David Quinn: Inclusive vision should carry a health warning
Our new President has set himself the task of helping to build a more 'inclusive' Ireland and who could possibly be against that?
'Inclusive' is one of those words that is used interchangeably with other words of similar meaning like 'equality', 'tolerance', 'diversity'. These are the things we're all supposed to be in favour of now and only a fool or a knave would object to any of them.
Michael D Higgins envisages Ireland becoming a new kind of republic, one in which all its citizens can meaningfully participate and from which none will be excluded on grounds of sex or race or religion or disability or sexual orientation, or a lack of economic opportunity, a decent education or the right connections.
This is a noble vision and Mr Higgins is a man of substance but I'm going to strike a cautionary note because the devil in his vision of 'inclusion' is in the details, in how it is actually executed in the real world, in how the value of inclusion can clash with other values.
What of free speech, for example? Mr Higgins is a follower of the Frankfurt School, a group of Marxist intellectuals who basically invented political correctness. One of the pre-eminent figures of the school was Herbert Marcuse. He coined the term 'repressive tolerance', which referred to forms of speech that supposedly 'repress' minority groups by making them feel even less 'included' and therefore should be forbidden in favour of 'liberating tolerance'.
This is where we get the notion of politically correct and incorrect language from, and in countries like Canada, 'human rights' commissions that seek to suppress certain types of speech deemed 'offensive' to minorities. Does Mr Higgins believe in restricting freedom of speech so as to abolish 'repressive tolerance' and to promote 'inclusion'?
We're also told our societies must be multi-cultural in order to be inclusive. We can all agree that in a society with many different cultures, no one should be discriminated against simply because they belong to a given culture or religion, eg Islam.
But suppose the notion of multi-culturalism is pushed so far that we're told our society can no longer give pre-eminence to its own culture and heritage and history because this is the only way we can be truly 'inclusive'?
This is the kind of thinking which led to the original ruling that Italy was in breach of the European Convention on Hum-an Rights because it displays the crucifix in state schools.
There was uproar in Italy at the decision. It was seen by almost everyone as an attack on Italian culture. The decision was appealed by Italy and about 20 other countries and it was overturned.
To judge from yesterday's public meeting of the forum on the future patronage of primary schools, the forum's advisory group is hell-bent on using the doctrine of 'inclusion' to water down the identity of denominational schools and would definitely lean towards the original Lautsi ruling against crucifixes. This is extreme multi-culturalism at work.
Where does Mr Higgins stand on this? He can't tell us explicitly now that he is President, but he can still lend the symbolic weight of his office to causes he favours.
Does his vision of inclusion mean the crucifix should not be displayed in state schools, or that it is in fact permissible for institutions of the State to give pride of place to the pre-eminent symbols of a country's cultural and historical identity?
Should marriage continue to have special status, such as it is? In other words, is it a worthwhile goal of social policy to give special encouragement to men and women to raise their own children together, or is that anti-inclusion?
Exactly how big does the State have to be, how high do taxes have to go, how much regulation must exist to achieve the level of economic participation Mr Higgins has in mind?
So at first glance, inclusion seems like a wonderful idea that no one could possibly oppose. But problems with the idea start to mount when it begins to clash with other rights and other social goods.
So by all means let's have Mr Higgins and his vision of inclusion, but let's also attach a pretty large public health warning to it.
Irish Independent
