It is coitus interruptus that stops us going all the way

Date Published: {J}

We have a recurring tendency in this country to fall that little bit short, to just miss the mark. Who, watching the national soccer or rugby team, hasn’t felt that the real opponent was their own psychology, that at times they seemed almost afraid to win? It’s been put down variously to an inferiority complex, to a lack of vision, even to bad players.

But I have a new theory. This is the inevitable consequence of years and years in which the only available form of birth control was coitus interruptus. The entire culture is now imprinted with the idea that the moment you’re about to cross the finish line is the time to stamp on the brakes.

In the last week alone we’ve seen two pieces of legislation that didn’t go all the way. The new Defence and Dwelling Bill has perfectly failed to do what it set out to: clarify when it’s OK to kill people. (Full disclosure: I must reveal that I hold a patent on a novel design for anti-personnel doormats.) All it really does is make explicit what was implicit heretofore – that you can use justifiable force in self defence. But what is "justifiable force"? Why, force . . . justified by . . . the circumstances. Which will be different every single time.

Did the intruder really represent a threat? Even if they didn’t, did the defender have reasonable grounds to think they did? Or did he just have a new gun? Was it really justifiable to kill them when merely maiming them would have done the trick? Was it prejudicial to ask the ‘Punk’ if he was "feeling lucky"? These obscenely difficult issues will be down to judge and jury to tease out – as they always were. (Pro tip: Just give your intruder one barrel. That way you show willing.) So really defenders of the home are on no surer ground than they ever were. How can they be? Until it plainly says you have an inalienable right to kill people who enter your home, the law will always leave you at the mercy of the jury selectors.

And it would have the added advantage of sending a clear message to houseguests who outstay their welcome.

The other law that came oh so achingly close is of course the new Civil Partnership Bill. In many ways this is a highly enlightened piece of legislation, conveying on gay couples almost all the rights and responsibilities that are enjoyed and, I suppose, suffered by married partners. (Actually I think I heard the Minister say it gave them to all GLBT – Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transsexual – couples, but I don’t think you can really have a bisexual couple. It pretty much has to be a bisexual triple.)

The shortfall though is right there in the title. Why do they so studiously avoid calling it marriage? It’s a let-out of course, a sop to conservatives who want to keep marriage holy or special or for Sundays or whatever it is they’re keeping it for.

It may have helped get the law speedily through the Dáil, but somehow this little bit of mean-mindedness spoils everything. It makes it equality in outward appearance alone. Without the spirit, the form of equality means little.