Controversial laws facing presidential challenge

Sully

President Mary McAleese today challenged two controversial new laws dealing with gangland criminals and blasphemy.

In an unusual move, the president called a meeting of the Council of State to discuss the legality of the legislation rather than simply signing them into law.

The Council of State is a 22-member team made up of the most senior serving and former office-holders in the country which advises the president on whether a law is constitutional.

But the president alone will make the decision on whether to refer the legislation to the Supreme Court after the meeting next Wednesday at Aras an Uachtaráin.

The two Bills being questioned are the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 and the Defamation Bill 2006, which were pushed through the Oireachtas over the past week.

The Criminal Justice Bill allows for gangland suspects to be tried in the non-jury Special Criminal Court.

It also allows “opinion evidence” from Garda members to be used in court.

More than 130 lawyers wrote a public letter last week demanding the legislation be withdrawn, claiming Ireland would be shamed by it in the eyes of the international community.

The Defamation Bill, introduced by then Justice Minister Michael McDowell three years ago but finally guided through the Oireachtas in recent days by Justice Minister Dermot Ahern, reforms the State’s libel laws.

It provoked an outcry over its inclusion of a new crime of blasphemous libel.

President McAleese has only called a meeting of the Council of State over concerns about proposed laws on four previous occasions during her 12 years in office.

On one occasion, the president – herself a distinguished lawyer – refused to sign the Health (Amendment) Bill into law in 2002 after the Supreme Court found parts of it were unconstitutional.

On two occasions she decided to sign contested Bills after consultation and on the other occasion she signed the Bill into law after the Supreme Court ruled it was not unconstitutional.

Bills must be signed by the president after going through both the Dáil and Seanad before they become law.

The Council of State includes Taoiseach Brian Cowen, Tánaiste Mary Coughlan, Chief Justice John L Murray, President of the High Court Richard Johnson and Attorney General Paul Gallagher.

Former President Mary Robinson and five ex-Taoisigh, Liam Cosgrave, Garret Fitzgerald, Albert Reynolds, John Bruton and Bertie Ahern are automatically members.

Members appointed by the president are Col Harvey Bicker, Anastasia Crickley, Mary Davis, Martin Mansergh, Enda Marren, Professor Denis Moloney and Daraine Mulvihill.

Source: http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/controversial-laws-facing-presidential-challenge-419112.html#ixzz0LY6rmGWs

Interesting that she has indeed queried this. I wonder what will be discussed and will she take the party word for it? Its good to see that she has been listening to the concerns from people and will query areas of her concern, to ensure that if its passed it is done so correctly.

Does the Council of State change depending on who is in government?

deadhead13

Sully wrote: »

Does the Council of State change depending on who is in government?

Yes......... and No. The Taoiseach and Tanasiste of the day are members. So are Former office holders and the President can appoint 7 other members.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/the-president/council_of_state

dresden8

She's not challenging anything.

It's being examined to see if there are any constitutional issues. If there could be, she'll ask the supreme court to make a ruling.

Then that's it, it's in and can't be challenged again.

pigeonbutler

The government are quite happy for the criminal justice bill to be referred to the supreme court as that will definitively determine the constitutionality of the law and prevent any protracted legal wrangling as individual sections are invoked by the State.

ninty9er

I don't know who these 130 lawyers are, but I have a sneaking suspicion they're saying it would "shame Ireland" as a cover for "it'll make our jobs really difficult in representing scum". Of course there are probably some of them who have a genuine moral objection, but I doubt that party is significant.

johnnyskeleton

pigeonbutler wrote: »

The government are quite happy for the criminal justice bill to be referred to the supreme court as that will definitively determine the constitutionality of the law and prevent any protracted legal wrangling as individual sections are invoked by the State.

It's a sad state of affairs that people presume that if the bill is sent to the current Supreme Court they will simply rubber stamp it. It's not an unfair assumption to be honest, but I'd like to think that our supreme court does more than just accept whatever the government throws at them. Also, if the Supreme Court doesn't reject the bill and the ECHR later condemns it, we would look rather foolish.

ninty9er wrote: »

I don't know who these 130 lawyers are, but I have a sneaking suspicion they're saying it would "shame Ireland" as a cover for "it'll make our jobs really difficult in representing scum". Of course there are probably some of them who have a genuine moral objection, but I doubt that party is significant.

Always assume the worst eh? Well how about this one - if the new act will be targeting the untouchables of gangland, that will result in more trials. Surely that will make life better for lawyers. Don't forget as well that a lot of the lawyers who signed it prosecute so not all of their jobs are about "representing scum".

Does nobody else remember that the DPP's budget has been cut a few times recently with the DPP warning that less funds = less prosectuions for serious offences? It's all very well to pass these acts and say you are tough on crime, but it becomes pointless if you don't actually give the prosecution enough funding to bring these cases. And what garda is going to have the time to investigate these cases if they are short staffed and don't get any overtime? And where will we put these new convicts when they are sentenced to an overcrowded jail?

pigeonbutler

I wasn't suggesting the court would rubber stamp the bill but merely that a definitive answer would be obtained one way or another.

Wheely

ninty9er wrote: »

I don't know who these 130 lawyers are, but I have a sneaking suspicion they're saying it would "shame Ireland" as a cover for "it'll make our jobs really difficult in representing scum".

Yeah that much is true. Maybe find out before airing your "sneaking suspicions"....

ninty9er

ninty9er wrote: »

I don't know who these 130 lawyers are

Their names all appeared underneath their letter in the Irish Times. If you want to pass an opinion the least you could do is read the letter where they outline their objections and perhaps consider their arguments.

For the record:

Irish Times wrote:

We the undersigned urge the Government to withdraw this Bill and instead provide for a short consultative period during which reasoned debate can be heard. – Yours, etc,

CAROLINE BUTLER, Solicitor. AILEEN DONNELLY, SC. DARA ROBINSON, solicitor. BRENDAN GREHAN, SC. MICHAEL STAINES, solicitor. ROGER SWEETMAN, SC. FRANK BUTTIMER, solicitor. PATRICK GAGEBY, SC. YVONNE BAMBURY, solicitor. MARY ELLEN RING, SC. MOIRIN MOYNIHAN, solicitor. LUAN O BRAOINAIN, SC. TED McCARTHY, Solicitor. MICHAEL O’HIGGINS, SC. PETER MULLAN, solicitor.

MAURICE GAFFNEY, SC. GRAINNE MALONE, solicitor. PAUL McDERMOTT, SC. CATHERINE GHENT, solicitor. COLEMAN FITZGERALD, SC. MICHAEL KELLEHER, solicitor. ISEULT O’MALLEY, SC. DONOUGH MOLLOY, solicitor. BLAISE O’CARROLL, SC. SHALOM BINCHY, solicitor. CONOR DEVALLY, SC. DANNY HANAHOE, solicitor. DEIRDRE MURPHY, SC. EMER O’SULLIVAN, solicitor. ANTHONY SAMMON, SC. AINE FLYNN, solicitor. ERWIN MILL ARDEN, SC. GERRY O’BRIEN, SC. EANNA MULLOY, SC. DAVID GOLDBERG, SC. MARJORIE FARRELLY, SC. BRIDGET ROUSE, solicitor. CIARA McCANN, solicitor. SIMON FLEMING, solicitor. FERGAL FOLEY, BL. REMY FARRELL, BL. VINCENT HENEGHAN, BL. SEÁN GILLANE, BL. COLM O BRIAIN, BL. RONAN MUNRO, BL. JUSTIN McQUADE, BL. TOM O’MALLEY, BL. MARTINA BAXTER, BL. PAUL CARROLL, BL. MARY ROSE GEARTY, BL. ANNE MARIE LAWLOR, BL. PAUL GREENE, BL. TONY McGILLICUDDY, BL. KERIDA NAIDOO, BL. KAREN O’CONNOR, BL. STEPHEN McCANN, BL. SIOBHAN Ní CHULACHAIN, BL. JAMES B. DWYER, BL. UNA Ni RAIFEARTAIGH, BL. REBECCA SMITH, BL. MICHAEL BOWMAN, BL. WILLIE GALVIN, BL. MAIREAD GREY, BL. ELVA DUFFY, BL. CARL HANAHOE, BL. DAMIEN SHERIDAN, BL. JIM McCULLOUGH, BL. DIARMUID COLLINS, BL. DEAN KELLY, BL. PHILIPP RAHN, BL. JOHN BYRNE, BL. KIERAN KELLY, BL. EMMA BROWNE, BL. EOIN LAWLOR, BL. DAVID HEGARTY, BL. OLAN CALLANAN, BL. DIANA STUART, BL. SUZANNE FLEURY, BL. FIONNUALA O’SULLIVAN, BL. PIETER Le VERT, BL. KEITH SPENCER, BL. SONYA DONNELLY, BL. AOIFE CARROLL, BL. SILE ROONEY, BL. RONAN KENNEDY, BL. BRIAN GAGEBY, BL. PADDY McGRATH, BL. JANE O’REILLY, BL. MICHAEL DILLON, BL.

LILY BUCKLEY, BL. LORCAN STAINES, BL. DAVID STAUNTON, BL. MICHAEL HOURIGAN, BL. RORY STAINES, BL. KATIE DAWSON, BL. LISA DEMPSEY, BL. DEREK COONEY, BL. EMMETT NOLAN, BL. TOM NEVILLE, BL. CATHERINE ROBERTS, BL. EOIN HARDIMAN, BL. DAMIEN COLGAN, BL. LEO MULROONEY, BL.

KATHERINE McCULLICUDDY, BL. IMELDA KELLY, BL. NICOLA COX, BL. KAREN TALBOT, BL. SIMON BRADY, BL. SHANE DWYER, BL. GRAHAM O’DOHERTY, BL. MARIA LANE, BL. MARK MURPHY, BL. Zena Al-Nazer, BL. MUIRÍOSA REGAN, BL. DAVID PAUL BURKE, BL. CONALL Mac CARTHY, BL. MARTIN DULLY, BL. ANTHONY HANRAHAN, BL. MAURICE COFFEY, BL. LIBBY CHARLETON, BL. ULTAN McCABE, BL.

GARRETT McCORMACK, BL. MARK BYRNE, BL. MARGARET McEVILLY, solicitor. MAURA KELLY, solicitor. SUZANNE DOWLING, solicitor. FIONA McGOWAN, BL. NIALL NOLAN, BL. JULIA FOX, BL. KATHLEEN LEADER, BL. SHANE REYNOLDS, solicitor. RICHARD YOUNG, solicitor. DEBORAH KELLEHER, solicitor.

Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0708/1224250237263.html

Akrasia

I'd love to know how much the council of state is going to pay the members for attending.
I'd say Bertie Ahern is demanding at least a 5 figure sum plus 'expenses'

lostexpectation

both laws were signed off on by the president

Red Alert

So the question remains- now that they are in effect, will this blasphemy legislation drag us further back into the 1950's?

jonnyfingers

Red Alert wrote: »

So the question remains- now that they are in effect, will this blasphemy legislation drag us further back into the 1950's?

Jesus Christ I hope not!

But how are they going to enforce this law? Is it only for blasphemous statements in the media or anybody walking down the street taking the lord's name in vein within earshot of a Garda?

grumpytrousers

Bear with me whilst i put to one side legal concerns vis-a-vis the blasphemy thing. As i understand it, enshrined in the constitution, is some sort of thing saying blasphemy is bad. There's no law to back it up on the statute books.

The government can do one of two things.

a) Hold a constitutional referendum to have the reference removed from the constitution
b) pass a law so as to comply with the constitution - that blasphemy is an offence.

It doesn't matter HOW cack-handed the law actually is, or how unworkable, as long as it's there, the constitution is not being breached.

It's kinda cynical, but it's a cheaper way of keeping things straight than the referendum route. AFAIK the Council of State and the SC will only opine/pronounce on whether the law is constitutional, not whether it's actually workable.

I think it's another classic case of an Irish solution to an Irish problem. Blasphemy becomes an offence, but it'll be impossible to be convicted of it!

lostexpectation

cost isn't an issue with referendums

grumpytrousers

lostexpectation wrote: »

cost isn't an issue with referendums

Well it is in that it costs money to run them. Closing down schools so you've got polling stations, the cost of having staff man the stations, the cost of counting and all that goes with it? The government has to sign the cheque at the end of the day, and as we're presently managing to borrow €400m per week just to keep the present show on the road, why bump that up by another few million?

It's probably a 'relatively' small amount, but the outcry there would be if the Government were to run a referendum on this would be sizeable. "Can't they find something else to fling money at, etc etc etc"

lostexpectation

it could have been done the same day as lisbon 2

which outcry, your outcry?, the mythic public outcry?

again cost isn't an issue with referendums

you say there only 2 options you say you don't agree with renewing the law

therefore have a referendum. simple.

bernardo mac

So this is the 130 concerned legal group who believe the new legislation will bring "shame" on our nation.Are they not aware of the shame and ignominy many have to endure in their daily lives close to social anarchy in all its ugly forms:murder,theft,verbal and physical intimidation,drug abuse,drug pushing,assaults on emergency services,bus services ,house burning,intimidation of visiting local health nurses...Shame on our courts for letting killers loose,shame on our courts for their ineffectiveness in being a vital organ of justice for the victim,for not protecting the vulnerable.Legal eagles,it seems,can perch on the safety of a lofty eyrie,from which they can theorise and pontificate about human rights.It seems they are blind to the reality of the precarious existence that many endure" beneath them"!

grumpytrousers

lostexpectation wrote: »

it could have been done the same day as lisbon 2

which outcry, your outcry?, the mythic public outcry?

again cost isn't an issue with referendums

you say there only 2 options you say you don't agree with renewing the law

therefore have a referendum. simple.

I was trying to present the rationale behind the government NOT having a referendum rather than justify it. I'd have no difficulty whatsoever with a referendum if it was held tomorrow.

Now that I've said that, the fact remains that there's a cost there. Is it justified? I dunno. It's not quite as 'important' an issue (blasphemy) in this day and age as, say, a referendum on gay marriage would be. I'm suggesting - SUGGESTING - that the chances are with money being haemorrhaged as it is, that the money could be better spent, and that legislating for it, rather than having a referendum would be cheaper.

I can't think of another option open to the government. They either remove the reference to blasphemy from the constitution, thereby cleaning the slate, or make a law to deal with the constitutional imperative. They're choosing the cheaper option.

I'm not, as i say, trying to justify this - merely making the point that there's an element of political expediency in this.

Cost is an issue with everything the government does. If they were to run an referendum, then they have to up the referendum commission budget so they can send an information booklet to every household. The printing, delivery, design etc, doesn't come cheap, and i'd reckon the public would rather the money be spent elsewhere.

lostexpectation

if we need a referendum we have one. simple, your still making excuses for them

theres a whole queue of them that the gov have been delaying

grumpytrousers

lostexpectation wrote: »

if we need a referendum we have one. simple, your still making excuses for them

theres a whole queue of them that the gov have been delaying

I'm not making excuses. Frankly i couldn't give a continental f*ck if they have a referendum every other Wednesday.

I'd rather, however, that they didn't if there's a cheaper option, seeing as i'll end up paying for it. As will you.

sceptre

lostexpectation wrote: »

theres a whole queue of them that the gov have been delaying

What else is in this queue?

walrusgumble

bernardo mac wrote: »

So this is the 130 concerned legal group who believe the new legislation will bring "shame" on our nation.Are they not aware of the shame and ignominy many have to endure in their daily lives close to social anarchy in all its ugly forms:murder,theft,verbal and physical intimidation,drug abuse,drug pushing,assaults on emergency services,bus services ,house burning,intimidation of visiting local health nurses...Shame on our courts for letting killers loose,shame on our courts for their ineffectiveness in being a vital organ of justice for the victim,for not protecting the vulnerable.Legal eagles,it seems,can perch on the safety of a lofty eyrie,from which they can theorise and pontificate about human rights.It seems they are blind to the reality of the precarious existence that many endure" beneath them"!

and juries comprising of the public have no role in the conviction of a person who comes before the court?

who builds and maintains the over flowing prison systems, drug rehabiliation centres, contols and finaces and support the gardai (a thankless job most of the time) to maintain law and order and prevent crime?

its not all down to the courts! they don't control how evidence is gathered (as instructed by leglisation) or how legislation is drafted.

yet, the minute they raise their heads up and complain against another vital organ of state (not just the government but the whole oireachtas) who have failed in their duties, they get battered and the doctrine of separation of powers is slapped on

yet of course, if a miscarriage of justice occurred like the macberties or frank shortt there would be many lambasting everyone else but the courts.

look i am not disagreeing with your opinion / genuine concern (believe me, the last few weeks have not being a barrell of laughs for people close to me) i am simply disagreeing with the idea that the courts can't always be used a scapegoats

thebman

grumpytrousers wrote: »

I'm not making excuses. Frankly i couldn't give a continental f*ck if they have a referendum every other Wednesday.

I'd rather, however, that they didn't if there's a cheaper option, seeing as i'll end up paying for it. As will you.

I'd rather not have bullsh** laws TBH.

seriously, it'll cost a lot more to try to enforce this law if they bother trying to.

Lisbon 2 = almost no cost if its added on. I imagine one of the reasons they don't want it on there is that people would probably vote no to this and they don't want people to get the two questions answers mixed up :pac:

Also there is the issue of them not liking the people having a say in how our country is run. We elected them and they don't want to talk to us until they need our vote again.

ninty9er

thebman wrote: »

We elected them and they don't want to talk to us until they need our vote again.

So I take it you're going to vote SF and Labour and stop at that next time out?

thebman

ninty9er wrote: »

So I take it you're going to vote SF and Labour and stop at that next time out?

No I'm not going to vote for SF/FF in the next election.

I haven't decided about the other parties yet. Those are the only certainties.

I'll decide on the other parties when the time comes. SS/FF have shown what they stand for.

I don't like everything the other parties represent but I like some of their policies but I'm not getting into all that here.

mickeyrooo

What is the story with the blasphemy law? I mean is it ok for some one who believes in God to say they do but illegal for an atheist to say he/she does not believe? Seems to be taking away from free speech!! I know it's not America (U.S.) but we have some sort of free speech .....don't we