The first memorial lecture in tribute to the late Gerald Goldberg, Solicitor, former Lord Mayor of Cork, former President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, and prominent member of the Irish-Jewish community.
Lord Mayor Buttimer, Professor Kilkelly, Circuit Court Judge Riordan, Professor Keogh, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am grateful for the privilege of giving this lecture.
In the lecture I suggest for your reflection that the European Union cannot achieve the unity of action it requires in order to ensure respect for human rights, equality, and the rule of law, throughout the Union unless it involves National Human Rights Institutions in the implementation of those fundamental values.
This will involve a new dynamic role for our own new National Human Rights Institution – the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission.
I will present my argument by referring to the specific challenge of racism, xenophobia, homophobia and anti-Semitism in the Union.
If talking is just thinking in the company of others, then that is what I want to do with this point in mind. And to complete the conversation I will gladly respond to your questions or comments afterwards.
It is Wholly Appropriate to Honour Gerald Goldberg
I am delighted that I have been asked to give this lecture in a tribute to the late Gerald Goldberg. Tonight we honour Gerald and his wife Sheila.
It is wholly appropriate to honour this great Irishman. I hope what I have to say measures up to the standards set by Gerald who preferred straight talk to spin.
I am delighted that we have Theo Goldberg – Gerald’s son - and his wife Valerie with us today. I hope, Theo, I can do justice to your father’s memory.
It was my good fortune to know Gerald. Gerald was born in 1912 and died in 2003. He was born in Cork. His family were immigrants who came to Ireland from Lithuania in the 1880s. Although the family had settled in Limerick, they had to flee from there in 1904 as a result of the anti-Semitic riots. The family moved to Cork where Gerald’s mother came from.
He was educated in Cork and Sussex experiencing in sequence a Protestant school, a Catholic school, and a Jewish school. He studied at University College Cork. In 1934, he qualified as a solicitor.
Through the influence of the principal of the Presentation Brothers, Brother Edward Connolly, he began his legal career in the firm of Barry Galvin. Galvin said that without the Brother’s intervention he would have found it hard to take on a Jewish apprentice.
In the 1930s, as a young solicitor, Gerald set up a committee in Cork to help Jewish refugees from Nazi persecution, but the government of the day frustrated his efforts – a story in itself. He became an outstanding criminal lawyer, a hero to many law students. He became a councillor and in 1977 was elected Lord Mayor of Cork.
With his wife Sheila, he made a sterling contribution to our cultural life in many ways. He was the first Jewish President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. He was on the Board of Governors of the National Gallery of Ireland. And he was deeply involved with the Cork Orchestral Society, Irish Theatre Ballet and lunchtime concerts in the Cork School of Art. Family, community, law, politics, human rights, music, art, drama, poetry, and learning were the staple elements of their life together.
Gerald was ever watchful against the dangers of anti-Semitism and remained always a great friend of Israel. He realised early on that contemporary anti-Semitism had gone beyond traditional European anti-Judaism. The traditional sort of anti-Semitism manifests itself in racialising negative stereotypes of Jewish people and reflexive prejudices alleging Jewish dominance or malevolence in government, the media, business and finance. Contradiction never gets in its way: for example, Jewish people are accused of being arrogant and servile; militant and docile; too independent and parasitically dependent.
The point of anti-Semitism is to allege that everything Jewish people do is wrong and that Jewish people are responsible for everything that is wrong. Nothing is too extreme to assert: every war, every depression, every plague, every social ill is the fault of the Jewish people. This malign tradition of hate hides the truth that Jewish people have made real contributions to human life and culture, for example, to philosophy, law, science, medicine, technology, mathematics, music, art, dance, and literature.
The stigmatising stereotypes are still common and contaminate daily discourse. Even today, for example, we find hate expression that invokes or evokes the anti-Jewish blood libel. Last Tuesday, the Norwegian daily newspaper Dagbladet showed police officers looking on as a bearded man wearing a black hat and black coat sticks a three-tooth pitchfork into the head of a blood-soaked baby while holding a book. Another unseen person cuts off the baby’s toe with a bolt cutter as a woman in a long-sleeve shirt and a hat shows the officers another blood-spattered book and tells them: "Abuse? No, this tradition is central to our belief."
Gerald also pointed out that contemporary anti-Semitism involves an aggressive hate against Israel. What this hate does is deny the right of the Jewish people in Israel to have equal status in the order of sovereign nations. It aims to delegitimise or demonise Israel. And it applies double standards by demanding of Israel what is not demanded of any other state. It blames Israel for all the difficulties in the Middle East. If still with us today, I have no doubt that Gerald would be an important Irish voice on these issues. He was never afraid to put his head above the parapet and fearlessly tell his truth. Rightly he was never inhibited or restrained by the reticence and caution of others.
Gerald’s voice was uniquely one of conscience, calling us all to greater self-knowledge, to face and root out those habits of our society – including intolerance and corruption - that urgently needed correction. I was proud, when a young lawyer, to meet Gerald Goldberg and to invite him to address a meeting of the then Dublin Jewish Students Union. In the following years, he and I met on occasion but I regret I never got to know him well enough.
I am proud to honour his life and work, here in his own city, in the company of members of his family and their friends, and in University College Cork, which in 1993 awarded him an honorary Doctorate of Law.
Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law Are Core Union Values
Gerald Goldberg always insisted that the polity and its law must serve fundamental human values and do so in an effective way. For him, fundamental rights and the rule of law were core values. These values are of course central to this State’s constitutional architecture and core values of the European Union.
We should never forget that the European Union was first constructed on the ashes and enmity of the Second World War. At its foundation is a commitment that the horrors and atrocities of that war, the genocide and gross violations of human rights and the indescribable barbarity and inhumanity of the Holocaust be never repeated.
Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union tells us that the Union’s core values are democracy, fundamental rights, equality and the rule of law. The Union has a long history of respect for fundamental rights and equality under the rule of law. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice confirms that the principle of respect for fundamental rights was a general principle of European law.
In 2009, the Union acquired its own Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Charter embodies in a single text the personal, civil, political, economic, and social rights to which all people have a claim within the Union. The rights embodied there are the minimum required to ensure that a person is treated with dignity. The Union’s institutions and Member States when they are giving effect to EU law must respect those rights. The Charter does not, however, enlarge the sphere of competence of the Union as defined in the EU Treaties. So the Union may not intervene in human-rights issues in fields where it lacks competence.
The challenge is to turn the rhetoric of fundamental rights into reality for flesh-and-blood people living under the rule of law in their local communities. To serve those values in the Union, there is a fundamental-rights architecture. The fundamental-rights architecture in the Union consists of layers of mechanisms designed to promote and protect human rights and equality. These range from citizens’ advice or complaints offices, NHRIs, equality bodies, national courts, ombuds institutions, the different institutions of the Union, including the Court of Justice, the Commission, the Parliament, and the Fundamental Rights Agency.
In the broader Europe, we also have the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe. Soon the Union will accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. This will make the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg competent to review Union acts.
Now the integrity of the Rule of Law, fundamental rights, and equality depends on their having uniform application throughout the Union. In reality, fundamental rights have an uneven application throughout the Union. For instance, in more than half the member States of the Union people with intellectual disabilities are excluded from voting in elections. Despite the multi-layered fundamental-rights architecture in the Union there are serious obstacles in the way of making fundamental rights and equality effective in every corner of the community.
This is a good place to illustrate this point by reference to the toxic intolerances of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and homophobia
Racism, Xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and Homophobia are Serious Concerns
Nothing could be plainer than the proposition that these intolerances fly in the face of the foundational values of the Union. The harm that results from these prejudice-based intolerances is significant.
Yes, the most obvious harm is the denial of the opportunity to secure a desired benefit - a job, for example. Yes, intolerance causes psychological harm by stigmatising its victims as inferior. Yes, because acts of intolerance tend to occur in pervasive patterns, their victims suffer over time especially frustrating, cumulative and debilitating injuries. And yes, intolerance can – and often does - lead to the threat or infliction of physical violence. The plan to make Europe the graveyard of Jewish civilisation began with hate words.
But, most important of all, sustained racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, or homophobia generates a feeling of fearful inferiority in people as to their status in the community. These hates can affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The oppressive badge of inferiority can have the effect of depriving them of moral membership of the political community, the very condition of equal citizenship. In European history, anti-Semitism had the effect of literally forcing Jewish communities into a position of walled-off inferiority.
As Professor Rebecca Brown points out, ‘Hate speech is a form of expression that can undermine the democratic premise of equal status for all persons’. It undermines the premise of equality by denying people the right to take part on equal terms in the culture of the community, be a full-fledged citizen in the moral, social and economic environment, and live a flourishing life free from degradation and disparagement.
It is important for me to emphasise that the Union is actively promoting rational consistency in Member States’ laws, policies and practices against racial and religious hatred. The main legal framework is embodied in Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008.
The achievement of this measure is that it sets out a common criminal-law approach to tackling certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia. Its aim is twofold:
• first, to ensure that the same unacceptable conduct is a criminal offence in all EU Member States; and,
• second, to ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions are provided to punish offenders.
Turning to specifics, the Framework Decision requires Member States:
• to enact laws prohibiting public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a person or persons belonging to a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin;
• to criminalise the commission of those acts by public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other materials;
• to take measures to punish any conduct publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes against a person or persons defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethic origin, when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite to violence or hatred;
• to punish instigating, aiding or abetting the commission of these crimes;
• to take measures to ensure that racist or xenophobic motivation in the commission of other offences is treated as an aggravating fact in the definition of the offence or as an aggravating sentencing factor; and,
• to take measures to ensure that investigations into or prosecution of crimes will not depend on a victim’s report or accusation.
There is also protective EU legislation in Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons, irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. This Directive provides that there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin in employment, the provision of goods and services, education and social protection. It further mandates the establishment of a body or bodies for the promotion of equal treatment of all persons without discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin. These bodies may form part of agencies charged at national level with defending human rights.
But let me identify now the serious problems - problems the Fundamental Rights Agency has reminded us of - that justify reviewing how the Union and its Member States deal with hate crime and speech.
First, racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and homophobia remain issues of serious and pressing concern for their victims and for civil society as a whole. The Special Eurobarometer 393 Discrimination in the EU in 2012, undertaken at the request of the Commission, shows that discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin continues to be regarded as the most widespread form of discrimination in the EU. It is notable that 56% of respondents reported it as ‘widespread’ (although this is down from 61% in 2009). 39% reported that discrimination on the basis of religion or beliefs is widespread (no change since 2009). And 46% of respondents (down from 47% in 2009) regard discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation to be widespread.
In recent reports the Fundamental Rights Agency documents the incidence and impacts of hate crimes in Europe. The Agency concludes that crimes motivated by racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, extremism and intolerance of the other remain a daily reality across the European Union. The resurgence in anti-Semitic attitudes and statements in some quarters, including by people in leadership positions, and the growth in anti-Semitic crimes from within, but not confined to, migrant populations in Europe are particularly worrying.
Despite this state of affairs, the Union as a whole lacks an adequate data-collection system in relation to anti-Semitic incidents. This unmet need results in gross under-reporting of the nature and characteristics of anti-Semitic incidents in the Union. It also impairs the ability of lawmakers and stakeholders at national and international levels to take effective measures to combat anti-Semitism effectively and decisively.
Web-based technology is a boon. People can enjoy their freedom to express themselves through social media sites, blogging, tweeting, e-mailed commentary, and online publications. What is disturbing is that the web has also furnished a readily accessible globalised forum for racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic and homophobic comment and incitement. These forms of hate speech target, bully, undermine and in some instances destroy the quality of life and human rights of those perceived by some to be different.
Second, hate-crime offenders are able in too many places in the Union to engage in hate conduct with relative impunity. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that, when investigating violent incidents, state authorities have the additional duty to take all reasonable steps to unmask any religious or racist motive and to establish whether or not religious or racist hatred or prejudice may have played a role in the events.
But many victims of hate crime do not believe that the law will protect them. A survey by the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency – which is doing significant work in this area - reported in 2012 that 3 in 4 respondents who said that they had suffered anti-Semitic harassment did not report this to the police. Their perception was that reporting the crimes would have little practical effect. Member States must take steps to assure people that their legal systems will hold hate-crime offenders to account.
Third, there is a need to recognise that hate-crime offenders come from various segments of the population. They are not necessarily members of or fellow travellers of extremist organisations. The upshot is that policing in relation to hate crime must be an integral part of local community policing. The police officer on his or her neighbourhood beat needs to be aware of the need to protect people in their local communities from hate crimes.
Fourth, the Union needs to tackle the deeply-entrenched cultural attitudes that are densely connected with expressions of hate, for example, anti-Judaism that lies behind anti-Semitism. As David Nirenberg points out in his superb definitive historical analysis Anti-Judaism – The Western Tradition, published this year, blaming the Jewish people and Judaism has been a central device in shaping Western thought and culture. European intellectuals sought to make sense of the world they lived in and the threats, uncertainties and evils they faced by reference to Judaism. Whenever European culture has tried to define what it is not, it has invoked a distorted view of Judaism.
Whatever the challenges facing the European Union, we must not forget that the Union does not exist for economic purposes alone. The primary purpose of the original Single market was to create a new Europe that, in the words of Jean Monnet, "is indispensable for the preservation of peace". Robert Schuman – another architect of the European Community – emphasised that respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights is crucial to realising that noble moral ambition. The noble aspiration was – and remains - to create a zone of peace and prosperity and to bind the nations of Europe so closely together in ties of solidarity that the horrors of the past - wars and industrialised genocide – the Shoah - could not be repeated, because they had become unthinkable.
Future Action Steps to Tackle Racism, Xenophobia, anti-Semitism and Homophobia
During the Irish Presidency of the European Union, with the cooperation of my colleagues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council, I have moved up the agenda the issue of crimes motivated by racism, xenophobia, sectarianism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and intolerance of the other.
The truth is that to tackle racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and homophobia effectively, we must recognise the need for a cultural shift in Europe. To achieve this shift it is important to engage national bodies, civil society and local communities in the Member States. The solution is not just a matter of legislation; it depends on getting into the minds of people and promoting positive human-rights-and-equality attitudes.
I have suggested a cohesive holistic partnership approach to my colleagues on the Justice and Home Affairs Council. That approach should include the following component elements:
• An examination of whether incitement-to-hatred legislation in the Union needs refinement in order to have more protective bite. Significantly, the Union and the European Court of Human Rights endorses the proposition that incitement to hatred does not necessarily require a call for violent or other criminal acts. The act of disparaging specific groups of the population can be sufficient for the authorities to favour prosecuting racist speech. This reflects the understanding that hate speech is a form of harmful expression that can undermine the democratic premise of equal standing for all citizens;
• An accurate and comprehensive data-collection system that makes hate crime more visible to the public and policymakers;
• a process for sharing best practice, benchmarking practice and outcomes in an objective way, and formulating appropriate recommendations and guidelines for action against anti-Semitism;
• the participation of national human rights institutions and equality bodies as well as civil-society groups, since promoting the democratic premise of equal status for all in the Union must be pursued locally as well as centrally; and
• a crucial role for the independent EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency in providing expert analysis.
The ideal would be a bottom-up, top-down, virtuous circle of influence favouring human rights and equality. The linchpin would be closer cooperation between FRA and NHRIs and other human-rights and equality agencies throughout the Union.
This initiative and many related issues were further explored when my colleague, Minister of State Kathleen Lynch and I hosted a two-day Presidency conference in Farmleigh in Dublin entitled "A Europe of Equal Citizens: equality, fundamental rights, and the rule of law" earlier this month. Organised by my Department in cooperation with the Fundamental Rights Agency, the Equality Authority, the Human Rights Commission and with support from the European Commission, our aim was to
• explore the opportunities for strengthening institutional arrangements for equality and fundamental rights protection more broadly, in particular the role of National Human Rights Institutions and Equality Bodies;
• draw on the expertise of the FRA and on best practice and recent developments in other EU Member states; and
• explore ideas about how to strengthen protection of fundamental rights and equality, tackle hate crimes and combat discrimination and promote the rule of law in the Union at both European and national level.
Attended by delegates from NHRIs, equality bodies, civil society and other member states, the enthusiastic exchange of ideas confirmed the need for both awareness-raising and action on micro and macro levels, and also confirmed the general positivity and willingness in member states to engage together to tackle the destructive forces of racism, hate crime, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and homophobia.
In short, I think we need a two-stage process. The crucial first stage should involve a process of debate, discussion and awareness-raising before we start to present particular models or particular mechanisms. In this consultation process, National Human Rights Institutions and equality bodies need to have an active role and a real possibility of influencing the shape of a future mechanism. But this first stage needs to be given time so that we can develop a consensus around a clear definition of the problems and possible solutions, including the value of action at EU level. At a very broad level, two overarching, and related, themes emerging in the discussions we have been having are (a) the importance of effective functioning of institutions – including courts - in the Justice and Home Affairs area and (b) the protection of the fundamental rights, including economic freedoms, of all, as a common value.
I believe also that we need to think in terms of an approach that acknowledges that the EU is a community of common values, but acknowledges that all of us have problems and room for improvement. I emphasise that we must not have a divisive approach - not ‘old’ Europe against ‘new’ Europe. What we need is a mechanism to share best practice and benchmark ourselves in critical areas of institutional effectiveness and of fundamental rights. We must be willing to accept that all Member States have imperfections, and that we need to begin a collaborative and mutually respectful discourse that is grounded on factually and objectively-based assessments and methodologies.
A collaborative approach would enhance the legitimacy of the Union internally by helping us to address real issues for our citizens. It would also enhance our credibility in the external dimension, not least in discussions with our eastern neighbourhood and applicant or potential applicant countries.
It is crucial is that the Fundamental Rights Agency and NHRIs have the support to do this collaborative work.
Fundamental Rights Agency
The Fundamental Rights Agency is an independent, specialised human rights agency. It is the legal successor to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. It gives EU institutions and bodies and Member States assistance and expertise on fundamental rights for the purposes of implementing Community law. The objective is to help the institutions, bodies and Member States fully respect these rights. The Agency collects data on fundamental rights in the areas of Community competence listed in its own Multi-annual Framework Programme. The Multi-annual Framework, covering a period of five years, identifies the Agency’s thematic areas of activity. These areas must include the fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance.
The tasks of the Agency must be carried out within the confines of the thematic areas of activity and include:
• collecting and analysing information and data on the specific effects on fundamental rights of action taken by the EU, and on good practice in terms of respect for and promotion of these rights;
• providing assistance and expertise; and
• communicating and raising rights awareness, which includes, significantly, promoting dialogue with civil society.
The Agency has forged close institutional links at international, European and national levels, particularly with the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the competent Community agencies, and governmental agencies and public bodies, including National Human Rights Institutions and the European Group of NHRIs. It also cooperates with other domestic bodies with human-rights functions, including equality bodies and their European network EQUINET. The aim is to cooperate and avoid duplication of work.
National Human Rights Institutions and the IHREC
National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) are independent public bodies created by domestic law with a mandate to protect and promote human rights in a state. They bridge the gap between international or regional human-rights standards and their implementation at national level. In the Union, they have a function in cooperating with other human-rights and equality actors at national, Union and international levels.
When functioning effectively, NHRIs are an essential component of a modern national human rights system. The United Nations (UN), the Council of Europe, and the European Union have vigorously underscored the vital role that NHRIs perform.
First, the UN – and in particular the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Development Programme – have played a decisive role in developing independent and effective NHRIs. My Department has been from the start in constructive dialogue with the UN High Commissioner’s office in relation to crafting a new enhanced IHREC.
Second, the Council of Europe and, in particular, its Commissioner for Human Rights have highlighted the need for NHRIs that are compliant with the Paris Principles. Strikingly, the Council of Europe in the 2012 Brighton Declaration calls for the more effective implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights at the national level though, besides other steps, the establishment of independent NHRIs. Moreover, the Declaration calls on states to draw on the work of NHRIs.
Third, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), through its Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has consistently promoted the creation of strong and independent NHRIs.
Fourth, in the Union, the adoption of the Charter on Fundamental Rights and the upcoming accession to the European Convention on Human Rights has made the implementation of human rights at national level a priority area for action. NHRIS like the IHREC have a key role to play in implementing human rights and equality on the national ground. The European Parliament has issued a number of resolutions calling for independent and effective NHRIs in the Union. The FRA has called for the strengthening of the fundamental-rights architecture of the Union. It has pointed out the need to improve the structure and functioning of NHRIs in the Union. The Agency works closely with human-rights bodies through annual meetings and by involving human-rights bodies in the design and implementation of FRA projects on human-rights themes. In this connection, NHRIs have the opportunity to contribute their expertise to projects and exchange information regularly with the FRA.
Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC)
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) will be our own new NHRI. It will result from merging the Equality Authority and the Irish Human Rights Commission. What is important is that it is intended to be a new enhanced NHRI that complies with but goes beyond the 1991 Paris Principles. The Paris Principles comprise the principal source of the minimum standards required for NHRIs to be able robustly and effectively to protect and promote human rights and equality.
The merger is a good idea in principle and a workable idea in practice. First, equality and human rights are basic dimensions of human dignity. The issues that arise for examination are often similar and an integrated body will be able to draw on a variety of experts. Second, a body that unifies equality and human-rights agendas has the potential to exert a greater influence on the shaping of policies at the local and national level. In the Fundamental Rights Agency’s recent survey of over 23,000 people, 8 in 10 of respondents were unable to identify any organisation that provided support to people who experienced discrimination. A single institution will find it easier to establish a footprint at local level. I intend to insert a new section into the Irish Human Rights and Equality Bill that will enable the IHREC to provide a clear platform for interaction between it and civil-society groups.
The bottom line is, however, that the merged body must be independent, adequately funded, and have adequate powers and functions to do its equality and human-rights work. I am grateful to my colleague David Stanton TD because, under his stewardship, the Oireachtas Justice, Defence and Equality Committee has made a sterling contribution to developing the Bill for the new body.
The new IHREC has a broad mandate based on universal human-rights standards, which includes the duty to promote and protect all human rights and equality. It is independent from government, and this independence is guaranteed by statute. In addition to its powers to advise government from its independent perspective, to screen legislation, and raise human-rights and equality awareness in society, the IHREC will have a rationally devised set of powers of investigation and enforcement. The membership of its board is pluralistic. And it will be given adequate human and financial resources.
It has, I believe, the qualities that merit retaining the A status that the current Human Rights Commission has. This status is vital to its credibility, at home, in Europe, and internationally.
My essential point is this. The IHREC can become the frontline body for turning the commitment to human rights and equality into a reality at national and local level. It can also develop a sense of what good practice requires. The Union will fashion indicators for evaluating the condition of the rule of law and fundamental rights and equality throughout the Union. The IHREC will have a chance to contribute to this work and to the application of those indicators once they have been formulated. It can also assist National Human Rights Institutions in other Member States that face severe challenges relating to the rule of law, human rights and equality.
These steps would help to advance the objective of ensuring that each citizen can take part on equal terms in the culture of the community, be a full-fledged citizen in the moral, social and economic environment, and live a flourishing life free from degradation and disparagement. The calibre of the new commissioners for the IHREC is profoundly impressive. And I happily note that Professor Siobhan Mullally of this law school is one of those new commissioners.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Gerald Goldberg was for me a model of the caring lawyer. He bore witness to the ideal of a law that served human dignity, equality and liberty. I am privileged to join with you in honouring him for his integrity, his high sense of justice and exemplification of decency, courage, intelligence and civility. He knew the anguish of the silenced, the marginalised, and the persecuted and he gave them a voice. For him, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and homophobia, were not a distant memory in Europe’s past.
It is a simple fact that in the face of violent or disparaging intolerances – racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and homophobia - we simply cannot play ostrich. The homophobic riots in France against civil marriage for lesbians and gay men bring this home to us. Equal citizenship is the birthright of all in our own state and the Union. We must actively protect and promote it. For democracy cannot thrive amid hate; equality cannot flourish amid prejudice; liberty cannot bloom amid fear; and the sovereign value – respect for the dignity of all human beings – cannot take root amid indifference.
Thank you.