whole and push it

towards a more secularised

existence; an obvious potential

endpoint is the adoption of the

French model of marriages,

whereby a civil formalising of the

marriage must take place for it to

be recognised by the state

regardless of whether or not any

religious service has taken place.

Whether or not we progress from

here shall essentially decide

whether or not this should be

welcomed as a flawed but

viable stepping-stone to true

equality in Ireland, or simply an

effort by the current Government

and the social conservatives of

the State fobbing off the LGBT

community at little cost to

themselves.

While the proposed amendment

met with staunch support from

independent NUI Senator Rónán

Mullen, the overwhelming

majority of the Seanad moved

swiftly to quash the amendment

on the grounds that it was just an

excuse to discriminate against

same-sex unions while enjoying

legal protection.

While the bill is likely to be

welcomed by the LGBT

community when it comes into

effect in January 2011, it remains

to be seen what the future holds

in this area of social legislation.

The recognition, in any form, of

same-sex relationships by the

State is obviously a welcome

development, but it is still a long

way off parity with marriage.

Another controversial, and highly

criticised, part of the bill is the in-

clusion of a ―conscience clause‖.

Essentially, this clause means that

any civil registrar can opt not to

perform the civil partnership of a

same-sex couple on grounds of

conscience, but faces up to six

months in prison and/or a

significant fine. As part of an

extremely lively and contentious

debate in the Seanad, independent

Senator Shane Ross commented

that ―to say someone will go to jail

for not doing their job for

whatever reason is wrong‖.

A further ―conscience clause‖ was

part of an amendment that

renegade Fianna Fáil Senators Jim

Walsh, Labhrás Ó Mhurchú and

John Hanafin proposed to the

Seanad; this clause would have

allowed any service providers

(such as photographers and

catering staff) to refuse to serve at

a same-sex civil partnership cere-

mony on grounds of conscience,

as an exception to the Equal Status

Acts of 2000 and 2004.

“It remains to be seen

what the future holds in

this area of social

legislation”

A Stepping Stone or a Fobbing Off?

www.labouryouth.ie

Groups were the first option for

organisations on Facebook. They

have the benefit of being able to

send emails and event invites to

all members. Once you join a

group it shows up in your friends‘

news feed. The disadvantage is

that the group doesn‘t have status

updates. It has a wall which

anyone can write on, but you have

to visit the page to see it.

In the beginning, Facebook events

were designed to make it easy for

college students to meet up and

drink (not much has changed

really). Events are very useful. It

is easy to invite people to them

and they show up in your friends

news feed when you RSVP to one.

They are a great way of promoting

an event, and of reminding people

that an event is on. You can send

an all attendee email and emails

are sent out when the date/time/

venue is changed.

Next there comes the fan pages.

A fan page lets you put status

updates in the fans news feeds.

When someone shares a link or

video, they have an option to

leave it as via your fan page. This

helps get more fans. Fan pages

also have analytics about page

usage which groups and pages

don‘t have. They can be very use-

ful.

A disadvantage of fan pages is that

you can‘t email all members or

invite all members to an event, but

I feel this is a small price to pay

for a way to get content into

peoples news feeds.

So, how should a branch use

Facebook more effectively? First

of all, Facebook isn‘t the be-all

and end-all of the web. There are

some people, who (shock horror)

don‘t have a Facebook account

(we‘re building re-education

camps as we speak), so in the

mean time you should have a

website for your branch. Unless

you‘re a hardcore XHTML nerd in

your parent‘s basement with

nothing better to do with your time

than hand code a site, use Blogger

or Wordpress. The advantages

and disadvantages of these are

enough to possibly write my next

article, but they are both free and

really easy to use, so pick one.

Keep this site up-to-date.

You should make a Facebook fan

page for your branch, then share

links to the posts from your site.

Don‘t post too much, and don‘t

post a load of things at the same

time. Also try and keep the

content varied.

Facebook is the most searched

brand in America. It has

400,000,000 users world wide

(compared to twitter which only

has 100,000,000) and is

expanding to other sites with

Facebook Connect and the newly

released Graph API. Although

the company‘s record on user

privacy is poor, Facebook is a

very important platform.

I think a Facebook presence is

essential for a Branch of Labour

Youth or nearly any other group.

The main LY page has been very

effective; in that it has relevant

information, is frequently

updated, and has a nice mix of

content.

A lot of branches are using

Facebook, but some of them may

not be using it effectively. The

first big no-no is setting up a

person profile for a group. It

looks very unprofessional, it

probably violates the terms of

service which could get your page

shut down, you have to approve

every member, and it looks very

amateur.

Facebook

By Declan Meenagh

Post a video from the Party‘s

YouTube channel with a few

questions in the text area. Post

links to relevant news articles,

and post stuff about what your

branch or LY are doing.

Groups aren‘t as useful. One

thing you might do is create a

group for a campaign. Then you

can email the members and invite

them to events. The Tallagh IT

bus shelter campaign is an

example of such a group.

Labour Youth also has some

effective groups including the

campaign for a 3-Way TV

Debates between Party Leaders.

I‘ve written about how you can

use Facebook to promote your

Branch but I feel I should also say

something about Facebook

privacy in a personal level. While

useful, it has become clear that

without massive pressure,

Facebook doesn‘t care about user

privacy as it doesn‘t fit with their

emerging business model.

So what‘s the problem with

Facebook? Well from the site

youropenbook.com you can

search for things like ―Hate my

job‖ or ―cheat on my boyfriend/

girlfriend‖, and you can see posts

either from people who are really

stupid, or who don‘t realise their

posts are public.

This happened because Facebook

changed their privacy settings and

made everyone review them.

However, they put a lot of

settings (like everything you post

to your wall) to public by default.

Most people just skipped over

this without reading it, so their

posts are now public.

When people first joined

Facebook, it was a place to talk to

friends privately. Services like

Twitter are a lot more open,

designed to broadcast things we

want the entire internet to see.

But Facebook wants some of the

Twitter action, and it is using

methods such as changing

settings and terms of service to

make things more public. To fix

this problem, Facebook needs to

switch everything back to private.

It needs to be private by default,

and it can never change this. I

doubt it will do this though, as it

seems the only people who care

are a few bloggers.

A more recent change means that

everything you list as interests,

favourite books and films are now

public. Again you were shown

information about this but most

people just clicked through it.

Basically everything you

specified as an interest is now

linked to a fan page, and publicly

accessible. Something else you

mightn‘t realise is that

membership of pages is usually

public.

And then you have instant

personalisation which gives 3rd

party sites you visit while logged

into Facebook default access to

information in your account.

So what should you do? Well a

few internet celebrities have quit

Facebook very publicly, but I

don‘t think this will make a

difference, and Facebook is so

integrated into everything already

that stopping using it seems a bit

silly.

The fundamental rule for the

future is assume everything you

put on Facebook could be made

public by a mistake or by a

discrete change in settings. I‘ve

set all my contact information as

friends only. It‘s your own

choice. Leaving your email

public will probably result in a lot

of phishing attacks and spam, and

you really don‘t want the whole

internet to have your phone

number, so look at these

carefully. Under no

circumstances should you set

your birthdate to public, as such

information is widely used in

identity theft scams.

Friend or Foe?

“The fundamental rule for

the future is assume

everything you put on

Facebook could be made

public by a mistake or by a

discrete change in

settings. “

www.labouryouth.ie


CLOCKWISE FROM THE TOP

1.) Labour Youth sitting behind Party Leader

Eamonn Gilmore during the Leaders Speech at

Conference 2010

2.) Maynoth Labour posing with Ruiri Quinn TD

3.) UCC Labour posing with Michael D. Higgins TD

4.) Labour Youth at Conference 2010


CLOCKWISE FROM THE TOP

1.) LY National Chairperson Rory Geraghty address-

ing the Tom Johnson Summer School

2.) LY Activists supporting the striking workers at

Connolly Shoes

3.) UCC Labour taking campaigning in response to

the massacre of aid workers by Israeli Troops

aboard the Flotilla headed for Gaza

4.) LY Activists at the Regulate Global Finance Now

protest

www.labouryouth.ie

How many times have we heard

the old myth — ‖Labour has no

policies‖ on TV, Newspaper and

Radio? Have the journalists of this

county suddenly, in their shock at

the prospect of a Labour-Led

government forgotten basic re-

search abilities such as how to do a

google search, or better yet — log

on to www.labour.ie/policy? A two

minute inquiry into the matter will

reveal that the Labour Party have

released over 47 Policy Documents

since 2007, along with 26 Private

Members Bills.

In response one such assertion by

Sean Moncrieff, several Labour

Youth activists emailed the show

correcting him. In response, Sean

outright denied the exchange had

taken place, and when shown the

recording in question (on

Newstalks own website), met us

with silence. A week or so later, he

quipped that Labour Activists ―get

very hot and bothered when people

say they have no policies‖. This is

on the whole correct, and why

shouldn‘t we. We have every right

to get ―hot and bothered‖ when the

media misrepresents us a populist

chancers with no ideas, and I for

one wish we would exercise that

right more often!

We should not despair about these

attacks, they would not be

happening if those behind them

weren‘t scared. The movement for

change is growing by the day, and

the idea of a Labour-Led Govern-

ment, an idea that was derided as

being outside the realm of reality

not long ago, is now a very, very

real prospect.

The last few weeks have been of

incredible importance to our

movement. Eamon Gilmore has

consistently shown himself to be

the most popular Party Leader in

the country, and the Labour

Party, for the first time in its near

100 year existence, has according

to the latest MRBI come out as

the highest polling Party. There

has never been a better time for

So what exactly does this mean

for us, and how can be best

capitalize on it?

In many ways, it is true at the

Party has never been in a

stronger position. With a

committed core of activists, a

stable leadership and a

population crying out for a

change in the ways of old,

Labour has gained unprecedented

success of late. Any yet, it is

worth remembering that the Party

has never been in as perilous a

position as this. With the increase

in Labour support, the

establishment and their

sycophants in the mainstream

press have predictably gone on

the attack.

It will not be enough to wish this

into existence, or leave the hard

work to the PLP however — if it

is to become a reality, it will take

every single Activist on the

ground and performing at 110%

from now until the next

General Election. It will take

ordinary members ringing up radio

shows and writing letters to the

Newspapers, correcting misrepre-

sentations of our Party when and

as they see them. It will take large

and vocal turnouts at every

campaign and protest from here on

in. It will take canvassing every

street and every house.

Make no mistake, the road ahead

of us is not going to be an easy

one, but we have the chance the

change the way politics are done

in this country for generations. To

achieve that, at least from my

point of view, every leaflet drop

will be worth it!

Poll Position?

“With the increase in Labour support, the establishment and their sycophants in the

mainstream press have predictably gone on the

attack”

By Conor Ryan

As they continue to ignore the

hardships that their members

endure in their personal lives as

well as at the hands of the HEA,

they align themselves with the

people that have seen the coun-

try slip into the state that it cur-

rently lies in. The way in which

they have de-politicized their

members (inadvertently or oth-

erwise) also warrants worry.

DIT Labour boasts two mem-

bers on the DIT Governing

Council and are constantly lob-

bying DITSU, trying to make

them more pro-active. If any-

thing is to change for the better-

ment of the students in DIT,

Labour will have a strong role

to play.

Devoid of any socialism in recent

times, DIT finally has a voice of

the left. An active committee con-

sisting of young and ambitious

party members has taken centre

stage in the college as the only

entity keeping the often passive

DITSU on their toes.

The mission: to cure apathy

among students of one of the most

affected 3rd level institutions in

relation to An Bórd Snip. The be-

ginning of the next academic cal-

endar presents fresh challenges for

the DIT crowd. They aim to gain

full branch status and to ensure

that DIT keeps its‘ ties with USI

as a movement to isolate the DIT

student body and remove them

from the organization gathers

momentum under the current

Executive

DIT Labour aim to run their own

campaigns on-campus, letting the

students know that there is a fairer

way of doing things. DITSU

slammed USI for supporting the

Irish Congress of Trade Unions in

their day of action back in Novem-

ber last, and have constantly

claimed that they have to be apo-

litical.

Branch in Focus: DIT Labour

By Glenn Fitzpatrick

www.labouryouth.ie

A Response to the SDLP Question

By Liam McNulty

In the last issue, Brian

O‘Connor and Colm Lawless

recounted their observations

on the SDLP, gained during a

fact-finding mission to the

North to meet local activists.

SDLP member Liam McNulty

has this to say in response to

that article

I welcome the debate on the

SDLP in the pages of the Left

Tribune. A correct orientation

towards the SDLP is necessary

for Labour Youth and the

Labour Party, and for social

democracy and democratic

socialism more broadly across

the island as a whole.

Contrary to the assertions in

the article on the question in

the last issue, the name 'Social

Democratic and Labour Party'

was not deliberately contrived

to avoid 'emotive terms' but

was a compromise between

two currents of thought which

were prominent at the time.

The Derry-based leadership around

John Hume were attracted to the

growing European social-

democratic movement- Hume en-

joying a positive relationship with

Willy Brandt of the German SPD-

whilst Gerry Fitt (Republican

Labour Party) and Paddy Devlin

(Northern Ireland Labour Party)

insisted on the name containing a

Labour element because they

viewed it vital to the new party's

success in Belfast . Amusingly, the

Labour Social Democratic Party

(the LSD Party) was suggested

before its pharmacological

connotations were noticed and the

current name was agreed on.

The founding principles of the

party were not, in fact, moderate

nationalist in tone and differed

sharply from Eddie McAteer's

Nationalist Party. The programme

for the party was, in its own terms,

to be 'based on radical left of centre

principles' which included 'a

just and adequate distribution of

wealth', a promise to 'uphold and

support the democratic rights and

principles of organised labour' and

the promotion of 'financial,

consumer, industrial and

agricultural co-operatives'.

Irish unity was mentioned in the

founding principles but it was in

terms of the unity of the people

North and South based on the princi-

ple of consent, which has

subsequently been enshrined in the

Good Friday Agreement.

It is true that the Party has been seen

to drift away from its Labour

emphasis in the early 1970s towards

a nationalist position but this must

be contextualized with regard to

internment, Bloody Sunday, general

societal polarisation and the failure

to agree an internal settlement via

the Sunningdale Agreement. Parties

are a product of their immediate po-

litical environment and the SDLP is

no different.

Nevertheless, in the settled

conditions of post-Agreement

Northern Ireland it is necessary that

the SDLP retains a firm commitment

to a social democratic programme

and is reminded of its radical roots.

We can draw comfort therefore,

from the election of Party Leader

Margaret Ritchie who gave a very

clear indication of her political

loyalties at the 2010 Labour Party

Conference in Galway. Moreover,

Mark Durkan MP has established

himself since 2005 as a respected

member of the House of

Commons, providing a dissenting

voice on the Labour benches on

matters such as 42 Days' Internment,

the abolition of the 10 pence tax rate

and on the previous British

Government's plans to amend the

law on universal jurisdiction to

protect Israel's right to due diplomat-

ic conduct and intergovernmental

engagement; "standards for which,"

as Mark has said, "the Israeli

Government currently demonstrates

a blatant disregard."

This work has not stopped with the

election of the current Con-Dem

coalition, and the SDLP have been at

the forefront in attacking the

regressive cuts agenda in

Westminster.

Colm and Brian are right to note

different undercurrents within the

Party but in terms of the SDLP's

track record in areas of mutual

concern to the Labour movement

North and South the party has been

consistent. Its emphasis on

providing social housing, in standing

up for civil liberties in the face of the

British governments' engagement in

the so-called 'War on Terror' and in

consistently opposing the imperialist

war in Iraq puts it to the left of Irish

Labour's sister party in the United

Kingdom. The party has stood up for

workers' rights too, for instance by

campaigning for the pension rights of

the workers in the Desmonds factory

in Co. Derry, giving active support to

the Visteon workers during the

occupation of their factory in 2009.

As of the 2010 SDLP Conference,

the party has formally endorsed the

Platform for Change initiative

which seeks to put politics based on

the issues before politics based on

identity. What is more, former

Labour Youth National Secretary

and ECOSY Vice President Conall

McDevitt MLA, has played a key

role in this initiative.

The Party was also unanimous in its

support for a truly Shared Future

for the people of Northern Ireland.

This stance is consistent with the

civic republicanism of our Party

which aims for equality between

citizens regardless of their back-

ground, and is in marked contrast to

the ethno-nationalism and pseudo-

republicanism of Sinn Féin which

conceives of equality as a zero-sum

game between two mutually

homogenous and contrived

communitarian identities. In the

words of Patsy McGlone, the

Party's new Deputy Leader: "Our

future is together. Because a

separate future is not a just and

equal future."

I would call on Labour Youth

to strengthen its relationship

with its comrades on the Left

of the SDLP and SDLP

Youth in the interests of pro-

moting democratic socialism

and social democracy across

the island of Ireland. Only

with a closer working

relationship between the two

members of Socialist

International in Ireland can

we ever create the objective

material conditions in which

the people of this island can

become reconciled,

irrespective of their

community background.

Unity is strength and

hopefully, by working

together, we can fulfill our

shared objectives of

promoting the cause of

Labour and of the radical

reform of society.

www.labouryouth.ie

Perhaps because of its simplicity,

this is an argument that has been

much misunderstood. Many on the

right, particularly the economic

right, have claimed Mill as their

own .Correspondingly many of the

left have sought to distance

themselves from Mill, seen as the

quintessential ‗liberal‘.

They are wrong to do so. Perhaps

you might think that what Mill

says opens up the door to an

argument for laissez faire

capitalism. Although written at the

height of classical liberalism,

Mill‘s book is careful not to do

this. There is nothing in Mill‘s

principle which says that resources

should not be controlled by and

shared among a community.

Additionally trade and business

may be regulated since they are,

Mill insists, socially-influential

practices that do not concern pri-

vate individuals alone. Finally we

may still, under Mill‘s logic, regu-

late contracts such as employment

between individuals since one of

the individuals, most likely the

worker, is dominated by the power

and resources of the other.

Sometimes the best way to get a

grasp of the morality that should

instruct our feelings about mod-

ern politics and policy is to turn

back to an old classic. As classics

go, Mill‘s On Liberty is unusual

in the timelessness of its mes-

sage. As socialists we may love

to take direction from and admire

Marx, but there can be no deny-

ing that the basics of Marx‘s

analysis of the world, for all the

insight which they provide, are at

this stage very anachronistic.

Such is the beautiful, eloquent

simplicity of Mill‘s argument and

such is the sophistication with

which he elaborates on it, howev-

er, that it still rings as true today

as it did when it was written in

1859.

The premise of the 130-page

book revolves around Mill‘s fa-

mous ‗one very simple princi-

ple‘: ‗that the only purpose for

which power can rightfully be

exercised over any member of a

civilized community, against his

will, is to prevent harm to

others‘.

But what the Millian principle is

very clear on is that it is utterly

wrong and immoral to interfere in

areas of a person‘s private

thoughts or actions. ‗Over himself,

over his own body and mind‘ Mill

declares, ‗the individual is

sovereign‘. There can be no

justification for paternalistic

imposition on someone of views

or behaviour that have no effect on

anyone but them. And this may

not necessarily be the state, indeed

it is to Mill‘s credit that he saw

that it is more than likely not

Government itself, but wider

society which oppresses individual

freedom.

In this sense, Mill recaptures

individualism for the left. He

offers the perfect counterpoint to

the perverse, shallow talk of the

‗individual‘ which the Right has

adopted simply to denigrate

progressive notions of society and

equality. When we hear these

claims there is an easy tendency

to forgot that we , ourselves,

should be passionate

individualists. It is very easy to

lose our bearings and to forget the

basic abstract principles which we

are fighting for and against when

we see terms like ‗individuality‘

warped in the way in which it is.

Book Review — On Liberty

On Liberty—by John S. Mill

Review by Neil Warner

Join Labour Youth

left tribune volume 4 issue 2

Documents

national recruitment

national equality officer

policy officer

administration of labour

labour youth events

youth development officer

national conference

campaigns officer