OPINION/Breda O'Brien: The Equality Authority is certainly feeling under pressure regarding the current controversial ruling on children accompanying adults in pubs. I rang them on Thursday seeking a copy of their original statement and the clarification which they subsequently issued.
A bit nerdy of me perhaps, since it had been covered in this and other newspapers, but if possible I like to see what people have said in full. The nice woman who answered my call promised to e-mail it to me immediately.
When it did not arrive, I telephoned again, to be put through to a somewhat irate man who immediately declared that he had no intention of sending it to me, and did I think he was mad, to ask him to put into the public domain again something which had already had to be clarified? And had the story not been done to death? And what could The Irish Times possibly want to do about it now?
Unnerved by the tone of his response to my request, I told him that it was not for another story, but for a column, and that I was not on the original mailing list. He again refused to e-mail me the material. Furthermore, he repeated twice or three times, the clarification did not make a blind bit of difference to the facts of the case.
It would be nice to report that I asked why, if it was so irrelevant, he was making such a fuss about sending it to me, but sadly have to admit that I meekly put down the telephone instead.
It is the first time I have ever received such a response from anyone to whom I have made similar requests, and it is ironic indeed that it should come from the Equality Authority. Perhaps I should make a complaint to them about bullying. That's a joke, by the way. It seems necessary to explain that, as they do not seem to be overburdened with a sense of humour.
Equality is an ideal to which most reasonable people aspire. The Employment Equality Act of 1998 prohibits discrimination on nine grounds; gender, marital status, family status, disability, sexual orientation, age, religion, race or membership of the Travelling community. However, wishing people to be free from discrimination is different from wishing to be governed by equality thought police.
The right to be served in a pub when you are with your children comes pretty low on any hierarchy of rights. If it is a right at all, the responsibility not to bring your children into an inappropriate and sometimes unhealthy environment surely outweighs any such right. Unfortunately, the need to balance rights with responsibilities seems to be rarely explored by the Equality Authority.
The ruling proves that once you start rigidly enforcing the notion of equality, the outcome may bring the whole important business of equal treatment into disrepute. In the three recent equality cases, discrimination was found on the grounds of being a member of the Travelling community.
This is a serious and ongoing difficulty in Irish society, and we regularly hear about couples from the Travelling community who can find nowhere to hold wedding receptions, or of Travellers who suffer the indignity of being refused service in a pub.
IT is a shame then that such important issues are overshadowed by this alleged discrimination on grounds of family status. There are many who object to the presence of children in pubs, not from any great concern for the child, but because they mind having their own peace and quiet disturbed.
Still, most would agree that it is patently not in the interests of children that publicans should be under increasing pressure to serve parents accompanied by children.
We already have major problems with alcohol. Our accident and emergency departments are overflowing with the consequences of overconsumption. So why find on this particular grounds of discrimination? The case is somewhat complicated by the fact that it was a visually impaired man, who might well need the aid of his 13-year-old son, but is it in the son's best interest to accompany his father to the local pub? Also, the ruling was not specific to those who are visually impaired or those who have a disability.
This raises questions about what is best for children, and in this instance what is best for the adult in the situation may well not be what is best for the child.
The equality officer states that while there are "strong moral and social arguments why parents should not bring children under 18 into pubs with them, I consider that under current legislation parents are entitled to bring their children into licensed premises with them if they wish . . .
"However, my findings on this point should not be interpreted as meaning that publicans must serve parents when accompanied by their children under 18 years in all circumstances. This is because the Licensing Acts require publicans to run orderly houses and to ensure that under-18-year-olds do not consume alcohol on their premises."
Generally speaking, leaving such matters to the discretion of parents is a good idea. There are many occasions, such when a family is on holiday or travelling, where the pub is both the easiest and cheapest place to feed kids.
Sadly, though, this ruling is more likely to be used as a weapon by those who allow their children to spend hours in pubs, than it is by the kind of parents who occasionally treat their kids to pub grub.
Good principles when pursued in an over-zealous fashion actually undermine the original ideal. For example, Ryanair was fined £8,000 for using the word "young" in a recruiting advertisement. Ryanair was at least being honest, unlike other companies who simply do not call for interview anyone above a certain age.
There may well be times when companies are looking for an older workforce, for example, because they are considered to be more stable or to have more experience. Under strict equality thought-policing, that would also be ruled out.
It would serve the cause of equality far better if the Equality Authority used a little less missionary zeal and a little more discrimination when deciding to pursue alleged inequality.