Micheál’s serious, meaningful approach should be noted

I think, if I were a full-time resident in Ireland these days, I would now be inclined to vote for Fianna Fail. I’m impressed by the way in which party members are emphasising the role of conscience in the debate over repealing the Eighth Amendment.

By contrast, it seems deplorable that Fine Gael was so coercive to its own members on this issue, causing them to resign from the party if they didn’t comply with the whip.

Yes, Micheál Martin may have caused a rift in his party by declaring that he will now favour abortion up to 12 weeks gestation. Nevertheless, I thought that the way that he spoke was thoughtful and sincere. It didn’t strike me – as some other politicians’ “change of mind” declarations have – as opportunistic. And I was impressed by Mattie McGrath’s interview on RTÉ’s Sean O’Rourke programme when he seemed to emphasise the role of conscience in the party.

This is exactly as Cardinal Newman taught. We are not only entitled to follow our conscience – but enjoined to do so.

There will be critics, in the coming times, who will disparage Ireland about the debate over the Eighth Amendment, but I think we should be proud of the fact that Ireland takes a serious approach to the most meaningful of all subjects: human life itself. Ireland has embarked on a national conversation which can involve everyone in the whole nation. It is important for a society to define its values.

Admittedly, it is not always an easy conversation. I have spoken to women who were given a truly tragic diagnosis during pregnancy – a baby with no chance of surviving, or even already dying in the womb. In one case I know, the mother found it agonising to carry the child to term, knowing that the child would die immediately, as indeed occurred.

Compassion in this matter is desperately important. As is conscience.  And sensitivity.

I hope that Fianna Fáil does hold together as a party with core values but respect for individual conscience: it deserves to.

Riveting battle of the sexes on Channel 4

Some debates need to be sensitive: but others benefit from being robust. One of the most fascinating dialogues available on YouTube currently is a riveting interview with Prof. Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto and Cathy Newman of London’s Channel 4.

Jordan Peterson first came to the attention of a more global audience a couple of years ago when he refused to comply with Canada’s stultifyingly politically correct regulation on gender identity – known as Bill C-16.

This stipulates that the gender-neutral pronouns ‘zhe’ and ‘zher’ be enforced as part of a ‘human rights’ agenda.

Manners

Prof. Peterson dissented, and while maintaining perfect manners and respect towards individuals who defined themselves as transgender, asked: “Why should I be forced to used words I hate?”

The interview with Cathy Newman is an electrifying ding-dong: she is fierily angry with him and tries to trash his affirmation that men and women are different: many outcomes in areas such as “the gender pay gap” arise from women’s different choices.

Even in Sweden, where gender equality is strongly emphasised,  the nursing profession comprises 20 females to every one male, while engineering has 20 males to every one female.

Cathy gives him a hard time – she’s entitled to test his ideas – but he remains calm, informative and always providing evidence for what he says.

He is critical of feminist orthodoxies, but he is also critical of men: men need to “grow up” and take responsibility, he says. As a clinical psychologist, he treats many women in their 30s who find it difficult to find a decent, responsible male as a partner in life.

Peterson, who is 55, is a scientist, a Christian, a husband, father and grandfather. His new book The Twelve Rules of Life has been described as an old-fashioned guide to moral living.

One of his tips is: “‘Happiness’ is a pointless goal. Don’t compare yourself with other people, compare yourself with who you were yesterday. No one gets away with anything, ever, so take responsibility for your own life.”

What’s 
in 
a 
name?

The London correspondent of the Irish Times, the cultured Denis Staunton, had a rush of blood to the head when a Cockney cabbie addressed him as “mate”. “It’s not the insolence or the cheerless familiarity of it, so much as the hint of laddish menace,” he wrote.

“It’s the sound of getting taken down a peg or two, of home truths being delivered, it’s the bouncer on the door, the hooligan on the terrace, it’s a pint glass smashing in the street at midnight. It’s the Black and Tans burning down Cork.”

Denis might try being a woman of a certain age, where the cabbie addresses you as “darlin’”, “sweetheart”, “my love” and the patronising “dearie”!