Much maligned by the Irish people, Minister Roderic O’Gorman has become one of the most prominent members of the coalition government amidst the various controversial progressive policies he has patroned.
Not just another woke opportunist, O’Gorman has worked on the cutting edge of progressive extremist activism for decades.
O’Gorman’s Nauseating Dáil Record
Elected to Dáil Éireann in 2020 to represent the constituency of Dublin West, O’Gorman also previously held the position of Green Party chairman from 2011 to 2019.
As the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Roderic O’Gorman has spearheaded the Irish government’s progressive push in recent years.
O’Gorman’s tenure in office has been perpetually mired by some kind of public criticism of his actions, statements, and policies. Such as in 2020, when O’Gorman experienced online backlash as result of a photograph he had published on his social media.
This photograph, taken of O’Gorman with British LGBT rights activist, Peter Tatchell, at a Dublin gay pride parade in 2018, engendered concern as a consequence of controversial statements made by Tatchell in the past. The Minister slyly claimed that the photograph was their only meeting, and accused detractors of “homophobia”.
Furthermore, dissatisfaction with O’Gorman’s liberal asylum seeker policies has been a general theme of his time in office, making such concerning statements as his defence of the predominantly single male asylum seekers entering the country.
In light of these policies, there is a large reason to believe that O’Gorman’s political views are informed by an extremely socially liberal bias. This idea has been reinforced recently, as a journal article from 2004 written by O’Gorman has resurfaced.
Transsexual Propaganda from 20 Years Ago
Titled, “A Change Would Do You Good: The Evolving Position of Transsexuals Under Irish & European Convention Law”, the article analyses the Irish legal system’s treatment of transsexuals in the Foy v. t-Ard Chlaraitheoir case, in comparison with later rulings by the European Court of Human RIghts relating to transgender rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. .
The case Foy v. t-Ard Chlaraitheoir , brought to the Irish Supreme Court, was presided over by Judge William Martin McKechnie.
The case was brought to the court by a transgender citizen seeking to alter their birth certificate to display their preferred gender.
Donal Mark Foy, a dentist by profession with a wife and two children, experienced a troubled mental state in the 1980s before being diagnosed as transgender by a psychologist in 1990. Subsequently, Foy separated from his wife in 1991 and in 1992 went to England for sex reassignment surgery, where the Irish Eastern Health Board contributed £5,000 towards the hospital fees.
Now known as Lydia Annice Foy, Foy sought to alter his gender on his passport, drivers licence, and birth certificate. Successful in all prior altering of his identity documents, the courts ruled against the changing of Foy’s birth certificate.
Foy’s argument was that the birth certificate was a historical document that should be subject to retro-active alterations should a person wish it so.
However, as O’Gorman himself notes, such reasoning was held insufficient by Judge McKechnie, who “held that the traditional method of identifying gender by the use [of] the Corbett criteria was correct. Thus… the identification of Dr. Foy as male on the register of births did not amount to an error of substance or fact as, at birth, Dr. Foy was biologically male.”
O’Gorman’s article reviews the legal dispute in Ireland, and criticises the Judge’s ruling on the grounds that the European Court of Human Rights, only days after the ruling of Foy v. t-Ard Chlaraitheoir in Ireland, ruled against the United Kingdom in the case Goodwin v. United Kingdom.
Goodwin, another post-operation transgender, brought a case against the British government for violation of privacy rights on the grounds that he had received harassment from employers and that this unequal treatment violated the European Convention on Human RIghts.
Another component of Goodwin’s case, was the legal restriction of his ability to marry, something which, too, Foy criticised in his own legal case.
The European Court of Human Rights in siding with Goodwin, facilitated the British government’s later adoption of the Gender Recognition Act of 2004, which allowed transgender people to change their legal gender. O’Gorman, writing this legislative case study review in 2004, likely had this legislation on his mind as a model for Ireland.
Strong Trans Bias
In O’Gorman’s closing statements, he expresses dissatisfaction with Judge McKechnie’s ruling in light of the more “realistic and flexible approach” of the European Court of Human Rights, which he speculates as to whether it may indicate future European Court rulings relating to gay marriage.
Finally, pondering the domestic consequences of the European Court’s ruling, O’Gorman speculates as to whether the ”incorporation of the European Convention into domestic law and the impending Foy appeal to the Supreme Court all point to the need for similar legislation in Ireland. The question is, will the Oireachtas be proactive, or will its hand be forced?”
As with the benefit of hindsight, it can be proven that the Oireachtas has been an excessively proactive actor in relation to transgender policies in Ireland, in part as a result of O’Gorman himself. Disregarding the damage done to individuals and society, the Houses of the Oireachtas are now drunk on an illusory ‘scientific consensus’ which dictates that intrinsic human qualities can be whimsically altered at will.