Fellatio and section 5

by Jerry Cornelius Fri Jun 02, 2006 15:44

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006 should be reviewed by Ombudsman for Children
Issued: 01 June 2006

Statement by Ciaran Cuffe

Spokesperson on Justice, Equality & Law Reform, Local Government and Environment

The Green Party has called on Michael McDowell to refer his draft legislation which will close the loophole in the statutory rape legislation to the Ombudsman for Children for her comments. The Party has received the draft legislation and has discussed its contents with the Minister for Justice and opposition colleagues.

Green Party Justice spokesperson Ciarán CuffeTD said: “I received a draft copy of this legislation earlier this afternoon. While I welcome the efforts made by the Minister and his staff, there are a number of areas that still require clarification.

“The draft legislation should be referred to the Ombudsman for Children for her comment and advice. The Ombudsman for Children has a statutory obligation to advise the Minister on any matter relating to the rights and welfare of children under Section 7(4) of the Ombudsman for Children Act, 2002.

“Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. This principle should be incorporated into the legislation.

“The proposed Section 5 (1) of the draft legislation which states that ‘a female child under the age of 17 years shall not be guilty of an offence by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse’ is contentious. It stands at odds with the principle of equality. A better solution might be to put in place a lesser offence for fifteen and sixteen year olds and sexual partners who are less than three years older than them.

“Given the rushed nature of the legislation, it may be wise to impose a ‘sunset clause’ within the legislation in order that the Oireachtas revisits the issue within two years,” concluded deputy Cuffe.

by C Murray - The Unmanageables Fri Jun 02, 2006 16:02

Fine Gael: Will support the passage of the Bill.
they say it closely resembles one they produced themselves, reservations were given about section 5.

Labour: "We will not obstruct it's passage thru the Oireachtas"(Howlin, asked for the dropping of section5).
called Section 5 , "an Absurdity".

Greens: Did not condemn the bill, but included qualifications , including a letter from the ombudsman for children asking for section 5 to be dropped, as it was "superflous"
they called for Sunset Clause.Best interests of the child;
and a two year re-visit on the legislation.

Ciaran did not ask for the resignation of the Minister for justice, but shared his speaking time with the independent lobby who were to ask for it.

The opposition asked for the speech to be circulated on three separate occassions.

When I was at the Dail this morning, I heard not one condemnation of the Minister for Justice's behaviour, nor did any member of the opposition ask for his resignation.
I left at 12. the Bill will pass thru the house . (amendments will prob be made and one remark about the paternity of the Bill in relation to future human right's cases was not held onto with any courage).
It was farcical.

by salicious Fri Jun 02, 2006 16:32

-

minister does fellatio

still not discussed in our hallowed chamber of deputies

by blah Fri Jun 02, 2006 16:46

... bit sick of hearing about this on the radio and print now at this stage, but one thing which I found interesting was the amount of time and space given over to the protest at the Dail today. Reportedly it drew around 700-800 people, which when you think of it is very little, considering it had been heavily pushed by Joe Duffy, Gerry Ryan, et al.

It seems that the media pays more attention when they can make a human interest story out of it, the favourite one seems to be "ordinary" housewife who suddenly feels enraged enough to "do something" beyond her normal bland cycle of activities. Also a protest seems to be pushed more in the media as long as its 'not political', how exactly the organisers today were saying that gathering outside the seat of power and some shouting for the resignation of McDowell was 'not political' I dont understand, but there you go.

Obviously if a similar amount of people went on an anti-war protest, this doesnt warrant the same amount of coverage because its "activists" on the march, and not "ordinary" people. The Patients Together people always get huge coverage as well (for similar reasons) yet their demos have never managed to gather more than a couple of hundred bodies.

We'll see what its like in tomorrow's papers..

by Seán Ryan Fri Jun 02, 2006 18:28

I've been looking for a copy of this legislation all afternoon. I'm tired, hungry and extremely pissed off and I still aint got squat.

I suppose now it's back to some R&R for our hardworking minister for paedophiles.

Whilst I was searching for this patch I found something that struck me as poignant. It's on the front page of the Justice Department's website. It's their mission statement.

Our Mission

To maintain and enhance community security and equality through the development of a range of policies and high quality services which underpin:
• the protection and assertion of human rights and fundamental freedoms consistent with the common good;
• the security of the State;
• an effective and balanced approach to tackling crime; and
• progress towards the elimination of discrimination and the promotion of equal opportunities and the accommodation of diversity.

Anyone else wanna argue McDowell has done his job?

by Protester Fri Jun 02, 2006 20:17

I was at protest today to show my opposition to the Courts releasing abusers. It says a lot about the Judiciary in this state. Mr. A should have been immediately arrested under rape legislation.

There is not a "gap" in the laws. This Bill that was passed today is introducing the criminalisation of young people who engage in sexual activity. Who cares what age someone is? Who cares who they do what to? Who cares what age the other person is? The idea of an 'Age of Consent' should be ended. If someone forces themselves on someone without consent then that is rape and should be dealt with as rape. Why the need for "unlawful carnal knowledge" and "statutatory rape". These legal provisons mean that young people are criminalised. The new law even creates the situation where young women will be asked about dress and fake ID. No one asks to be raped! Wearing a short skirt is not an invitation to rape!

There needs to be major changes in the criminal justice system. Only a tiny minority of rapists ever get to court. The Court system need s to be revised. Courts should be far less intimidating. The Gardaí should not be the main investigators of sexual assault.

Who are the 'Unmanageables'? Are ye in Labour and/or Greens?

by legislation Fri Jun 02, 2006 20:48

Is not hard to find; try the website of the Oireachtas (http://www.oireachtas.ie), where it's been on the front page all day.

by chris Murray - the unmanageables Fri Jun 02, 2006 22:00

A group of women from: cosantoiri siochana, dublin catholic workers, Iawm, save tara, shell to sea.
there is to my knowledge one green and several non-alligned people who come out to support
protests. the name derives from Dev's refusal to acknowledge the women revolutionaries of 1916 and
his withering rejection of the hard-work and sacrifice of , amongst others: hannah-Sheehy Skeffington, Grace Gifford, Maud Gonne, Connie Markivecz, Louise Gavan-Duffy. An ad-hoc group of ruffians such as myself decided to do something about it and it kinda evolved. we also seem to run into contemporary difficulties on a regular basis, (often for refusing to accept the status quo).
The meetings are irregular, often inflammatory and completely unstructured.

by Seán Ryan Fri Jun 02, 2006 22:37

Many thanks legislation. I thought I’d been there already, but I guess not.

I’ve read the patch and I’m not impressed.

From what I’ve garnered:
i. It’s a serious offence to rape a child under the age of 15
ii. It’s not such a serious offence to rape a child under the age of 17 but over the age of 15

The hole has now been framed in law. (that belief that a child is above a certain age can be used as a defence.)

The new law allows for children to be grilled in cross examination. Clothes, attitude, body language, confidence etc. can all be used to give credence to the idea that a child may appear to be older than they actually are.

This means that blame can be put onto a child for being raped.

Anyone who has studied sexual crime and in particular paedophiles, will know that for some (those who are not sexual sadists) part of the ‘illness’ has to do with the criminal convincing himself or herself that the victim consents to the crime and is a willing partner.

Many a jurist has been disgusted by paedophiles attempting to argue that a child or indeed an infant has led him or her on.

The new patch panders to the sick fantasies of most sexual deviants. There’s a very thin line between fantasy and belief and it’s now up to the courts to discern it.

Instead of separating sex between two consenting kids, and an adult raping a child, into two distinct areas of law, they have been kept lumped together. To provide much misery and confusion for years to come.

This law will not only make it harder to convict a sexual predator it will almost certainly result in most having their sentences relaxed. Most perverts who assault young children will almost certainly claim at the very least that they thought the child was at least 15. There’s now a big difference between raping a 14 year old and raping a 15 year old.

Section 5 as Chris has said is an absurdity. It is the capstone on an act that in itself should be considered criminal child abuse. Gender inequality continues to be enshrined in our laws. It basically says that girls under 17 cannot be guilty of sexual offences. But it doesn’t mention boys under 17.

Nothing whatsoever has been done to put a halt to the mass exodus by sex offenders from our prisons. Maybe this is McDowell’s promise to make more prison space available, come to fruition.

Victims of clerical child abuse have been given the cold shoulder by the state. Now our children have been offered the same. It remains to be seen how released paedophiles will fare as compensation claims get lodged

It’s no longer a nightmare

It’s Irish reality.

by Seán Ryan Sat Jun 03, 2006 02:37

Article 40.

1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

3.1. The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

3.2. The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

Article 41

1.1. The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

1.2. The State therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

I’ve quoted parts of the Constitution above, to give credence to my belief that McDowell’s patch is unlawful.

A child in court being made relive the experiences of being raped, in order that the State may blame the child for the rape, and absolve the rapist is a fundamental example of a violation of Article 40.3.2. This being all the more heinous as the courts will be forced to unjustly attack children. This could be even more vile if the rapist were defending himself or herself and was allowed to cross-examine the child, in effect raping the child a second time, while the State looks on. This is the State in effect Forcing Unlawful Carnal Knowledge of a Child and is a paedophile attack on any child subjected to and objectified by this.

Section 5 of the patch, where gender inequality is reintroduced into Irish law by stating that a girl under the age of 17 cannot be guilty of a sexual offence, but makes no mention of boys under the age of 17. This is a violation of Article 40.1. And is therefore unlawful also. 40.3.1 and 40.3.2 are the remedies that must be offered to this unlawful violation. (These two sections of article 40 are what allowed Mr. A his freedom.)

The parts I’ve quoted of Article 41 show the importance the Irish Constitution places on the family and by inference the child.

Because of this patch, the family no longer has primacy in our country and our children are commodities to be exchanged so that red tape is not ruffled.

I’ve criticized just about everyone in government and in opposition at some point or other by using the phrase ‘Shame on you.’

For the first time, I say ‘Shame on us.’

by Protestor Tue Jun 06, 2006 19:46

Most contributors to this thread are taking a very moralistic view of things. What is wrong with anyone of any age engaging in sexual activity with another person of any age with consent. The moralism on Indymedia and in the establishment media is the same kind of moralism that existed when homosexuality was banned. What's the problem with completely abolishing age of consent laws and have rape law deal with non-consentual sexual activity. There needs to be greater support for victims of rape and less harrassment of young people having sex!

by chris murray - the unmanageables Tue Jun 06, 2006 20:36

This article was part of a trilogy , which was attached to two others :
Laissez -Faire and Mc Dowell's Double Whammy, protestor.
it showed a development, crude and linear between the dropping of the Mister A
case and how a neo-liberal government deals with the issue. In a nutshell
the issues were not separated, that of rape and the issue of interference
in the issue of personal choice. if you read the articles in that context, they may make more sense.
Apologies for any offence caused. As to the tone, that might be because it was a culminative
piece.

by Protestor Wed Jun 07, 2006 09:45

OK, Chris Murray do you think that the age of consent should be completely abolished alongside an overhaul of rape law enforcement and the court system? If you think there should be an age of consent what age would you choose? I think that the 'unmanageables' are actually very 'manageable'. The establishment media beat the drum on Age of Consent laws and you, Greens, Labour, Sinn Fein and other liberals did not oppose this conservative new law.

by chris murray - the unmanageables Wed Jun 07, 2006 17:12

I am not engaging in a debate with you on age of consent , two reasons;
1.Consent in sexual matters is a matter of personal and mutual choice, not something that can be
legislated for by a government that clearly has run its time out here.
2. The issue of rape, as opposed to choice was not addressed in the fallout from the Mister A case,
nor was the issue of child-abuse, incest, rape in marriage or any other scenario wherein
a choice was not made but enforced.

not to be preachy babe, but , rape is a power-game. this includes rape of young boys, children
and women who say no, over and over again.

If you go to court and put that 14 year old boy or girl on the stand as Mc dowell proposes and asked them if what they were wearing or how they behaved was a factor in their rape, what do you expect to hear? The two things were not separated: freedom of choice in who you have sex with is an issue for the couple not the court , but the use of sexual violence as a means to destroy a life is an entirely different matter.

The failure of this regime was in not separating the issue of consent from the issue of violence.

The other matter is that I am of an opinion, I make up my mind and I write down what I feel. I note that you use an anonymity, which is a pity. Because for some reason you are unable to back up your opinion with your name. it is your entitlement to have and hold an opinion, you should use it.

by chris murray - the unmanageables Wed Jun 07, 2006 17:16

you divine a lot from a small article and make assumptions about what I do.
I would guess, therefore, that you are male, under twenty-five and very angry.
Tho' I could be wrong about that too.

by Pat Wed Jun 14, 2006 13:30

Should we blame pedophiles for their actions, or treat them as ill?
Is not pedophilia a psychiatric disorder?

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Sun Jun 25, 2006 20:58

The joint junket of the opposition represented by Mr Kenny and Mr Rabbitte
have asked for an all-party committee to be set up, to investigate (amongst
other things) the run-up of events leading to the release of Mr A, by Ms justice
Mary Laffoy +

The constitutionality of a section of the Criminal law (sexual offences)Bill 2006.
The age of consent issue.

The bill was drafted by Mr Mc Dowell TD (who is a qualified solicitor).

A Brief reminder of the day in the Dail :

The only TD to oppose the introduction of the legislation was Joe Higgins TD.

The Green party called for two amendments to the act : 1. A sunset clause, which means the
State revisits the legislation in two years.
2. A 'Romeo and Juliet 'Clause, which means reducing the criminality of statutory rape
in the case of consent between two people of a similiar age. Both amendments were rejected.
They also asked that section 5 be dropped, quoting a letter from the ombudsman for children.
They did not vote against the legislation.

The crisis that provoked the law and the insertion of section 5 was the release of Mister A
who did not use the 'honest belief' defence and admitted knowing the age of the girl.

The Labour Party objected to section 5, But stated that they would not 'impede its passage through the Dail'.

SF and the independents did not vote against the bill.

Concurrently The state were appealing the release of Mister A ,at the Supreme Court.

The legislation was pushed, unimpeded ,thru the Lower House.

Whilst it was being debated in the upper house (Seanad), Mr Mc Dowell took the opportunity
to announce that the State's case against Mister A had been won and he had been returned to Arbour Hill. The Bill passed thru the Upper House.

The President Signed the Bill into law.
The debate was chaired (in the Dail by Minister Michael Woods, who as Dept of education Chief
had hammered out the Church/State indemnity deal).

The original Crisis was provoked by the release of a man accused of rape who used the'Honest Belief' defence.

Mr Mc Dowell retained the 'Honest belief' defence, whilst inserting section 5
which criminalises both sexes for sexual activity and can lead to incarceration.
what a rape victim was wearing can be used in cross-examination evidence.

Almost three weeks later the Opposition, who have full 'privilege' within the chamber are
questioning the constitutionality of the legislation. And setting up all-party committees to look at the age of consent issue.

+ Ms Justice Laffoy headed up the Child Abuse commission, She resigned after stating
that a party to the commission had impeded the progress of the commission. She acted
within the perameters of the legislation that is on the statutes.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Fri Jul 07, 2006 22:21

The sub-committee or all -party Oireachtas committee which is look at the age of consent issue, the Statutory Rape laws and the general feck -up that was the "CC" case, the "A" case , the insertion of section 5 into the Criminal Law(sexual offences) legislation 2006
and the laughable earnestness of a Dail debate which was peppered with the words , oral sex, fellatio and chaired by the TD who signed the Church State indemnity deal (Mr Michael Woods TD) has formed a committe to speak of sex in all its aspects.

This committee is composed entirely of men.

The debate in the Dail consisted entirely of male politicians
who did not impede the passage of what is obviously a legislative time-bomb through both houses of the Oireachtas.

Thus , the already alienated woman community of Ireland now have suited males sitting in conference to discuss sexuality and Michael Mc Dowell. To define the law which will criminalise young kids of both sexes and to discuss how the issue affects the lives of women.

To re-iterate: not one woman TD addressed the Dail debate on the day of the passing of the legislation through the Dail.

Not one woman TD sits on the committee which will decide legislative policy with regard to Laws that effect the whole population.

The Dail went into Recess this afternoon.

The issue of representation , or the old 'jobs for the boys'
encyclical which disects the lack of women representation in the Irish parliament does not pertain here.

The Committee will be chaired by a Lenihan, Minister of State at the Dept of Health and Children.

by chris murray - the unmanageables Sat Jul 08, 2006 21:26

It is just that the speaking time was dominated by the men, given that
it was going to be a sword fight. Dissappointingly, ten minutes into the
debate , it was patently obvious that patriarchy reigned-
a couple of thousand women outside, across a road, barricaded.
The men in the room had to do the job. Mary Harney, as I said left first.

Liz was there in her designer shoes, climbing up and down the steps
for some ineffable reason. Given that each TD who had speaking time
was allowed full privlege, not one of them (except Joe Higgins) asked
what the f was going on, with section 5 and with the whole crisis,
caused by Laffoy's decision.

Now, the committee to talk of rape, sex, consent, morality and
possibly religion is a bunch of suits. chaired by Conor Lenihan.

*Mc Dowell's speech was punctuated by order bells, three times and the
refrain "Black Lies" (by him)..... for once I agree. This is nothing to do with
reality.

Question for the committee- Will they be asking the ngo.s, RCC etc to contribute
to the issue and will it be published in the newspapers. I want to make a written
insertion.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Mon Jul 10, 2006 21:33

That he welcomes the judgement on the Mister 'A' case which was published by the
Supreme court today. {we all do, Mister 'A' did not rely on the honest mistake mechanism
re-inserted into the legislation as well as the 'absurdity' of section 5, of the Criminal Law(sexual offences) Bill 2006.}

Unfortunately, the issue of the ' hastely drafted' legislation, the risible Dail debate and the double
whammy of Mc Dowell (Legislation and appeal to the supreme court on the same day) , Mr Ahern
was not here. The debate was led by Mary Harney, chaired (in the absence of the Ceann Comhairle,
Minister Michael Woods TD) and spoken on by male TD's. The committee (all party) set up to look at the complications of section 5, the constitutionality of section 5 , which criminalises both sexes on the consent issue is also led by a group of male TDs.

Minister Mc Dowell addressed the Seanad when Mister'A' was re-incarcerated, to great applause and everyone went off to summer recess. This is the first public comment attaching the leader of the
government, with whom the buck stops to the issue of statutory rape.

He was not present for the debate. He was in the States.

He did however attend the funeral of Charles Haughey and identified Charlie as ' a Man of the people'

This is indicative of a severe leadership defecit in relation to what has been a two month constitutional crisis.

I am glad Mr Ahern has publicly welcomed judgement on the Mister'A' case, however his cop-out at all other levels should be noted.

by The Cat Tue Jul 11, 2006 07:29

"Should we blame pedophiles for their actions, or treat them as ill?
Is not pedophilia a psychiatric disorder?"

This used to be the way people spoke of homosexuality. It is what it is. Do not think you can cure them.

by Pat Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:05

My point is that the psychiatric profession believe it is a disease.It is listed in the DSM of mental disorders as an illness.I don't believe it is an illness nor have I ever believed that homosexuality was a disease- unlike the psychiatric profession which did up until 1972- I belive that pedophiles should be held responsible for their actions which are evil .

by The Cat Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:20

Pat,
I agree completely. Paedophiles are sexually attracted to children and that is as natural for them as our sexuality is for us. This leaves the responsibility in our hands. It is up to society to determine what actions are to be taken. Michael Smith was still leering at children as the prison van brought him to the Curragh.

So folks, the question is whether chemical castration will stop male paedophiles, and what is to be done with the females?

by pat Tue Jul 11, 2006 13:14

I wouldn't say that it is natural for them be attracted to children. When they abuse children they must be subjected to the full rigour of the law and suffer a severe penalty. I'm not sure about chemical castration. This is about power and their abusing power over a vulnerable child.Responsibility is all our hands and each person must accept responsibility for their actions instead of blaming their behaviour on their pseudo psychiatric illness.

by The Cat Tue Jul 11, 2006 13:18

Pat, if it is not an illness then it must be natural. Just because it is natural does not mean that it is commendable or good for mankind. Cancer is natural, so are tsunamis.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Tue Jul 11, 2006 13:36

Who has not identified themselves.) Reaction aside re the consent issue, which is what I assume the argument is about-

Rape is an act of aggression and power it is not an act of sexual attraction.

The victims of rape are devastated by the use of power on their bodies, be they teenage boys, girls, children, women, men.

That is a fact.

The discussion in the original article and on the thread was: Who has the right to decide
on what is the age of consent. This was prompted by the insertion of section 5 into the statutory rape laws. As it happens, it seems that a minority of male TD's will decide the issue, though they will
talk to teenagers. The final issue rests with the house. To this important issue, no woman TD is adding her voice. This is a democratic defecit, coupled with a leadership defecit that points to the issue
being of control rather than of listening : ie The patriarchical/nanny state of interference.

The issue of consent in homosexuality or any other sex is up to the people involved, not the State.

The issue began with the 'CC' case wherein, a kid(whose lover was the same age) claimed
'honest belief' and was released, this led to the collapse of the law and the release of Mister'A'
who raped a 12 year old girl and did not claim 'honest mistake'.

The response to trhe crisis was the new law : or Mc Dowell's answer to a question no-one asked.

There is a vast difference between mutuality and an act of sexual aggression as power.
There is a vast difference between homosexuality and paedophillia.
The issue has been muddied by deliberate obfuscation. This is the responsibility of Minister Mc Dowell, who should resign.

No-one person has taken responsibility for the mess that ensued and has caused the suffering of victims of rape. (including Mister 'A''s victim).

Criminal Law(Sexual Offences) Bill 2006

by Pat Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:21

Cat,
your use of language is unfortunate
it is a behaviour and a choice- an evil one at that

by C Murray Mon Dec 11, 2006 14:35

The constitutional referendum on the rights of the child is on the backburner
because of the Statutory rape issue and the age of consent issue- both
reported in the above thread.

Minister Mc Dowell has been all over the lunchtime news calling the bishops
'superficial and unhelpful'- apparently they should have contributed
democratically to the debate as every other interest group in the country did.

except of course the debate, the committee and the issues were ignored and put
on the back-burner for countless administrations.

Here again we have the legislators and the moral guardians reducing the
issue of consent and rape to paternalistic notions of what is acceptable or
not.
1.Neither the legislature nor the church 'listened' to the victims (one of whom has
been sitting outside the Dail for over a year and has been assaulted a few times)
2. Kids get pregnant. It is of no use to apply a moral teaching to stigmatise a pregnant
kid because largely they are taken care of by the women who are tired of the twin bullshits
of the church and state, who have left the church and do not apply themselves to the
ballot boxes- it's about humanity.

A generation of Irish women 'witnessed' Ann Lovett and her baby dying in a grotto,
we do not apply the stigma or the sin or the paternalism to these kids, we look after
them in our communities. (Enda Kenny talks through his arse, in allying himself
to the bishops).

The other thing is that the state has failed to be brave enough to face up to the church
there have been many opportunities and each time there has been a failure.
one spectacular failure led to the last general election.

so in drafting future referenda it may be helpful to dump the ideologies and listen to
the kids who though pregnant at 15/16 are children and their rights (females)
are the right not to be judged. the right to privacy. the right to bodily integrity.
the right to individual choice in relation to health care (including medical /therapeutic
abortion).

Not one bishop or legislator is worth the life of a pregnant kid nor their right to
privacy.btw:- section 5 is still unconstitutional- no gender neutrality.

by C Murray Wed Jan 16, 2008 09:50

FG are gettng jumpy, the frontage of the Irish Times is today dominated by criticism of the second constitutional referendum
proposed for 2008 on the issue of child protection. so this is a ping. In june 2006 the whole opposition save Joe Higgins
of the socialist party brought in emergency laws in the wake of the'C' case. Enda Kenny as leader of the opposition
did not ask for Minister Mc Dowell's resignation, Labour did not impede the passage of the legislation through the Dail
despite asking for ungranted amendments and Greens opposed sections of the bill and read the Ombudsman for
Children's protest into the record.

The 'C' case collapsed and the entire Dail agreed that a committee be set up to amend the constitution, this committee
chaired by Mary O Rourke continues in consultation and will propose the amenedment 'in due course'. FG. lab. Green.
signed onto the dotted line and really now are hardly helping the issue by pretence at concern on protection.

There are numerous links on the Newswire regarding the run-up and legalese, but what FG are doing is bucking
against the NGO/Committee/RCC and other expert groups who have supported the examination of the constitutional
position that they left themselves in as a direct result of bi-partisanship within the Dail and refusal in cowardice
to confront the issue at the time- interesting one PD possibly spoke the truth at the time= Harney.

The laws instituted by Minister Mc Dowell were achievable within the constitution and there was no recourse
for protection against trafficking/abuse without this amendment to our constitution which now FG are protesting.
In other words the issue started in June 2006 and will finish with the proposed worded amendment
when it is published and there is no fecking point in disputing what they signed onto in the full knowledge
of both a media-led campaign and the glitches in the law which are detailed in the comments and articles
of that period.

FG are meeting today on the whole tax-clearance issue, which corners them into a terrible little corner,
they have consistently facilitated bad law and unfair speaking times over the last years.
http:/www.ireland.com

by UD Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:25

Yesterday whilst delivering the One in Four 2008 report, Senator O Rourke confirmed that
she would be recommending that a Constitutional Referendum for Children's Rights be
held. This is commonly known as 'The Child Protection Referendum'. I do hope someone
goes and reads the report on Diocesean responses to the Ryan (previously Laffoy Commission)
on Child sexual abuse and wonders why only two diosess have taken on board the need
to actually respond to the recommendations therein, its *quite* a huge topic and should
not be neglected.

Notes on a Scandal : http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76358?search_text=notes...andal

Referendum Recommendation: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0916/1....html

One in Four report : http://www.oneinfour.org/One_in_Four_2008_Annual_Report.pdf

It is three years since the 'A' through 'CC' cases necessitated the insertion of the unconstitutional
Section5 into Irish Law, Ms Harney being bound by the constitution affirmed that the govt would
set up a committee to look at the possibility of 'change'. That committeee recommended a
referendum to coincide with the first Lisbon Treaty, it was shelved. The Govt had better things
to do like create blasphemic criminalisations (another constitutional challenge to that will occur).
Now the chair of that committee has recommended that we as a society change our
constitution to accomodate the rights of the child . In this case the born child who has been
deprived of accepted rights in favour of the ephemeric controls of society evinced through
sucessive legislations to protect only the rights of the unborn.

Thats the type of society we have raised and nurtured our children in.

http://www.paddydoyle.com/

The link to the Ryan Commission recommendations from July 2009 are in url at the base of
this piece.

by Michelle Clarke - Social Justice Ethics and Dignity Wed Sep 16, 2009 18:27

UD

Well done. Our Children are a priority and it is 2006 when Chris Murray first wrote this article. The Rights of our Children are of paramount importance and perhaps a Referendum is required.

Letter to Minister Andrews....Prime Time and the number of children dead is a moral disgrace. I witness young people begging daily in Baggot Street. What options are there for them? Have we learnt 'nothing' from the Ryan Commission?

I am in Minister Andrews constituency and will take this opportunity to express my deep concern about children going missing from the HSE.

The Prime Time programme was excellent but when are we going to stop the 'Blame Game' and start taking some responsibility towards our young people. I am attaching these articles about Abuse of Children and the risks involved in children let 'go free with their spirit of freedom' and what can happen to them? We have high levels of young people trafficked into this country, we also have high levels of prostitution. We have children of alcoholics, mentally ill people, grown up way before their time. We as people have an obligation to look out for these young people. These articles mainly written by me on Indymedia are closed to further input.

I would ask Minister Andrews to consider this chronology of articles which outlines what our young people can be inveigled into and their extreme vulnerabilities. The number of deaths mentioned on Prime Time, leaves me shocked. I take the kind words of wisdom from Fr. McVerry and try to at least speak to those young people begging on our streets, even if I have no money. These young people are human beings. I worked with kindly nuns in Zimbabwe with mothers and children who were HIV positive back in the early 1990's. There was a hopelessness in that death was certain but there was one code of conduct taught by the nuns and that was 'Dignity in Death'. Our hospitals, particularly at Baggot Street, fail dismally here. Why? It was not the case, when the Royal City of Dublin Hospital stood resplendid on Baggot Street.

by UD - timing Wed Sep 16, 2009 19:20

Unfortunately the timing of these comments occurs during the NAMA *White* sale and like all FF magic realisms in approach to governance will be consigned beneath the usual foul mantra 'economy first' - sure didn't they call an election on the back of Wood's indemnity deal and hand the AG a seat in Justice ? The hope in Ms O Rourkes comments comes from the knowledge that she speaks not alone but as chair of a cross party committee.