General Election 2007 (Republic of Ireland)

by W. Finnerty. Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:59

In an effort to help get discussion on this subject under way, and hopefully moving in a useful direction, I provide two further quotes:

"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." (Thomas Jefferson at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson )

"The banks have corrupted parliaments and courts in order to achieve their seemingly invincible position. Through the parliaments, banks have set in place legislation which form the blue print and provide the means to realize their goal." (John Wilson at http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/ )

by john mcDermott - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsegw04LTAE Tue Apr 03, 2007 13:25

at least the present Taoiseach seems to have lost the plot, with his reelection speech,unless he thinks we are all muppets and monkeys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsegw04LTAE

by W. Finnerty Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:24

An "e-mail registered letter", that is an e-mail backed up by a printed and signed copy sent through the registered post on the same day, was yesterday sent to Mr John Glynn (barrister and principal lawyer at Hogan & Co) pointing out that Minister for Justice Michael McDowell TD is "perverting the course of justice" in a very serious manner.

As the offence of "perverting the course of justice" is a "criminal" one, it is (as far as I know) entirely the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies to deal with it. Consequently, a copy of the e-mail version of yesterday's letter to John Glynn was sent to Garda Commissioner Noel Conroy (Chief Commissioner of Police, Republic of Ireland).

A copy of yesterday's e-mail to John Glynn, which was also copied to several other senior public-servants (apart from Commissioner Conroy) can be viewed at the following address:
http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...r.htm

Some closely associated material, which involves information sent to the media, can be found at the address below:

by W. Finnerty. Mon Apr 09, 2007 14:09

In a slightly indirect way, and with the General Election 2007 (Republic of Ireland) in mind, an attempt has been made today to raise this matter with a selection of media organisations.

A copy of the e-mail used can be viewed at the following address:
http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...l.htm

by W. Finnerty. Sat Apr 21, 2007 09:56

As so many of the fears relating to such things as bullying and tyranny, which were held by the "Founding Fathers" of what we now know as the United States of America, appear to have come back again to haunt and threaten the world - more than EVER before in human history perhaps - and with several weeks still left before the 2007 General Election in the Republic of Ireland, some may find it interesting and useful to consider the contents of what many consider to be (in effect) the Preamble of the United States Declaration of Independence, which was adapted on July 4th 1776:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women of course) are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

by Nicholas Cage Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:23

they should send everyone a poster.

We're not letting u sign it - you're on moderation. Now everyone look mythic.

by watcher Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:24

"The Republic of Ireland" is a soccer team.

by W. Finnerty. Fri Apr 27, 2007 14:58

Allowing for the way the Criminal Justice Bill, which many believe is HIGHLY flawed, easily got through its final stages in Dail Eireann last Tuesday, it now seems to me that the subject of "unconstitutional legalisation" should definitely become an issue for the 2007 General Election.

I have no idea of how much unconstitutional legislation is now in place, in the form of bogus "law", but it could be a lot I suspect: judging by last Tuesday's performance in Dail Eireann.

In an effort to try and challenge all those TDs who appear to be completely ignoring Bunreacht na hEireann (the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland), an e-mail was sent this morning to a number of TDs which has attempted to raise the following two issues:

1) "The Constitution of Ireland, according to O'Dalaigh CJ. in In re Haughey (1971), is founded on the doctrine of the tripartite division of powers of government - legislative (Oireachtas), executive (Government) and judicial (Courts)."
 
2) "Abuse of power by one can be checked by the others and tyranny, hopefully, is prevented."

What happened last Tuesday, as I see things, is that the Government attempted to ABUSE ITS POWERS by producing a Bill which removes the constitutional "right to silence", and Dail Eireann (part of the Oireachtas) failed to block it: as they have a duty to do.

There is no good reason at all (that I know of) for this kind of outrageous behaviour.

I say "outrageous" because removing the constitutional "right to silence", which "a phalanx of senior lawyers" (according to the March 29th 2007 edition of the Irish Independent Newspaper) pleaded with Minister for Justice Michael McDowell NOT to do, looks to me like a very important step in the direction of tyranny.

For anyone interested, a copy of the full text of this morning's to Minister McDowell (and several others) can be viewed at the following address: http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...l.htm

by damien Fri Apr 27, 2007 15:08

William,

The bill does not remove the right to silence as you claim. All it does is clarify the scenarios in which an inference can be drawn from a suspects refusal to answer a question.

If you insist on continuing to post such drivel can you not try to at least ensure factual correctness???

by W. Finnerty. Fri Apr 27, 2007 16:23

damien (or who ever you are),

So why did the "phalanx of senior lawyers" (as reported on the March 29th 2007 edition of the Irish Independent) take the time and trouble to deliver a letter - by hand - to Minister McDowell regarding this matter?

If I remember rightly, 140 or so lawyers signed the letter in question.

Perhaps you might also explain why you attack me with the use of words such as "drivel" and so on?

"Methinks he doth protest too much"?

And who are you anyway? Why are you trying to bully and abuse me, and make legal assertions, in such a cowardly way from behind a wall of anonymity?

Is it perhaps because you wish to make statements - which may be false, and purely for the purpose of misleading people - and at the same time not have to take any responsibility at all for such statements?

What evidence can you provide us with that "The bill does not remove the right to silence" as you claim?

I think you should be completely ignored, and that's what I'll be doing: until (and if) you tell us all who you are exactly.

by Damien Fri Apr 27, 2007 16:46

Firstly, when you publish these stupid claims, it's up to you to backup your claims, not for me to disproove them.

However seeing as how easy it is to disprove this and most of your other crazy suggestions I'll do it anyway.

From Ireland.com : "The Bill also made some changes to the right-to-silence rule in criminal cases, clarifying the circumstances where inferences may be drawn if an accused person fails to answer certain questions when questioned by gardaí."

From justice.ie : The Bill clarifies the circumstances in which inferences may be drawn for a failure by an accused to answer questions

Links :

http://www.justice.ie/80256E01003A02CF/vWeb/pcDOJA6ZBRSY-en
www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0315/breaking39.htm

Now can you proove that the right to silence has been removed as you have falsly claimed?

by Chekov Fri Apr 27, 2007 16:55

The "right to silence" when arrested has traditionally meant that no inference of guilt can be drawn from a failure to answer a question. If an inference of guilt can be drawn from a failure to answer a question, there is no right to silence, or, as in this case, that right is diminished.

Damien, you're being very aggressive for somebody who doesn't seem to understand what the right to silence means.

Incidentally, when this sort of legislation was brought in to the UK a few years back, it was quickly discovered that one could respond "On advice of my solicitor, I will not answer the question" or some such recipe and no inference of guilt could be drawn.

by C Murray Fri Apr 27, 2007 17:09

I started a thread on the right to silence which has now travelled down off the newswire
but still in comments.

The presumption that everyone is activist or aware of legal rights is indicative of
complacence, afterall, not everyone is highly educated or au fait with their rights.

Indeed we are faced with the criminalisation of kids.
People with intellectual disabilites.
people who may not speak the language.

Imagine a 16 year old with asphergers/autism/low IQ being picked up by the cops.
Given the legal precedence set by the Ian Horgan case and the laws of June 2006,
one would assume that informing a kid who may be hours in custody before making
parental contact is not wholly aware of these rights.

Or in a social work /state care environment.

Given that the Independent ignored the Bill. The Times Relegated it to
an inside page and the tabloids did not mention it are we to casually asume
that everyone who buys media knows and understands their rights in relation to
arrest and detention?
Do we have to tell our kids everytime they leave the house.

Last night a man died in Garda custody in Togher in Cork. he was in a cell
alone and has massive head injuries. there will be enquiries.

For once it would be nice to see members 0f political parties informing
people of how the law changed and to create context instead of ducking the issue
and reducing it to arguments that are complacent and lazy.

this is a huge change in accepted rights which lawyers and judges have opposed.
Which SF and green have opposed.

by damien Fri Apr 27, 2007 17:25

"The "right to silence" when arrested has traditionally meant that no inference of guilt can be drawn from a failure to answer a question"

By definition, the right to silence means that a person questioned by police may remain silent, no more, no less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence

In the past it was not possible to draw inferences from this silence,.this has now changed.

The suspect still has the right to remain silent if they wish ; therefore they still have a right to remain silent.

by Chekov Fri Apr 27, 2007 17:36

Damien, you've just posted a link to a webpage that includes this in the very first paragraph:

"The right covers a number of issues centred around the right to refuse to answer questions. This can be the right to avoid self-incrimination or the right to not answer any questions. The right usually includes the provision that adverse comment or inferences cannot be made by the judge or jury about the refusal to answer questions before or during a trial or hearing."

You've now conclusively proved that you're simply trying to win an argument and you don't care at all about whether you're right or not. You didn't even bother to read the very first paragraph of the single source that you cited which flatly contradicts your assertion that it "means that a person questioned by police may remain silent, no more, no less."

Your next challege is to make yourself look even more foolish by continuing your argument in a new and interesting way.

by W. Finnerty. Sat Apr 28, 2007 08:45

Chekov: I find myself fully in agreement with your "Patience running out" comments above.

I also remain firmly of the belief that the C. Murray statement "this is a huge change in accepted rights" is absolutely correct. (Please see 1709 posing above.)

Thankfully, the "huge change" has not actually happened yet though; and, although the point appears to have been completely lost on "damien", whoever "damien" is, the main reason I sent the e-mail at the address provided (again) further down, which was sent at 09.23.05 yesterday morning, was to try and put a "spanner-in-the-works" regarding the plan to conclude the Criminal Justice Bill debate in the Seanad (Republic of Ireland Senate) "by Friday" - as stated in the last sentence of the RTE report at http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0424/dail.html .

I feel I should also now point out, as well, and especially as "damien" and his kind appear to "miss" such things completely, that the people my e-mail of yesterday was copied to, took account of the fact that I knew Prime Minister Ahern TD has been invited to speak before the joint houses of Parliament at Westminster on May 15th 2007.

The address for viewing my e-mail to Minister For Justice McDowell TD (and several others), sent yesterday morning, and as has already been pointed out in my 1458 posting above, is:
http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...l.htm

by W. Finnerty. Tue May 15, 2007 22:03

In recent days, some efforts have been made to try and make the United Nations "Aarhus Convention Agreement" an issue for the May 24th General Election.

Article 1 ("The Main Objective") of the Aarhus Convention Agreement - which the Republic of Ireland signed in 1998 - reads as follows:

"In order to contribute to the protection of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well being, each party shall guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters in accordance with the provisions of this Convention."

This morning's attempt to try and point out the long-standing and completely unexplained problem relating to ratification, which was in part meant to celebrate Prime Minister Ahern's address in Westminster today, can be viewed at:
http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...l.htm