Constitutional Convention

Cookie_Monster

what about removal of references to God/religion in the Constitution?

The opening is very clearly catholic/christian oreientated:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

while later articles state there is religious freedom. clearly not if the entire document is written under a christian god ethos

Religious freedom: A citizen's freedom of religious conscience, practice, and worship is guaranteed, "subject to public order and morality", by Article 44.2.1°. The state may not "endow" any religion (Article 44.2.2°), nor discriminate on religious grounds (Article 44.2.3°).

And since it's topical at the moment and the govenrment are clearly going to make a hash of any legislation what about the abortion isssue, any discussion around removing this ridiculous prohibition?

Prohibition of abortion: Abortion is prohibited by Article 40.3.3°, except in cases in which there is a threat to the life of the mother. However, this prohibition may be lawfully circumvented as it is expressly stated not to interfere with the right to travel abroad; there also exists a qualified right to obtain and distribute information of "services lawfully available in another state" (such as abortion).

silenceisfoo

The removal of the religion would be an interesting one. There was a case on this before the ECHR. They ruled that for an atheist or someone of non-christian belief to swear to god was a wrongful act. I think it was a public representative for San Marino who took the case.
It should be discussed at the convention but I am afraid that they missed an opportunity to have any meaningful change to the constitution apart from the issue of same sex marriage. The fact that it must then be approved by the government in order to go to a referendum is a bit of a farce as they seem to do what they like in this country when it comes to a referendum.

RangeR

The voting results for the Steering Group members will be released soon. Results will be announced when all 10 have been notified of their personal result. I just received my phone call.

RangeR

The Steering Group has been announced to the 100. My name was not on that list. In all, two of us were replaced.

It was a pleasure and an honour to serve for the first few meetings.

RangeR

It was brought to my attention yesterday morning, that a member of the Convention went to a reporter and told them something relating to me about the Convention. This **** decided to do this rather than approach me or the Secretariat. This is a non story but rather is an attempt to fulfill their agenda to derail the Convention. I will not be commenting on this story at all. I have always been transparent in ALL my dealings, both here and within the walls of the Convention. Actually, I'm almost sure that I mentioned this particular topic here, earlier on in the process.

Make no bones about it. The paper are going to come down hard on the Process, to be printed on Monday.

I've just received a phone call from a reporter, in work, on my non advertised private mobile. I made no comment. I'm considering withdrawing my interaction with Boards on the Convention process. I'll make a final decision next week. I will not be stepping down as one of the 66.

I'm not a public figure. I'm invoking my right, under the Constitution, to my absolute privacy. I request that you respect that.

I will be making no further comment on this topic.



Unless this violates boards terms and conditions ... This post is Copyright Keith Burke 2013 and may not be reproduced by any person, organisation, media outlet in printed, electronic or any other form, outside of boards.ie domain.

P_1

Jesus Keith that's bloody ridiculous.

So someone leaked to the press that you're facilitating a wider discussion of the Convention here to further some agenda that they might have.

Too bloody right you should reconsider doing that here if you're going to get hassle from the press over it.

P_1

RangeR wrote: »

Make no bones about it. The paper are going to come down hard on the Process, to be printed on Monday.

Keith, do you mind me asking what you mean by this?

Are you saying that the paper is against the idea of the Convention and are attempting to discredit it to suit their particular agenda?

RangeR

Article published today on the indo site. It does not appear to be in the print edition. The substance is correct but heavily edited to be factually incorrect and highly misleading. Such is journalism.

On a non related note, my partner Sorcha, was followed in car for 30 minutes, a few days ago. The Gardai were notified.

No further comment on this issue, for the moment.

silenceisfoo

You have my sympathies. I read the article and it was as I feared, the media are on a witch hunt for those involved in the Convention. I know when the people called looking for volunteers they said they were in desperate need for people as no one wanted to give up a weekend for 9 months and so there were very few actually willing to do it.
I think you are to be commended for your bravery for sticking this out and actually going through with it as it displays a level of courage I did not have. People in this nation are very angry at the moment and instead of doing something constructive with it they are taking it out on whatever they can latch onto and here it happens to be your involvement in the Convention.
Not a very nice article to write and there is a real undertone to it. Hope you partner is ok after being followed. Not pleasant.

P_1

My sympathies Keith, total non story in my eyes and they had no right harassing your partner as they did.

Very clear that the Indo don't like the idea of having this convention and it sickens me the lengths that interest groups in this country go to in an attempt to further their interest.

Cookie_Monster

here's the link:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/concern-as-couple-and-set-of-neighbours-are-randomly-selected-for-constitutional-body-29074928.html

Despite claiming to operate in a "transparent" fashion, the convention is refusing to release the addresses of its members.

I would certainly hope not, there's no reason to at all other than to generate hate mail and harassment.

The body was already embroiled in controversy over the identity of its members after it farcically intended to keep the members anonymous.

Which is a bit of a fairer point, should not be totally anonymous

But it was forced to publish a list of members' names and the counties they are from – but not exact addresses.

A reasonable balance

SB2013

Absolutely no reason to publish names in that article. The author either has no understanding of probability or just chose to mislead the readers. Personally I'd believe the latter more. By his logic there should be an enquiry every time someone wins the lotto. Just another reason not to purchase the paper.

expectationlost

hang on http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/concern-as-couple-and-set-of-neighbours-are-randomly-selected-for-constitutional-body-29074928.html

X from Kildare was asked by a polling company to be a member of the convention and she said her partner Y would also be interested.

is this true? did the polling company ring 1 person and then put their partner in to the pot too, thats not how it should be done.

very disappointed in the polling company if true, they shouldn't leave themselves open to easily avoided criticism

RangeR

silenceisfoo wrote: »

You have my sympathies. I read the article and it was as I feared, the media are on a witch hunt for those involved in the Convention. I know when the people called looking for volunteers they said they were in desperate need for people as no one wanted to give up a weekend for 9 months and so there were very few actually willing to do it.
I think you are to be commended for your bravery for sticking this out and actually going through with it as it displays a level of courage I did not have. People in this nation are very angry at the moment and instead of doing something constructive with it they are taking it out on whatever they can latch onto and here it happens to be your involvement in the Convention.
Not a very nice article to write and there is a real undertone to it. Hope you partner is ok after being followed. Not pleasant.

Cheers dude. I was originally on the backup list so I blame you for dropping out Ah just kidding, obviously. The media aren't on a witch hunt, I have to say. Most media outlets are doing what they should. Either just giving the facts or describing and educating their readership on what we are doing.

This .....journalist..... [I use that term loosely] seems to be behaving differently to the rest of them. I don't mind saying, he is just making **** up, or at the very least being exceptionally misleading. There are a few pieces that are factually incorrect but most of it has been intentionally constructed to give the wrong impression. I'll give one example but I'm still not defending the article or commenting on it in general. I just want to get this across.

The following two sentences were put next to each other, giving to impression [at least to me] that the two were related.

When both ran for the organising committee of the convention it is understood some TDs expressed concerns to the chairman Tom Arnold.

In the end, Mr Burke didn't get elected to the committee.

Yes, both myself and Sorcha ran for the steering group in Dublin Castle. To be honest, only 3 [I think] of the 66 stepped forward. Everyone else had reservations. We stepped forward independently as we both wanted to be considered and wanted to be as involved as we could. At our second interim meeting, it was decided by the group to go back to the 66 and see if others had changed their minds. Some did. 11 in total [us 3 and another 8~] put themselves forward. So the 100 [although some 33 left] had a vote, in private, at the end of the January Convention. While we all gave a little speech to the room as to why we should be elected, I didn't commission votes. Probably to my detriment. But there you go. Call it pride, but I don't ask for stuff. In that speech, I complained to the Convention that Sinn Fein took it upon themselves to release a PR news item the day before we met. I took exception to that as I took it to mean that they were trying to sway our opinion. I don't believe any other party made any PR items until we finished the weekend.

I hope that goes some way to explain the second quoted sentence. My not being on the Steering Group had absolutely nothing to do with anybody making complaints. It was the democratic process. There was a vote, I lost. In fact, in my transparency, I made this comment in this very thread on 29-01-2013 16:02.

On a final note, it is my understanding that the person that complained, did so to the journalist, not to the committee.

Fact : So far, we lose a few people after every meeting.
Fact : Most of the 66, that I showed the article to, are now concerned for their own privacy.
Fact : Mr Sheahan printed the article on the morning that we met to discuss very important topics.
Fact : No other media outlet picked up the story. Actually, it gained absolutely no traction at all. For that I think them.
Fact : One of these days, I will defend every single sentence in the article. Just not at the moment. When I'm ready.

Thank you Mr Sheahan. You are on the road to getting what you want. I really hope the current 66 stay the course.

ResearchWill

Is that the same journalist that is married to a FF senator. What's the chances of that him being married to a FF senator and commenting on people who are in a relationship in a convention.

I gave up reading most irish papers years ago, there is an agenda, its reporting standards are low and to be honest my blood pressure can't take it.

BTW knew him in college was a great supporter of FG back then, went out with a FG TD's daughter. If I remember correctly used to admire a certain ex FG but current TD, from Tipperary.

RangeR

ResearchWill wrote: »

Is that the same journalist that is married to a FF senator. What's the chances of that him being married to a FF senator and commenting on people who are in a relationship in a convention.

I gave up reading most irish papers years ago, there is an agenda, its reporting standards are low and to be honest my blood pressure can't take it.

BTW knew him in college was a great supporter of FG back then, went out with a FG TD's daughter. If I remember correctly used to admire a certain ex FG but current TD, from Tipperary.

Indeed

The RangeR Chronicles wrote:

BREAKING

It is understood that Mr Sheahan is married to one of the 33 political citizens. This marriage wasn't made known to Mr Burke prior to the Convention convening, to which he was said to be concerned, alarmed and outraged at a potential conflict of interest. It is understood that Mr Burke's fears were allayed as it was made known that Mr Sheahan is of good character and outstanding virtue.

It is understood that many TD's made no complaint in relation to this relationship. Not even Sinn Fein complained about him as there is just no juice in it.

It is understood that on the day of the February Convention, he published an article complaining about the Convention. It is understood that some people would regard this as a ragmag article of the highest order.

It is understood that Mr Sheahan didn't arrive at the February Convention

It is understood that his wife didn't arrive at the February Convention

It is understood that his wife had a back injury on the weekend of the February Convention

It is unclear how the back injury happened

The Convention have been asked repeatedly by Mr Sheahan for the full address of each of the 66. At this time, it is not known if any other body had made such a request.

It is understood that each and every request will be denied as the Convention would probably fall apart.

ResearchWill

RangeR wrote: »

Indeed

I'm pissing my self here, so his wife who we know is a senator is also sitting on the same convention.

RangeR

ResearchWill wrote: »

I'm pissing my self here, so his wife who we know is a senator is also sitting on the same convention.

Yup. Ironic innit. I don't remember seeing that in his article. I'm not going to mention her name as I'm just not going to stoop to his level. But it's common knowledge [although I only found out on the weekend of the January meeting].

ResearchWill

RangeR wrote: »

Yup. Ironic innit. I don't remember seeing that in his article. I'm not going to mention her name as I'm just not going to stoop to his level. But it's common knowledge [although I only found out on the weekend of the January meeting].

And people wonder why I don't read many newspapers anymore I love this quote,

"Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows: You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
Michael Crichton"

ResearchWill

RangeR wrote: »

Yup. Ironic innit. I don't remember seeing that in his article. I'm not going to mention her name as I'm just not going to stoop to his level. But it's common knowledge [although I only found out on the weekend of the January meeting].

Can I clarify a few things, a ccording to the above quoted text, a person (you I believe) question the fact that a journalist was married to a political member of the convention. Then that person was told Journalist is a upstanding person. Then said journalist starts writing about convention including that two citizen members are in a relationship. Have I misunderstood anything.

RangeR

ResearchWill wrote: »

Can I clarify a few things, a ccording to the above quoted text, a person (you I believe) question the fact that a journalist was married to a political member of the convention. Then that person was told Journalist is a upstanding person. Then said journalist starts writing about convention including that two citizen members are in a relationship. Have I misunderstood anything.

You are only missing one thing. The entire "RangeR Chronicles" quote was a combination of fact, fiction and misleading inferences. Nothing more. Just outlining how easy it is to headline a non story

I am Keith Burke, the guy referenced in Mr Sheahan's article.

I, personally, have no problem with your referenced marriage. I just find it amusing that he has a "concern" with ours.

P_1

RangeR wrote: »

You are only missing one thing. The entire "RangeR Chronicles" quote was a combination of fact, fiction and misleading inferences. Nothing more. Just outlining how easy it is to headline a non story

I am Keith Burke, the guy referenced in Mr Sheahan's article.

I, personally, have no problem with your referenced marriage. I just find it amusing that he has a "concern" with ours.

Pot, kettle, black is the appropriate witty phrase to describe the situation I think

expectationlost

ranger you don't seem to understand that its the polling company who should be answering questions

P_1

expectationlost wrote: »

ranger you don't seem to understand that its the polling company who should answering questions

In that case then the reporter should be going after them and not RangeR.

SB2013

expectationlost wrote: »

ranger you don't seem to understand that its the polling company who should answering questions

My understanding is they polled for a number of people and both the op and his gf showed an interest. The members where then chosen at random from those that were polled. If that is the case then each person had exactly the same probability of being chosen. The journalists representation of the odds are misleading

expectationlost

SB2013 wrote: »

My understanding is they polled for a number of people and both the op and his gf showed an interest. The members where then chosen at random from those that were polled. If that is the case then each person had exactly the same probability of being chosen. The journalists representation of the odds are misleading

erm were ppl rung at random too? (within areas)

SB2013

expectationlost wrote: »

erm were ppl rung at random too? (within areas)

I would presume so.

expectationlost

SB2013 wrote: »

I would presume so.

so then if they asked the people they rang if anybody else in there house was interested it would be getting less and less random.., so they shouldn't ask that question at all of anyone.

RangeR

I could be wrong but I'm not aware of any member being asked by way of phone.

Anyway, we were made aware today that our standing orders are going to change slightly. It was always envisaged that #ccven would have at least one meeting outside Dublin. This is proving to be too expensive. On average, each weekend costs in the region of €60,000. To have it outside Dublin was going to cost in the region of €130,000. Outside Dublin meant somewhere around Galway, Kerry, Cork or some such. I believe that this expense was deemed excessive.

Today, we were given an alternate suggestion. One I'm excited about. It was proposed that we have a number of public meetings, maybe around 6, throughout the country. Maybe even one in UK and/or NI. It is envisaged that these 6 meetings would only cost around €10,000 combined.

The structure of each meeting is to be decided, depending on June vote, but I guess it would be something like...

• On a given weekday evening, Tom Arnold, some of the secretariat and any of the 100 would visit a public building in an area [college, school, community hall etc] and invite the public to attend.
• Public can then converse with us and bring up any other issues that they would like us to discuss.
• It is envisaged that this take place in October.
• Octobers Diaspora has been moved to first weekend November

There are a few of the 66 that are concerned with this and may not take part . They are concerned about publicity, direct lobbying on the given night and certain members of the public that may take issue with them.

I intend to go to as many as I can but some will just be too far away. If we vote this in ext week, I hope to see you there.

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

I could be wrong but I'm not aware of any member being asked by way of phone.

?