Ah, the irony. Only yesterday over at the Cedar Lounge a contributor drew a rather smug distinction between the US and this country on the basis of the public role of religious extremists – over there, we were told, they are “political movers and shakers” while here they are confined merely to “prayer crusades”. My immediate reaction, as noted on the linked page, was to point out the flaw in that argument from a non-partitionist perspective. And then I went to have a look at today’s papers and found these news items from well below the border: 750 pornographic DVDs seized in Dublin and Labour calls for laws to fight sex shops.
Let’s look at these one at a time. The first article tells us that the DVDs were seized “as a result of an ongoing Community Policing Unit investigation into breaches of the Video Recording Act of 1989”. Yes, you read that correctly. A Community Policing Unit investigation into porn videos. In Dublin 2. Honestly, have the community police there no better use of their time? Maybe going after the tourist-muggers in Temple Bar? The gangs that hang round ATMs on Grafton Street waiting to distract you and grab your cash? The bicycle thieves on George’s Street? If the residential areas in that part of the city are anything like mine, I’d guess there are a few social housing estates whose residents have all but given up phoning the police when there are problems because the response is so thoroughly inadequate it isn’t even worth the effort. Well, now we know why. Maybe instead of reporting break-ins, drug dealing and cars on fire, they should tell the Gardaí there’s a porno outside.
The second article tells us that those champions of progressive, liberal values the Labour Party are shocked – shocked! – to find that not only do such DVDs exist, but the shops that sell them are subject to the same rules as any other shop. Not good enough apparently; they should have to apply for a specific change of use so that the wishes of those residents who would patronise such a shop can be vetoed by those residents who think they shouldn’t.
Labour’s Joe Costello is particularly outraged that two adult shops were able to open across from churches in his constituency. That’s my constituency too, and I know at least one of the shops he’s referring to, and frankly the fact that anyone could get exercised about it suggests to me that they are either stuck in de Valeraland or have far too much time on their hands. The part of the shop that is visible to anyone outside it is very discreetly-designed; there is no merchandise in view or any images whatsoever. If you couldn’t read enough English to know what “adult shop” meant, you wouldn’t even know what it was. Apart from the extraneous apostrophe in “DVD’s”, in fact, I’m hard pressed to find anything offensive about it. And so the fuck what if it’s across from a church? What gives people coming to or going from church the right not to encounter any reminders of how the human race reproduces?
There’s an argument to be made, from a community perspective, against having a whole conglomerate of these shops in one neighbourhood. An area that has come to be known as a red light district can be fairly unpleasant to live in, in some cases even unsafe. But that’s not the argument Labour are making. Effectively, they want local authorities to be able to prevent any sex shop from opening anywhere if enough people (and how many is “enough”?) complain that it’s unsuitable. The Council’s attempt less than ten years ago to close the Ann Summers on O’Connell Street – O’Connell Street, for fuck’s sake – suggests that such a power is likely to be interpreted broadly, making adult shops all but impossible to open in the State. Would it be the end of the world if that happened? Of course not, but it would further undermine any claim of Ireland (south) to be somehow more secularly advanced than the US.
We may not put people like Sarah Palin in high office here, but it doesn't look to me like we need them.
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
Narrow nationalism 1, international solidarity 0
Earlier this year, immigration 'reform' legislation was introduced in the Dáil. The legislation contained some of the most draconian provisions ever announced in this country, including harshly punitive measures for most undocumented immigrants, and limitations on their right to challenge the Government's decision on their status; biometric ID requirements; new restrictions on the right to family reunification; and the creation of an underclass of temporary migrant workers with few labour rights and no prospect ever of permanent residency. The bill was strongly opposed by civil liberties organisations and many of the country's leading trade unions, as well, of course, by left or left-leaning political parties such as Sinn Féin, Labour, and the Greens, who condemned its obvious human rights violations.
If the above paragraph doesn't sound familiar, it's because I've changed a couple details. The bill I'm talking about is real (and so are all those measures, and the bit about the civil liberties and trade union opposition), but it wasn't introduced in the Dáil - it was the US Congress. And far from condemning it, every major political party in this State lobbied heavily for its passage. Including the left or left-leaning ones. Including my own.
The reason, of course, is because of one of the few positive provisions in the Bill - the regularisation process for those undocumented immigrants who can afford it. For the sake of a relative handful of Irish people to whom, let's face it, the worst that could happen is that they'd have to come back and live in Ireland, we have not only accepted but actively supported legislation that we would never in a million years agree to in this country.
I understand the realpolitik involved, and I'm sure that if I had a loved one in the US who I hadn't seen in years because of the current immigration regime (as opposed to just a lot of friends in that situation, which I do have), I'd probably be more concerned about them than about the millions of people - mostly poor, brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking - who are going to suffer greatly when this legislation is finally passed.
But it still makes me a little bit sick.
If the above paragraph doesn't sound familiar, it's because I've changed a couple details. The bill I'm talking about is real (and so are all those measures, and the bit about the civil liberties and trade union opposition), but it wasn't introduced in the Dáil - it was the US Congress. And far from condemning it, every major political party in this State lobbied heavily for its passage. Including the left or left-leaning ones. Including my own.
The reason, of course, is because of one of the few positive provisions in the Bill - the regularisation process for those undocumented immigrants who can afford it. For the sake of a relative handful of Irish people to whom, let's face it, the worst that could happen is that they'd have to come back and live in Ireland, we have not only accepted but actively supported legislation that we would never in a million years agree to in this country.
I understand the realpolitik involved, and I'm sure that if I had a loved one in the US who I hadn't seen in years because of the current immigration regime (as opposed to just a lot of friends in that situation, which I do have), I'd probably be more concerned about them than about the millions of people - mostly poor, brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking - who are going to suffer greatly when this legislation is finally passed.
But it still makes me a little bit sick.
Following on from my post on Saturday, I thought it would be a useful exercise to list all the Private Members debates initiated by Sinn Féin in the previous Dáil:
* The organ retention scandal
* Enshrining neutrality in the Constitution
* Restoration of the northern Assembly
* Enshrining the right to housing in the Constitution
* No confidence in the Minister for Health (Martin, at the time)
* Rural development
* Childcare (note that this was several months before the Meath by-election, in which the Government was reportedly "surprised" that this was an issue)
* Special Needs education
* Privatisation of Aer Lingus
* Reunification
* Establishment of a Department of Labour Affairs
* Drugs
* Part V of the Planning and Development Act (the developers' "get-out clause" for social and affordable housing)
* Domestic violence
If we hadn't tabled these motions, would another party have taken the initiative? Would there have been any debate on these issues? Maybe, in some cases. Probably not, in some others. Definitely not in a couple. And that's not even to mention the myriad of issues that we (and sometimes we alone) raised at Leader's Questions, Priority Questions and in the course of Second Stage debates.
The point here is that the loss of speaking rights for our TDs isn't just our loss. It means that fewer of these issues will be discussed in Leinster House. With us and Gregory silenced, Higgins and Healy gone, and Finian and the Greens bought, Labour will be the sole voice of the left(ish) in the Dáil - and their own poor showing relative to Fine Gael's means it will primarily be the latter who benefits from the demise of the Technical Group. Partisan Labour supporters and SF opponents may celebrate our exclusion, but it can hardly be seen as a good thing for progressive politics in this state.
* The organ retention scandal
* Enshrining neutrality in the Constitution
* Restoration of the northern Assembly
* Enshrining the right to housing in the Constitution
* No confidence in the Minister for Health (Martin, at the time)
* Rural development
* Childcare (note that this was several months before the Meath by-election, in which the Government was reportedly "surprised" that this was an issue)
* Special Needs education
* Privatisation of Aer Lingus
* Reunification
* Establishment of a Department of Labour Affairs
* Drugs
* Part V of the Planning and Development Act (the developers' "get-out clause" for social and affordable housing)
* Domestic violence
If we hadn't tabled these motions, would another party have taken the initiative? Would there have been any debate on these issues? Maybe, in some cases. Probably not, in some others. Definitely not in a couple. And that's not even to mention the myriad of issues that we (and sometimes we alone) raised at Leader's Questions, Priority Questions and in the course of Second Stage debates.
The point here is that the loss of speaking rights for our TDs isn't just our loss. It means that fewer of these issues will be discussed in Leinster House. With us and Gregory silenced, Higgins and Healy gone, and Finian and the Greens bought, Labour will be the sole voice of the left(ish) in the Dáil - and their own poor showing relative to Fine Gael's means it will primarily be the latter who benefits from the demise of the Technical Group. Partisan Labour supporters and SF opponents may celebrate our exclusion, but it can hardly be seen as a good thing for progressive politics in this state.
Election 07: What went wrong
The big spin, of course, is going to be that "all the small parties were squeezed". And there is something to that. But it's notable that in most of the constituencies where we expected to make gains, there was at least one left candidate whose votes could have seen us through - but we didn't get them. Why didn't we? You'd have to suspect that left voters were turned off by what seemed to be an already-made decision to prop up a Fianna Fáil government, and the fact that we'd already shown ourselves willing to discard certain left-wing policies (such as the increases in corporation tax and PAYE for high earners) in order to do so.
As for those voters who wouldn't necessarily be described as "left" but who we'd nonetheless hoped to get the support of, well, it seems pretty simple. The anti-FF ones didn't want to vote for us because we all but said we'd support the government. And the pro-FF ones just voted for FF. Some of them transfered to us, but nowhere near enough.
I'm gutted for people like Larry O'Toole and Dessie Ellis, who've done absolutely stellar work in their constituencies for years and deserved to be rewarded for it. And for Seán Crowe, a truly dedicated public rep. And I can't even bear the thought of Aengus Ó Snodaigh losing his seat.
If there's any silver lining, there were a few constituencies where we performed better than most of us were expecting, such as Cork East, Limerick East and Kerry South. A lot of those who missed out are young enough to have a good go at it again in five years. And of course, there's the PD/Michael McDowell wipeout. But it's really not much consolation. We had a terrible election, and we need to learn from it. I'm not at all confident that we will, though.
As for the other parties, it's interesting the way that the media are spinning some of their results. Have a look at the end of this article, where Labour is described as having "recovered well" - by holding even or losing a seat. The Greens' poor results are glossed over although they look like doing the same. We could end up losing no more seats than either of those parties - yet we get the "big losers" tag and they don't.
*****
I'm aware that this will seem like sour grapes, but it has to be said that the results don't show the electorate in a particularly good light. Look at some of the baffling decisions they have made:
As for those voters who wouldn't necessarily be described as "left" but who we'd nonetheless hoped to get the support of, well, it seems pretty simple. The anti-FF ones didn't want to vote for us because we all but said we'd support the government. And the pro-FF ones just voted for FF. Some of them transfered to us, but nowhere near enough.
I'm gutted for people like Larry O'Toole and Dessie Ellis, who've done absolutely stellar work in their constituencies for years and deserved to be rewarded for it. And for Seán Crowe, a truly dedicated public rep. And I can't even bear the thought of Aengus Ó Snodaigh losing his seat.
If there's any silver lining, there were a few constituencies where we performed better than most of us were expecting, such as Cork East, Limerick East and Kerry South. A lot of those who missed out are young enough to have a good go at it again in five years. And of course, there's the PD/Michael McDowell wipeout. But it's really not much consolation. We had a terrible election, and we need to learn from it. I'm not at all confident that we will, though.
As for the other parties, it's interesting the way that the media are spinning some of their results. Have a look at the end of this article, where Labour is described as having "recovered well" - by holding even or losing a seat. The Greens' poor results are glossed over although they look like doing the same. We could end up losing no more seats than either of those parties - yet we get the "big losers" tag and they don't.
*****
I'm aware that this will seem like sour grapes, but it has to be said that the results don't show the electorate in a particularly good light. Look at some of the baffling decisions they have made:
- In Monaghan, a constituency where the biggest issue is the pending loss of the local hospital, the voters turfed out the hospital candidate (who was admittedly a bit useless) and voted in a member of the party whose government is responsible for the loss of the hospital.
- In Galway West, where the water's been undrinkable for months, a member of the Government tops the polls.
- With a similar situation unfolding in Wicklow, the Environment Minister gets nearly a quota on the first count.
- And I'm not even going to get into some of the things I heard on the doors during this campaign. Let's just say that this was a big victory for clientelism over any sort of ideology.
Finally, while I generally support PR-STV because of the unique ability it gives to small parties and independents to get elected, questions do have to be asked about the fairness of a system under which a candidate who gets 939 votes can get in ahead of candidates who poll over 3000 (see the Dublin Central results). But of course, since Fianna Fáil have benefitted from this system, it will never change.
It's a depressing five years we have ahead of us.
Labour's lukewarm support for gay rights
It seems the Labour Party will use their Private Members' Time in the Dáil next week to introduce their Civil Unions Bill.
This is a positive step, and I hope the Government will accept the Bill (and I suspect they might just do so, although if they do, they will leave it parked until after the election).
However, I can't resist the opportunity to highlight Labour's record on this issue.
In February 2004, the Government's Civil Registrations Bill went through the Dáil. That bill provided for the registration of births, deaths, marriages and divorces. Included amongst its text was a small line which would exclude same sex partners from the right to register a marriage. The Government inserted this line based upon legal advice it had received that without it, same sex marriage would effectively be legal.
Sinn Féin tabled an amendment to delete the line, and thus to give same sex partners the right to marry.
When our amendment was voted on, Labour (as well as Fine Gael) were mysteriously absent from the chamber.
In November 2005, the party's Deputy Leader Liz McManus
confirmed that the Labour Party are not in favour of gay marriage:
I do appreciate by the way that there are sections in the gay and lesbian community who ... would wish for full equivalence, both as regards rights and obligations and as regards terminology, between marriages as presently understood and gay unions.
That does not seem to me, however, to be a feasible proposition and it is not one that the Labour party advocates.
In the furious backtracking that ensued, Labour acolytes tried to suggest (with no real evidence that I'm aware of) that their party supported gay marriage in theory, but didn't think it was constitutionally feasible, and so supported civil union as a compromise.
I can't offhand think of any other situation in which the Labour Party, or anyone else, would say "Well, the Constitution as it stands won't allow that, so we won't support it." Generally speaking, if you think the Constitution prevents a basic human right, the answer to that is that you try to change the Constitution. At the very least such a view is no basis for refusing to register a vote in favour of that right when it comes up in the Dáil. It's not as though our amendment would have triggered a referendum, for heaven's sake - even if all opposition parties supported it, the Government still had enough votes to defeat it. It was simply a means to put support for gay marriage on record and Labour's failure to do so can only mean one thing: they don't support gay marriage. Full stop.
So credit to them for pressing ahead with this Bill. But don't misread it as real support for gay and lesbian equality.
This is a positive step, and I hope the Government will accept the Bill (and I suspect they might just do so, although if they do, they will leave it parked until after the election).
However, I can't resist the opportunity to highlight Labour's record on this issue.
In February 2004, the Government's Civil Registrations Bill went through the Dáil. That bill provided for the registration of births, deaths, marriages and divorces. Included amongst its text was a small line which would exclude same sex partners from the right to register a marriage. The Government inserted this line based upon legal advice it had received that without it, same sex marriage would effectively be legal.
Sinn Féin tabled an amendment to delete the line, and thus to give same sex partners the right to marry.
When our amendment was voted on, Labour (as well as Fine Gael) were mysteriously absent from the chamber.
In November 2005, the party's Deputy Leader Liz McManus
confirmed that the Labour Party are not in favour of gay marriage:
I do appreciate by the way that there are sections in the gay and lesbian community who ... would wish for full equivalence, both as regards rights and obligations and as regards terminology, between marriages as presently understood and gay unions.
That does not seem to me, however, to be a feasible proposition and it is not one that the Labour party advocates.
In the furious backtracking that ensued, Labour acolytes tried to suggest (with no real evidence that I'm aware of) that their party supported gay marriage in theory, but didn't think it was constitutionally feasible, and so supported civil union as a compromise.
I can't offhand think of any other situation in which the Labour Party, or anyone else, would say "Well, the Constitution as it stands won't allow that, so we won't support it." Generally speaking, if you think the Constitution prevents a basic human right, the answer to that is that you try to change the Constitution. At the very least such a view is no basis for refusing to register a vote in favour of that right when it comes up in the Dáil. It's not as though our amendment would have triggered a referendum, for heaven's sake - even if all opposition parties supported it, the Government still had enough votes to defeat it. It was simply a means to put support for gay marriage on record and Labour's failure to do so can only mean one thing: they don't support gay marriage. Full stop.
So credit to them for pressing ahead with this Bill. But don't misread it as real support for gay and lesbian equality.
I see that in this week's Metro Éireann, Labour's Dublin City Councillor Aodhán Ó Riordáin refers to the late PUP leader David Ervine as "a hero of mine". And "someone that I hope will become regarded as a founding father of a peaceful Ireland". He describes Ervine as "so special", his words so "uplifting and inspiring".
No, I'm not making this up.
WorldByStorm did a good piece about Ervine's death, and how he was eulogised by the same people (especially down south) who regularly dismiss republicans as barely reconstructed terrorists. Including the Labour Party. I don't need to repeat anything said there.
But one thing I would like to know is this: will Aodhán be mentioning this view while he's out on the canvass in his North Inner City constituency? Or will he be relying on the fact that working class Dubs don't read Metro Éireann, and are unlikely ever to hear of his hero-worship of a former loyalist paramilitary who headed up a party devoted to maintaining British rule in this country?
No, I'm not making this up.
WorldByStorm did a good piece about Ervine's death, and how he was eulogised by the same people (especially down south) who regularly dismiss republicans as barely reconstructed terrorists. Including the Labour Party. I don't need to repeat anything said there.
But one thing I would like to know is this: will Aodhán be mentioning this view while he's out on the canvass in his North Inner City constituency? Or will he be relying on the fact that working class Dubs don't read Metro Éireann, and are unlikely ever to hear of his hero-worship of a former loyalist paramilitary who headed up a party devoted to maintaining British rule in this country?
More on policing
My good friend and comrade Justin Moran submitted a letter to An Phoblacht which did not appear in this week's edition (although another letter, expressing more or less the same sentiments, was printed). I think it makes some important points so, with Justin's permission, I'm posting it here.
A chara,
The claim, in last week’s editorial, that supporting the Ard Chomhairle’s motion on policing will bring about ‘…further change, maximise our political impact and ensure that the policing model we have seen in the Six Counties for decades is consigned to the past’ indicates that the party’s paper has decided what the ‘right’ decision
should be before the party has.
Contrary to the editorial, many republicans see Sinn Féin taking seats on the Policing Boards as a co-option of republicans to the protection of the Six County state. The role of any police service is to protect the state and its interests. In this context, to maintain partition.
Sinn Féin members on Policing Boards would be partly responsible for, but not in charge of, an armed paramilitary police force led by British officers and enforcing British law in Ireland. The carrot of a Sinn Féin Justice Minister ‘some day’ has been replaced with the notion suggested over Christmas that the Justice ministries would be split between the SDLP and the UUP.
Also replaced was the party’s agreed Ard Fheis position, ironically the product of an Ard Chomhairle motion, that an Ard Fheis would only be called when a date for devolution of powers had been set and agreed to by the DUP, the structures of the administration of those powers agreed, and the enactment of British legislation.
In the absence of any of this, the Ard Chomhairle has overturned the Ard Fheis position and called an Extraordinary Ard Fheis that, at time of writing, the leadership no longer seems sure on because the DUP hasn’t reacted positively enough.
Is mise le meas,
Justin Moran
Inchicore
Dublin 8
On a related note, I see that our Mulhuddart councillor Felix Gallagher has once again been prevented from properly engaging with his local policing committee thanks to the shameless partisanship of his fellow councillors in Labour and Fine Gael. The hypocrisy is astounding: on the one hand, these muppets will fall all over themselves to insist that Sinn Féin must engage with the police system in the Six Counties and, on the other, they're doing everything they can to keep us out of the system here.
A chara,
The claim, in last week’s editorial, that supporting the Ard Chomhairle’s motion on policing will bring about ‘…further change, maximise our political impact and ensure that the policing model we have seen in the Six Counties for decades is consigned to the past’ indicates that the party’s paper has decided what the ‘right’ decision
should be before the party has.
Contrary to the editorial, many republicans see Sinn Féin taking seats on the Policing Boards as a co-option of republicans to the protection of the Six County state. The role of any police service is to protect the state and its interests. In this context, to maintain partition.
Sinn Féin members on Policing Boards would be partly responsible for, but not in charge of, an armed paramilitary police force led by British officers and enforcing British law in Ireland. The carrot of a Sinn Féin Justice Minister ‘some day’ has been replaced with the notion suggested over Christmas that the Justice ministries would be split between the SDLP and the UUP.
Also replaced was the party’s agreed Ard Fheis position, ironically the product of an Ard Chomhairle motion, that an Ard Fheis would only be called when a date for devolution of powers had been set and agreed to by the DUP, the structures of the administration of those powers agreed, and the enactment of British legislation.
In the absence of any of this, the Ard Chomhairle has overturned the Ard Fheis position and called an Extraordinary Ard Fheis that, at time of writing, the leadership no longer seems sure on because the DUP hasn’t reacted positively enough.
Is mise le meas,
Justin Moran
Inchicore
Dublin 8
On a related note, I see that our Mulhuddart councillor Felix Gallagher has once again been prevented from properly engaging with his local policing committee thanks to the shameless partisanship of his fellow councillors in Labour and Fine Gael. The hypocrisy is astounding: on the one hand, these muppets will fall all over themselves to insist that Sinn Féin must engage with the police system in the Six Counties and, on the other, they're doing everything they can to keep us out of the system here.
Budget 2007 - What's wrong with this picture?
The image below is taken from the new budget document. Have a close look at the figures.
The average industrial wage is just over €30,000. Why is a worker on that wage benefitting least from the budget measures?
And no, I'm not just annoyed about this because I'm on the AIW myself - I genuinely don't understand the reasoning.
By the way, I noticed that during the budget debate today, the full compliment of Fine Gael TDs was in the Dáil chamber to listen to Enda Kenny's speech. Within 90 seconds of Pat Rabbitte standing up, however, all but two or three of them were gone. I don't think even they are taking this 'coalition' seriously anymore.
The average industrial wage is just over €30,000. Why is a worker on that wage benefitting least from the budget measures?
And no, I'm not just annoyed about this because I'm on the AIW myself - I genuinely don't understand the reasoning.
By the way, I noticed that during the budget debate today, the full compliment of Fine Gael TDs was in the Dáil chamber to listen to Enda Kenny's speech. Within 90 seconds of Pat Rabbitte standing up, however, all but two or three of them were gone. I don't think even they are taking this 'coalition' seriously anymore.
Labour's coalition partners: "Arrest the strikers"
According to Fine Gael Transport Spokesperson on Newstalk 106 just now, the Gardaí should have arrested the taxi drivers who lined O'Connell Street yesterday to draw attention to their grievances.
I was one of those inconvenienced by the taxi protest yesterday, and I certainly agree that it wasn't the best tactic if they wanted to gain the public's sympathy (although I'm not sure that they did) - but, come on. By "inconvenienced" I mean it added about 15-20 minutes onto my travel time. Hardly something worth arresting people over.
But of course, this is the same Fine Gael Transport Spokesperson who, a few years ago, said that the bus drivers taking part in the "no fares day" protest should have the fares deducted from their wages.
Labour people - for God's sake, what are you thinking???
I was one of those inconvenienced by the taxi protest yesterday, and I certainly agree that it wasn't the best tactic if they wanted to gain the public's sympathy (although I'm not sure that they did) - but, come on. By "inconvenienced" I mean it added about 15-20 minutes onto my travel time. Hardly something worth arresting people over.
But of course, this is the same Fine Gael Transport Spokesperson who, a few years ago, said that the bus drivers taking part in the "no fares day" protest should have the fares deducted from their wages.
Labour people - for God's sake, what are you thinking???
Coalition still confused
For the second week running, Labour have abstained on a bill supported by their intended coalition partners.
Bertie is absolutely right when he says that if he did call an early election the "Rainbow" would have a heart attack. Who do they think they are fooling? They have no joint policy programme; they can't even agree on their own legislation, much less Government policies such as the privatisation of Aer Lingus, the erosion of neutrality, etc.
Furthermore, all indications are that if FG and Labour did manage to cobble together a Government, FG would be by far the senior partner. Have Labour ever indicated what their redline issues would be in such a coalition? Does anybody know, even Labour themselves?
I know I go on about this a lot but I'm genuinely baffled that any Labour supporter would be in favour of this agreement.
Bertie is absolutely right when he says that if he did call an early election the "Rainbow" would have a heart attack. Who do they think they are fooling? They have no joint policy programme; they can't even agree on their own legislation, much less Government policies such as the privatisation of Aer Lingus, the erosion of neutrality, etc.
Furthermore, all indications are that if FG and Labour did manage to cobble together a Government, FG would be by far the senior partner. Have Labour ever indicated what their redline issues would be in such a coalition? Does anybody know, even Labour themselves?
I know I go on about this a lot but I'm genuinely baffled that any Labour supporter would be in favour of this agreement.
The Rainbow splits again
I see that Fine Gael and Labour have voted different ways on yet another piece of legislation going through the Dáil, this time the Strategic Infrastructure Bill. Fine Gael voted with the Government on this bill (which would make it easier for powerful interests to get planning permission for controversial projects and reduce the ordinary citizen's ability to object).
Further evidence, as if any were needed, that a vote for Labour is a vote to replace one right wing government with another.
Further evidence, as if any were needed, that a vote for Labour is a vote to replace one right wing government with another.
God knows it's not often I side with the PDs, but I find myself reluctantly agreeing with them against the accusations Fine Gael and Labour are making today.
The horrific 'A' incident took place in May 2002. This was, I believe, well before the start of the constitutional challenge to the statutory rape law. Even had the Government changed the law immediately upon the instigation of this challenge, 'Mr. A' would still have walked free yesterday. He could only ever have been convicted on the basis of the law that was in place at the time of his offence. No subsequent change in the law could be applied retrospectively.
The current Government is to blame for ignoring the Law Reform Commission's 1990 recommendations and not changing that law before the 'A' offence took place, of course. But so were all other governments from 1990 on - including those which Fine Gael and Labour were part of. Their credibility on this issue is wafer-thin.
The horrific 'A' incident took place in May 2002. This was, I believe, well before the start of the constitutional challenge to the statutory rape law. Even had the Government changed the law immediately upon the instigation of this challenge, 'Mr. A' would still have walked free yesterday. He could only ever have been convicted on the basis of the law that was in place at the time of his offence. No subsequent change in the law could be applied retrospectively.
The current Government is to blame for ignoring the Law Reform Commission's 1990 recommendations and not changing that law before the 'A' offence took place, of course. But so were all other governments from 1990 on - including those which Fine Gael and Labour were part of. Their credibility on this issue is wafer-thin.
Labour supporters - here are your coalition partners!
Fine Gael TD Phil Hogan in the Dáil today singled out trade union members as stirring up anti-immigrant sentiment. Well done Phil.
"I trust the Minister will bring forward new measures and regulations in due course arising from the partnership talks that will not only assist us in regard to the assimilation of migrant workers into our economy but will also contribute to removing some of the prejudice that has built up, particularly due to some union members in recent times ..."
How on earth can any self-respecting Labour Party member vote for a coalition like this?
"I trust the Minister will bring forward new measures and regulations in due course arising from the partnership talks that will not only assist us in regard to the assimilation of migrant workers into our economy but will also contribute to removing some of the prejudice that has built up, particularly due to some union members in recent times ..."
How on earth can any self-respecting Labour Party member vote for a coalition like this?
More cracks in the rainbow
Last night, Sinn Féin TDs used their Private Members Time to call for a Department of Labour Affairs separate from the department that oversees enterprise, as the present system has worked to the detriment of workers whose needs have been subordinated by the government to those of their bosses.
The Labour Party, as you'd expect, supported the motion. Fine Gael didn't. They didn't even turn up for the vote.
How on earth are these two supposed to be an alternative government when they can't even agree on what sort of government they want?
The Labour Party, as you'd expect, supported the motion. Fine Gael didn't. They didn't even turn up for the vote.
How on earth are these two supposed to be an alternative government when they can't even agree on what sort of government they want?
I'm out of the country for a fortnight and return to find the whole country's gone bleeding mad! Allegations against this republican and that republican. It seems that my prediction, made just after the IRA statement, of an increase in black propaganda against us was even more accurate than I'd feared. The usual suspects have obviously decided that their best hope for defeating us lies in turning us against each other. We are going to have to be resolute in our determination not to let them succeed.
On other matters, Pat Rabbitte's proposal to subject EU nationals to work permits simply defies logic (except, of course, when looked at as a cynical pre-election stunt). Anyone with a brain can see that tying workers to permits increases, rather than decreases, their exploitability and therefore makes them more, not less, attractive to unscrupulous employers. The solution to the displacement of Irish workers in favour of cheaper foreign staff is proper enforcement of the laws which make it illegal to pay foreign staff less.
Has Enda Kenny commented on this proposal? One almost wonders if he has told Rabbitte that FG intend to propose restrictions on immigration, and so Rabbitte is coming out with this stuff now so that it will look like a true Labour proposal and not one forced on them by their senior coalition partners.
On other matters, Pat Rabbitte's proposal to subject EU nationals to work permits simply defies logic (except, of course, when looked at as a cynical pre-election stunt). Anyone with a brain can see that tying workers to permits increases, rather than decreases, their exploitability and therefore makes them more, not less, attractive to unscrupulous employers. The solution to the displacement of Irish workers in favour of cheaper foreign staff is proper enforcement of the laws which make it illegal to pay foreign staff less.
Has Enda Kenny commented on this proposal? One almost wonders if he has told Rabbitte that FG intend to propose restrictions on immigration, and so Rabbitte is coming out with this stuff now so that it will look like a true Labour proposal and not one forced on them by their senior coalition partners.
Unbelievable!
Pat Rabbitte has just told the Dáil that he "never believed there was a war or justification for a war" in the North.
So what did your colleagues in the Official IRA need all those guns for, Pat?
So what did your colleagues in the Official IRA need all those guns for, Pat?
I notice that Labour abstained on the Criminal Justice Bill last night, despite the clear opposition to it of their Justice Spokesperson Joe Costello. Wonder why that was? Couldn't have had anything to do with the fact that Fine Gael voted for the bill, could it?
Bad and all as Fianna Fáil are, they do have one clear advantage for any potential coalition partner with the slightest ideological bent (and in Labour's case it really is the "slightest"): not having one themselves, FF are easily subject to the Tail-Wagging-Dog syndrome. Fine Gael may not be anyone's idea of a principled party but they do have a couple clear policies, at least. Pro-privatisation, for one. Anti-neutrality, for another. Ironic, isn't it, that on the only issues they can really be nailed down, their position differs strongly from Labour's?
Labour voters who think that these differences will all somehow work themselves out, and not to their own detriment, would be well advised to keep an eye on incidents like last night's abstention on the Criminal Justice Bill. I can virtually guarantee you there will be more of these between now and the general election - not to mention if FG and Labour do win enough seats to go into coalition together.
Bad and all as Fianna Fáil are, they do have one clear advantage for any potential coalition partner with the slightest ideological bent (and in Labour's case it really is the "slightest"): not having one themselves, FF are easily subject to the Tail-Wagging-Dog syndrome. Fine Gael may not be anyone's idea of a principled party but they do have a couple clear policies, at least. Pro-privatisation, for one. Anti-neutrality, for another. Ironic, isn't it, that on the only issues they can really be nailed down, their position differs strongly from Labour's?
Labour voters who think that these differences will all somehow work themselves out, and not to their own detriment, would be well advised to keep an eye on incidents like last night's abstention on the Criminal Justice Bill. I can virtually guarantee you there will be more of these between now and the general election - not to mention if FG and Labour do win enough seats to go into coalition together.
Labour snub nationalist victims - again
This afternoon Kate McCaughey, the woman put out of her home of 50 years by loyalist thugs in Ahoghill, and several other North Antrim nationalists with similar stories paid a visit to Leinster House to meet with TDs and Senators about their situation.
Invitations were sent to every TD, every Senator.
Not one from Labour showed up.
This isn't the first time. Around two years ago the relatives of victims of British security force collusion visited the Dáil. Same story - not a single Labour representative there to greet them.
In fact, the only victims of violence in the Six Counties that Labour have turned up to meet were the McCartney sisters.
Can you say "agenda"?
Oh, no one from the PDs or Fine Gael turned up this time either.
Invitations were sent to every TD, every Senator.
Not one from Labour showed up.
This isn't the first time. Around two years ago the relatives of victims of British security force collusion visited the Dáil. Same story - not a single Labour representative there to greet them.
In fact, the only victims of violence in the Six Counties that Labour have turned up to meet were the McCartney sisters.
Can you say "agenda"?
Oh, no one from the PDs or Fine Gael turned up this time either.
Today, we have witnessed a disgraceful yet utterly predictable display of moral cowardice on the part of the large majority of Dáil Deputies. All but 16 TDs failed to oppose the annual extension of the Offences Against the State Act, which allows the conviction of "membership of an illegal organisation" based solely upon the word of a garda. Given recent events, this would have to strike any objective observer as completely insane. Of course us non-objective observers know it's a lot more sinister than that.
Credit where it's due: Joe Higgins, Tony Gregory, Jerry Cowley, Catherine Murphy and all six of the Greens joined the five Sinn Féin TDs in voting Níl, while Finian McGrath spoke against the motion during the debate although he was unable to be present for the vote. That is a 100% increase over last year, when we could only muster eight in opposition. Maybe next year Labour will find the courage to put their (supposed) support for justice and human rights ahead of their hatred for republicans. But I won't hold my breath.
I've copied the Sinn Féin TDs' contributions to the debate below, because I really can't say it any better myself.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Every year Deputies have the opportunity to vote on whether to continue to use repressive legislation in this State. That opportunity presents again despite the past decade of the peace process, the IRA ceasefire and the Good Friday Agreement. Every year the Minister publishes a slim report at the last minute, which no one has a chance to read, as has been stated here. Despite this, every year this House rubber-stamps the continuing operation of these laws, which suspend not only the ordinary rules of evidence but fundamental rights, including the right to silence.
Every year my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh or I argue the Government's obligations regarding progressive security normalisation under the Good Friday Agreement. Every year we ask what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is planning to do with the Hederman recommendations on which he has been sitting since 2002. Every year only a few join the Sinn Féin Deputies in speaking out against this coercion of democracy and human rights, and I commend all those who do.
Those in what I view as the political establishment are still locked in denial about the fact that more than 60 years of emergency law has only helped perpetuate the conflict on and between these islands. It is a contributory factor. Equally, seven years of the 1998 amendment Act powers have not stopped dissident republicans. The only thing that can have this effect - I ask the Minister of State to note it - is to make democracy really and truly work. This means making the peace process work, demonstrating that the Good Friday Agreement is not dead, as the DUP leader claims, and proving that profound political and social change can be achieved by other means. That is the commitment we have made and the challenge Sinn Féin has embraced.
Every year when this law is renewed, those Deputies who support it take it on faith that the Garda will not abuse the powers it confers. They take it on faith that no garda will fabricate the evidence used to convict in the Special Criminal Court. I put it to Deputies that the findings of the Morris tribunal to date must force them to re-examine that blind faith on this occasion. This Government is asking Deputies, even in the wake of the Morris tribunal reports, to renew legislation that will continue to allow people to be convicted on the word of a garda. As supporters of this motion, they must ask themselves, what if they are complicit in perpetuating miscarriages of justice by the suspension of the ordinary rules of evidence in order to secure convictions, especially when there continues to be no effective oversight of the Garda and knowing this situation will continue even after the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's fundamentally flawed Garda legislation passes. I put it to Deputies and the Minister of State that the renewal of this Offences Against the State Act is not at all in the interests of democracy and justice.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: History will judge this House harshly for failing to assert that the key to security is human rights and not human rights abuses. Year in, year out Deputies vote for the renewal of this legislation which is the envy of repressive regimes around the world. Only a few people in this House have the moral courage to speak out against it and fewer still have the guts to back that up when there is a vote. Surely the Morris tribunal report, which will be briefly discussed tomorrow, and particularly the revelations in the first report, the McGlinchey module, must give them pause for thought that people can be convicted in the Special Criminal Court under special laws on the word of the Garda special branch man.
History will judge harshly all those Deputies with their heads in the sand about the abuses perpetrated by the State against citizens on their watch. They are so consumed and blinded by anti-republicanism, they are failing in their duty to protect the public interest. It is incumbent on them to consider their responsibility carefully and to consider what we now know. We know the gardaí fabricated evidence of arms finds in Donegal, that the Murphy conviction in the Omagh case was overturned because of Garda fabrication, that the gardaí planted a gun on James Sheehan in north Kerry and that the father of four, Niall Binead, had no presumption of innocence as he was tried by the media and convicted of membership of an illegal organisation on the basis of exercising his right to silence. Despite media misrepresentation, he was not convicted of spying allegations. He was not convicted of unlawful collection of information under section 8. In fact, according to the Minister, no one has been charged under section 8. Does this not raise questions for Deputies about the conviction? Earlier this week, five Limerick men face up to five years in prison on the word of a senior garda. Most of the evidence against them seems to be that they laid a wreath.
Can Deputies be confident that the powers they are about to reconfirm have not been abused in nearly 700 arrests in the past year alone? Are they absolutely certain about the soundness of each of the 60 plus convictions? Do they firmly believe all the 102 awaiting trial will receive a fair one? If not, I ask them to vote against this motion.
Credit where it's due: Joe Higgins, Tony Gregory, Jerry Cowley, Catherine Murphy and all six of the Greens joined the five Sinn Féin TDs in voting Níl, while Finian McGrath spoke against the motion during the debate although he was unable to be present for the vote. That is a 100% increase over last year, when we could only muster eight in opposition. Maybe next year Labour will find the courage to put their (supposed) support for justice and human rights ahead of their hatred for republicans. But I won't hold my breath.
I've copied the Sinn Féin TDs' contributions to the debate below, because I really can't say it any better myself.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Every year Deputies have the opportunity to vote on whether to continue to use repressive legislation in this State. That opportunity presents again despite the past decade of the peace process, the IRA ceasefire and the Good Friday Agreement. Every year the Minister publishes a slim report at the last minute, which no one has a chance to read, as has been stated here. Despite this, every year this House rubber-stamps the continuing operation of these laws, which suspend not only the ordinary rules of evidence but fundamental rights, including the right to silence.
Every year my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh or I argue the Government's obligations regarding progressive security normalisation under the Good Friday Agreement. Every year we ask what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is planning to do with the Hederman recommendations on which he has been sitting since 2002. Every year only a few join the Sinn Féin Deputies in speaking out against this coercion of democracy and human rights, and I commend all those who do.
Those in what I view as the political establishment are still locked in denial about the fact that more than 60 years of emergency law has only helped perpetuate the conflict on and between these islands. It is a contributory factor. Equally, seven years of the 1998 amendment Act powers have not stopped dissident republicans. The only thing that can have this effect - I ask the Minister of State to note it - is to make democracy really and truly work. This means making the peace process work, demonstrating that the Good Friday Agreement is not dead, as the DUP leader claims, and proving that profound political and social change can be achieved by other means. That is the commitment we have made and the challenge Sinn Féin has embraced.
Every year when this law is renewed, those Deputies who support it take it on faith that the Garda will not abuse the powers it confers. They take it on faith that no garda will fabricate the evidence used to convict in the Special Criminal Court. I put it to Deputies that the findings of the Morris tribunal to date must force them to re-examine that blind faith on this occasion. This Government is asking Deputies, even in the wake of the Morris tribunal reports, to renew legislation that will continue to allow people to be convicted on the word of a garda. As supporters of this motion, they must ask themselves, what if they are complicit in perpetuating miscarriages of justice by the suspension of the ordinary rules of evidence in order to secure convictions, especially when there continues to be no effective oversight of the Garda and knowing this situation will continue even after the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's fundamentally flawed Garda legislation passes. I put it to Deputies and the Minister of State that the renewal of this Offences Against the State Act is not at all in the interests of democracy and justice.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: History will judge this House harshly for failing to assert that the key to security is human rights and not human rights abuses. Year in, year out Deputies vote for the renewal of this legislation which is the envy of repressive regimes around the world. Only a few people in this House have the moral courage to speak out against it and fewer still have the guts to back that up when there is a vote. Surely the Morris tribunal report, which will be briefly discussed tomorrow, and particularly the revelations in the first report, the McGlinchey module, must give them pause for thought that people can be convicted in the Special Criminal Court under special laws on the word of the Garda special branch man.
History will judge harshly all those Deputies with their heads in the sand about the abuses perpetrated by the State against citizens on their watch. They are so consumed and blinded by anti-republicanism, they are failing in their duty to protect the public interest. It is incumbent on them to consider their responsibility carefully and to consider what we now know. We know the gardaí fabricated evidence of arms finds in Donegal, that the Murphy conviction in the Omagh case was overturned because of Garda fabrication, that the gardaí planted a gun on James Sheehan in north Kerry and that the father of four, Niall Binead, had no presumption of innocence as he was tried by the media and convicted of membership of an illegal organisation on the basis of exercising his right to silence. Despite media misrepresentation, he was not convicted of spying allegations. He was not convicted of unlawful collection of information under section 8. In fact, according to the Minister, no one has been charged under section 8. Does this not raise questions for Deputies about the conviction? Earlier this week, five Limerick men face up to five years in prison on the word of a senior garda. Most of the evidence against them seems to be that they laid a wreath.
Can Deputies be confident that the powers they are about to reconfirm have not been abused in nearly 700 arrests in the past year alone? Are they absolutely certain about the soundness of each of the 60 plus convictions? Do they firmly believe all the 102 awaiting trial will receive a fair one? If not, I ask them to vote against this motion.
LI didn't intend to start a blog just to analyse the Sunday Tribune every week. It just happens they've had more of the stories I feel like commenting on lately.
The cover story this week is speculation that Bertie plans to call the general election next year, rather than wait for the May 2007 deadline. This will no doubt be replied to with a denial from the Taoiseach's office, but it's actually what I have suspected for several months now. Open disagreements between the coalition partners have been increasing, most recently on the building of a new terminal at Dublin Airport and Michael McDowell's proposal for a new "café-bar" licence. In addition, there are a few FF backbenchers who are very strongly opposed to McDowell's planned introduction of Anti Social Behaviour Orders - listening to the Dáil debate last week one could have been forgiven for thinking Pat Carey and John McGuinness were actually members of the opposition. McGuinness, especially; I cannot recall ever seeing a member of a Government party speak out so strongly against a Government proposition. Frankly, this doesn't look like a coalition that has two years left in it.
So what does it mean? Hard to say at this point. Obviously, one of the most important things is getting the PDs out of Government. The damage they have done is immense. I would not be in favour of Sinn Féin going into coalition with FF this time around - we will have around 10 TDs at most and I doubt FF would be as generous to us with key Ministries as they have been to the PDs. And I'm not sure there would be the numbers for FF to coalesce with those independents who'd be willing to do so. I can't see FF and FG going in together, even though you couldn't slide an envelope between their political philosophies (including the one their grandparents went to war over), and Labour have ruled out going in with FF, but there don't appear to be the numbers for them to go in with FG, or even with FG and the Greens. So it's all to play for, really.
I do think it's hilarious that Labour are willing to coalesce with the (slightly) further right of the two main parties, though. A fortnight ago in the Dáil SF introduced a Private Members motion against the privatisation of Aer Lingus. FG, predictably, opposed it; Labour supported it. What would they have done if they were in Government together when we introduced it? Or when we introduced our bill to enshrine neutrality into the Constitution, which Labour also supported and FG opposed? Over the past few years Labour have already moved further right than many in their traditional base would like; their former chief strategist Fergus Finlay openly admitted that they were courting the middle class vote because they think the trade unions, etc., aren't relevant anymore. In Government with Fine Gael they're only going to move even further right. And Sinn Féin will be there, nipping at their heels, on their left.
Incidentally, I'm somewhat neutral on the café-bar thing. I think there are a lot of bogus arguments being thrown around by both sides. Nobody in Ireland limits their drinking (during normal hours) because they can't find a place to get a drink, after all. Nor are many people going to say "Well, I could stay in this pub the whole night, but now that there's a café-bar next door I'll just go there and have a meal with my pint instead". I'm all for the idea of café-bars, actually, because I really quite like them, but I think it would be more sensible to provide incentives for existing pubs to convert, rather than opening additional establishments. I haven't thought out how you'd do that though, so please don't ask me!
The Trib was surprisingly short this week of things-to-make-me-throw-the-paper-across-the-room. My greatest outrage was at a letter to the editor suggesting that the FAI should withdraw from the Champions League next year and nominate Liverpool instead. The day they do that is the day I stop giving any money to anything having to do with Irish soccer. Fortunately it's not going to happen, but it absolutely disgusts me that an Irish person would suggest it in any case. Sure, why don't we just let England have Roy Keane and Damien Duff as well? We're probably not going to need them next year.
The cover story this week is speculation that Bertie plans to call the general election next year, rather than wait for the May 2007 deadline. This will no doubt be replied to with a denial from the Taoiseach's office, but it's actually what I have suspected for several months now. Open disagreements between the coalition partners have been increasing, most recently on the building of a new terminal at Dublin Airport and Michael McDowell's proposal for a new "café-bar" licence. In addition, there are a few FF backbenchers who are very strongly opposed to McDowell's planned introduction of Anti Social Behaviour Orders - listening to the Dáil debate last week one could have been forgiven for thinking Pat Carey and John McGuinness were actually members of the opposition. McGuinness, especially; I cannot recall ever seeing a member of a Government party speak out so strongly against a Government proposition. Frankly, this doesn't look like a coalition that has two years left in it.
So what does it mean? Hard to say at this point. Obviously, one of the most important things is getting the PDs out of Government. The damage they have done is immense. I would not be in favour of Sinn Féin going into coalition with FF this time around - we will have around 10 TDs at most and I doubt FF would be as generous to us with key Ministries as they have been to the PDs. And I'm not sure there would be the numbers for FF to coalesce with those independents who'd be willing to do so. I can't see FF and FG going in together, even though you couldn't slide an envelope between their political philosophies (including the one their grandparents went to war over), and Labour have ruled out going in with FF, but there don't appear to be the numbers for them to go in with FG, or even with FG and the Greens. So it's all to play for, really.
I do think it's hilarious that Labour are willing to coalesce with the (slightly) further right of the two main parties, though. A fortnight ago in the Dáil SF introduced a Private Members motion against the privatisation of Aer Lingus. FG, predictably, opposed it; Labour supported it. What would they have done if they were in Government together when we introduced it? Or when we introduced our bill to enshrine neutrality into the Constitution, which Labour also supported and FG opposed? Over the past few years Labour have already moved further right than many in their traditional base would like; their former chief strategist Fergus Finlay openly admitted that they were courting the middle class vote because they think the trade unions, etc., aren't relevant anymore. In Government with Fine Gael they're only going to move even further right. And Sinn Féin will be there, nipping at their heels, on their left.
Incidentally, I'm somewhat neutral on the café-bar thing. I think there are a lot of bogus arguments being thrown around by both sides. Nobody in Ireland limits their drinking (during normal hours) because they can't find a place to get a drink, after all. Nor are many people going to say "Well, I could stay in this pub the whole night, but now that there's a café-bar next door I'll just go there and have a meal with my pint instead". I'm all for the idea of café-bars, actually, because I really quite like them, but I think it would be more sensible to provide incentives for existing pubs to convert, rather than opening additional establishments. I haven't thought out how you'd do that though, so please don't ask me!
The Trib was surprisingly short this week of things-to-make-me-throw-the-paper-across-the-room. My greatest outrage was at a letter to the editor suggesting that the FAI should withdraw from the Champions League next year and nominate Liverpool instead. The day they do that is the day I stop giving any money to anything having to do with Irish soccer. Fortunately it's not going to happen, but it absolutely disgusts me that an Irish person would suggest it in any case. Sure, why don't we just let England have Roy Keane and Damien Duff as well? We're probably not going to need them next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
