Villagers: Letters to the Editor 2006-01-05
Citizen/State relationship: Irish citizens are not all equal
Recent criticisms of the Minister for Justice regarding his tactics in the Connolly affair have for the most part been based on what is surely a misunderstanding of the nature of the State/citizen relationship in our Republic and how this impacts on the equality of citizens and their rights in relation to State law. Arising from the conditions under which the State was created, this relationship has until recently been shrouded in ambiguity: simply put, are we citizens or are we (still) subjects? It so happens that in recent years this ambiguity has been resolved decisively in favour of the State and away from the notion of the equality of citizens and their rights before the laws of the State. Yet majority opinion continues in the belief of the equality of citizens as being a corner-stone of this State.
As an example of this misplaced belief, a recent opinion piece by Eddie Holt (17 December) in the Irish Times – an essay of trenchant criticism of the approach adopted by the Minister in this particular case – includes the following statement in support of his arguments: "After all, in a democratic republic, one citizen is the precise equal of all others". Well-chosen words in support of what Holt considers, along with many others, to be a self-evident truth of our Republic.
In reality, whatever the ambiguities surrounding this question heretofore, the principles of equality between citizens and the protections afforded them by the Constitution were found absolutely not to apply to the circumstances of this State at the time of the Supreme Court Ruling of 28 January, 2003 on the status and rights of citizens born to non-citizens. Contrary to widely-held expectations at the time, the Constitution was found not to afford equal protection to all its citizens on foot of this judgment.
In fairness to Holt, his misapprehension of the situation is widespread: in fact the failure of the 1937 Constitution as guarantor of the equal rights of citizens and as the enshrinement of the social contract between state and citizen as equal parties – a critical lacuna identified by this Supreme Court interpretation – attracted very little attention at the time, and virtually none since.
So, any challenges contemplated to State institutions and their agents on the basis of citizens' equal rights, etc, will need in the future to be much more carefully considered if they are to have any hope of succeeding or to have any relevance.
The following quote from one of the conclusions to the majority opinions, which informed the court's ruling, is a clear exposition of the nature of the State/citizen relationship, where it lays out clearly in this instance how the rights of the citizen can be superseded by those of "the family" in circumstances where this is deemed to be in the interests of the State:
"The Minister may deport parents if he is satisfied that for good and sufficient reason the common good requires that the residence of the parents within the State should be terminated, even though that has the necessary consequence that in order to remain a family unit the child who is an Irish citizen must also leave the State."
The significance of this ruling for the principle of equal citizenship cannot be overstated, given for instance, the much more flexible interpretation that the State can attach to the nebulous and passive concept of "The family" as a legal entity pre-empting the rights of the enfranchised, self-aware and autonomously-acting citizen. The citizen is, and always has been, a subject of the State created in his/her name.
Peter Walsh, Greystones, Co Wicklow
Fianna Fáil versus Sinn Féin: Sinn Féin exact replica of 1920s Fianna Fáil
As a Fianna Fáil supporter, I read with amazement the attack on Sinn Féin by John O'Donoghue TD. It appears to me that O'Donoghue badly needs a crash course in Irish history.
Sinn Féin at this time is almost an exact replica of Fianna Fáil in the late twenties and early thirties. In 1928, Seán Lemass described Fianna Fáil as a slightly constitutional party. Between 1928 and 1934, Fianna Fáil kept in close contact with the IRA. The party was glad to accept the support of the IRA in the 1932/1933 elections. To show this appreciation, Frank Aiken immediately released all Republican prisoners. During those years, the very same kind of insults that are being cast at Sinn Féin were being thrown at Fianna Fáil. It is interesting that, in recent times, there has been a silence from Paisley and Empey. Their work is now being effectively done by people like Minister for Justice Michael McDowell and O'Donoghue.
In recent days, there have been media reports that the Orange Order has invited McDowell to speak at their proposed march in Dublin. O'Donoghue should join him on the platform.
Michael O'Connor, Macroom, Co Cork
Response to Pierce Martin: Dismantling of the British empire 'long and bloody'
If it was the case, as Pierce Martin (Village, 22 December) claims, that "only the most reactionary elements within the British political establishment believed that the Empire was not beyond its sell-by-date. Most British politicians saw the dismantling of the Empire through constitutional means as not only inevitable, but desirable. The contribution of violent Irish republicanism to the break up of the British Empire is not something to be proud of". This "dismantling" took an inordinately long and bloody time to achieve.
Why, may I ask, did the British as late as the 1950s drive 320,000 Kikuyu into concentration camps during the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya, hang 1090 suspected rebels and create "enclosed villages" into which more than a million Kikuyu were headed? In her book Britain's Gulag, Caroline Elkins describes the horrendous tortures carried out by British soldiers and white settlers during the suppression of the Mau Mau revolt. Tens of thousands died of starvation or disease in the camps and thousands more were hunted down and killed.
Pierce Martin describes the 1916 leaders as "our cruel founding fathers" but concedes that "despite their despicable crimes, death at the end of a firing squad was both morally and tactically wrong". It could have been worse, General Maxwell and elements in the British political establishment wanted a large pit dug for many more of the rebels.
The brutal suppression of independence movements in India, Cyrpus, the then Rhodesia – the list goes on – hardly indicates that there was a recognition of the need for the "inevitable and desirable dismantling" of the British Empire. The "morally and tactically wrong" policies continued ad nauseum.
Charles Cullen, Dublin 8, Village reporting
Political 'security services'
Matt Cooper (NewsTake, Village, 22-28 December) ought to know that sleepers and spies have long since infiltrated the "heart of the political, [academic] and media establishments" in Ireland. I only remain amused by the tentative manner of Cooper's asking; isn't this the case everywhere? Unpaid true believers, the patently unhinged and all brands of political self-server abound. We could all name one or more if pressed.
Axiomatically, if by default, professional security services operate largely as powers unto themselves. They are charged with policing the "secret" and to do a good job in that sphere you have to know "everything" and it is from such knowledge that spook power is derived and endlessly re-constituted.
Professional spooks may wield, by default, extra-parliamentary powers but they are neither omniscient nor omnipresent, which means they rely heavily on informer "intelligence" and labour. By definition both commodities are compromised and this is where the whole intelligence show normally comes hurtling off the rails.
The low-intensity, ideological warfare of the 1980s in Britain made that period a golden-age for Blimpish zealots and political self-servers. It also spawned a plethora of small, well-financed, pro-Thatcher business-based political organisations which attracted/recruited lumpen labour. In short, avalanches of one-sided "tittle tattle intelligence" was generated and I believe, as a heavily involved member of the Communist Party in the UK at the time, I was identified and ear-marked for sidelining by poison.
My first "illness" was flu-like. My second "illness" occurred on an offshore oil platform. Alone in my cabin I suffered all the classic symptoms of a heart attack yet doctors maintained I had a "heart like a lion". After suffering a second "heart attack", I began to think the unthinkable. I simply do not have a weak heart. You may draw your own conclusions.
Seosamh Ó'Luain, Dublin 1
Working conditions better in public health than private
I refer to Sara Burke's article, 'Working for 1 euro per hour' in Village (29 December). The article outlines new research by Dr Jane Pillinger on the working conditions of migrant women in Ireland. The Irish Nurses Organisation (INO) was involved in this research in so far as it related to migrant nurses/midwives in Ireland. Unfortunately, it was reported in the article that nurses working in the public sector were paid badly, worked very long hours and felt exploited. The article goes on to say that the private sector had a good track record of unionisation and rights for migrant workers. In fact the opposite is true, in that it is the public sector which is unionised and has a good track record for migrant workers.
This may well have been an error in the reporting of Dr Pillinger's research. However, it is important to set the record straight, as the INO has worked for many years on behalf of migrant nurses and midwives and we can state without hesitation that the absolute majority of cases of exploitation are to be found in the private sector.
Can I congratulate Dr Pillinger for an excellent report and Village for highlighting the ongoing exploitation of migrant workers in Ireland.
Clare Treacy, Director of Organisation and Social Policy, Irish Nurses Organisation, Whitworth Building, North Brunswick St, Dublin 7
Extraordinary rendition: Prisoners may be silenced or killed with Ireland's help
Of very particular concern over this Christmas period has been the fate of several dozen prisoners who have been transferred from secret prisons known as "Black Sites" in Europe to what could be described as "Black Hole" prisons in non-European states such as Morocco and Egypt.
We urge the Irish media to advocate on behalf of the lives of these tortured prisoners, and to do so immediately. We believe that the sudden transfer of these prisoners from European countries, including Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, to prisons in non-democratic states makes it likely they will undergo further torture.
We are very concerned that this particular group of prisoners, possibly several dozen, will simply disappear after torture, in order to avoid "embarrassing" the US and its "rendition" allies, including Ireland. This means that these prisoners may either be executed or held in secret custody for the rest of their lives.
We appeal to the International Red Cross, and to the United Nations to investigate this particular problem, and to insist immediately that the US complies with international laws and conventions by producing a full list of all such prisoners, and by providing the Red Cross and Red Crescent with immediate and continuing access to all of these prisoners.
It is dreadful to know, or to believe, that prisoners might have been tortured over this Christmas period with our Government's assistance, or due to our Government's failures to take even basic preventative and investigative measures. Some of these prisoners may be unlawfully and unjustifiably executed.
Edward Horgan, Mary Kelly, Tim Hourigan and Deirdre Morgan, Peace Activists
STATEMENT: Dublin City Council's poster ban breaches human rights law
Civil liberty groups and politicians have criticised Dublin City Council (DCC) management for censoring the freedom of expression of groups and campaigns in Dublin City.
For more than a year DCC has refused outright to grant permission to campaigns and community groups to erect posters advertising public events and meetings. For example, DCC refused permission to poster to the anti-Bin Tax campaign, the Shell to Sea campaign, Frank McBrearty's campaign against Garda corruption, homelessness campaigners, the Irish Anti-War movement and many more.
It is legal (according to Section 19(7) of the Litter Pollution Act 1997) to put up posters for a public meeting once they are removed seven days after the event. However, Tom Loftus, head of waste management at Dublin City Council and Owen Keegan, former Director of Traffic, both admitted that the blanket ban on postering "is a management decision". However, the ban does not extend to postering by DCC itself to advertise Smithfield on Ice, which its operates with BUPA.
DCC's ban on postering violates the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 (ECHR Act), according to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL).
The ECHR Act 2003 came into force in 2003 and requires "every organ of the State [to] perform its functions in a manner compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights".
Article 10 of the Convention states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers..."
The Convention provides greatest protection to political speech and the right to engage in public debate about matters of public interest.
Cllr Joan Collins (Independent) and Cllr Dessie Ellis (Sinn Féin) have put down a motion to reverse the ban for the next meeting of Dublin City Council on 9 January and are appealing to all parties in the council to support it. If all Labour Party, Sinn Féin, Green and Independent councillors vote in favour of the motion, it will be passed. This is an opportunity for councillors who purport to uphold democratic principles to show it in practice. The Campaign for Free Speech in Dublin is organising a protest to pressure the councillors at City Hall at 6.15pm on Monday 9 January while the meeting takes place.
"Any motion to amend the current ban on postering in Dublin City should be supported, as Dublin City Council is in violation of its obligations under section 3 of the ECHR Act 2003," according to Aisling Reidy, Director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. "The Council can choose to undertake the appropriate action and amend its policy to comply with its human rights obligations, or it can continue to violate the rights under the ECHR and wait until a victim is in a position to go to court to vindicate their rights. The first course of action is the one that demonstrates respect for democracy and balanced policies – the second would be the one of a school yard bully," said Reidy.
This postering ban is only the tip of the iceberg of Government agencies' and local authorities' clampdown on civil liberties. Just look at the treatment of the Centre for Public Inquiry, the terrible injustice being meted out to the people of Rossport, Co Mayo and the plans to introduce Anti Social Behaviour Orders. Where is it going to stop?
Rory Hearne, Campaign for Free Speech in Dublin