Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

mrkiscool2

recedite wrote: »

You can't strike down a referendum to change the constitution for being unconstitutional. Think about it

SC have no choice but to tackle this point of law because it was previously made in the High Court, after which somebody disputed it.

I mean as in the referendum wouldn't be able to happen due to the fact the unborn had the same rights as a born child.

recedite

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I mean as in the referendum wouldn't be able to happen due to the fact the unborn had the same rights as a born child.

Those rights could still be stripped away, as per the plan. The "enabling" wording would have to be modified though, to say that any reference to a child in the constitution did not refer to an unborn one.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

You can't strike down a referendum to change the constitution for being unconstitutional. Think about it

SC have no choice but to tackle this point of law because it was previously made in the High Court, after which somebody disputed it.

The some-one is the AG acting on behalf of the state because she believes Justice Humphreys is wrong in law, in that he was reading into and extending the meanings and legal effect of parts of our constitution, and even international treaties, towards the unborn.

I don't know about your first above. I'd imagine that there is a chance that wording of the upcoming referendum could face the risk of a Pro-Life high court challenge if their legal advisors thought there was a chance they could legally scupper the referendum to delete the 8th there.

The existing wording in articles can be found to be unfit for purpose or unconstitutional by the courts. In line with such SC decisions, the Govt has a legal obligation to hold a referendum to delete the unconstitutional sections within articles and [maybe] replace then with other words. With regard to amendments, this has the effect of sriking down the result of the referendum which put the repealed section/s into the constitution, even if it's just wording being changed in the article.

Please pardon the various changes I have made, by proof-reading and editing to, the original.

recedite

You may be over analysing this.
The people are sovereign, so they can repeal anything or insert anything in the constitution, via referendum. The only extra thing to watch out for is that we don't contradict EU laws.

Also we can't have anything in the constitution that contradicts itself. So if we protect children, and we protect the unborn, and some judge says the unborn are children, there is no inherent contradiction in any of that.

The contradiction would only come about if we withdrew human rights from the unborn, but not from children, without specifically stating that that the unborn are no longer to be considered children.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Not really. Its more about whether your parents are legal residents, so being born here does not automatically confer citizenship anyway.

But this case was initiated in relation to a foetus. The concept of 'nationality' or 'citizenship' in relation to a zygote, embryo or foetus is entirely and utterly meaningless. My son was conceived in Spain, that doesn't qualify him as a Spanish citizen nor should it. This case was just another desperate attempt by an illegal immigrant to spray his man batter up an EU resident and as a result somehow hit the permanent residency jackpot. The fact a High Court judge was willing to entertain this is pretty worrying.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

You may be over analysing this.
The people are sovereign, so they can repeal anything or insert anything in the constitution, via referendum. The only extra thing to watch out for is that we don't contradict EU laws.

Also we can't have anything in the constitution that contradicts itself. So if we protect children, and we protect the unborn, and some judge says the unborn are children, there is no inherent contradiction in any of that.

The contradiction would only come about if we withdrew human rights from the unborn, but not from children, without specifically stating that that the unborn are no longer to be considered children.

Ref your first; Yes, re referendums, the people are sovereign,,,,, The catch is the Govt and the opposition decide to let us vote in a referendum worded and given to us by them. The Peoples Assembly findings and the Abortion Committee report were something that caught most of us and the THEM by surprise.

Ref your second: Except what the Judge said does NOT equate to something definitely in the constitution. If it was, the AG would not have asked the SC for a ruling on the legal correctness of Judge Humphrey's ruling.

Ref your third: Therein lies the rub: where [word for word] is it definitely written in the constitution that the unborn are children? I am assuming you are referring to something you think or assume is inherent to and contained in the constitution to that effect.

Edit: reading Peregrinus's post below: I see that I misunderstood the meaing of your [You can't strike down a referendum to change the constitution for being unconstitutional.] You meant it in future-tense. Naturally it goes without question that the people have the right to change, delete or add to sections and/or articles within the constitution without hindrance. That also carries on automatically from the SC having the obligation to let us know that we might need to make changes to errors or contracdictions within articles in the constitution.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref your first; Yes, re referendums, the people are sovereign,,,,, The catch is the Govt and the opposition decide to let us vote in a referendum worded and given to us by them. The Peoples Assembly findings and the Abortion Committee report were something that caught most of us and the THEM by surprise.

Ref your second: Except what the Judge said does NOT equate to something definitely in the constitution. If it was, the AG would not have asked the SC for a ruling on the legal correctness of Judge Humphrey's ruling.

Ref your third: Therein lies the rub: where [word for word] is it definitely written in the constitution that the unborn are children? I am assuming you are referring to something you think or assume is inherent to and contained in the constitution to that effect.

The constitutional text doesn't say explicitly that the unborn are "children". *(For that matter, it doesn't say that they are "persons", either. As far as the text goes, they are just "the unborn".)

Rec is discussing what happens if the courts rule that, correctly and harmoniously interpreted, the constitutional provisions do mean that the unborn are "children" or "persons". If that ruling is made or affirmed by the Supreme Court, the only way to reverse it, or reverse its effects, would be to amend the Constitution.

But the amendment, and the attempt to amend, would itself be constitutional. The constitution provides for its own amendment, and implementing the constitutional provision for amending the constitution cannot be unconstitutional. Hence there is nothing that might emerge from the Supreme Court appeal in IRM v MJELR that could prevent an amendment to alter or delete the current constitutional text dealing with abortion. Whatever else pro-life figures hoped to gain by being admitted to the IRM v MJELR proceedings, it wasn't this.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But this case was initiated in relation to a foetus. The concept of 'nationality' or 'citizenship' in relation to a zygote, embryo or foetus is entirely and utterly meaningless. My son was conceived in Spain, that doesn't qualify him as a Spanish citizen nor should it. This case was just another desperate attempt by an illegal immigrant to spray his man batter up an EU resident and as a result somehow hit the permanent residency jackpot. The fact a High Court judge was willing to entertain this is pretty worrying.

In a referendum we held some years ago, didn't we decide on whom can be recognized as a citizen if born here but; as in the same referendum we decided that if the parent of the person born here was a non-national, that that said parent was [from the referendum result being signed into law] denied citizenship which, up til then, would have been granted to said parent?

Hotblack Desiato

If this SC appeal goes against the government then that does not obstruct them from repealing the 8th at all. It will, however, necessitate addtional wording to neutralise 42A and any other relevant constitutional articles from applying to 'the unborn'.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

In a referendum we held some years ago, didn't we decide on whom can be recognized as a citizen if born here but; as in the same referendum we decided that if the parent of the person born here was a non-national, that that said parent was [from the referendum result being signed into law] denied citizenship which, up til then, would have been granted to said parent?

No. We decided (as many other countries already did) not to grant citizenship to a child on the basis of merely being dropped here and nothing else. We never granted citizenship to parents of Irish citizen children, but leave to remain (which may have led to citizenship later, but it has to be earned and blowing your beans doesn't cut it.)

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No. We decided (as many other countries already did) not to grant citizenship to a child on the basis of merely being dropped here and nothing else. We never granted citizenship to parents of Irish citizen children, but leave to remain (which may have led to citizenship later, but it has to be earned and blowing your beans doesn't cut it.)

So basically the child at the heart of the case, who's dad is a Non-national, would NOT be entitled to citizenship now if born here, and by extension the dad also would be refused. No retrospective citizenship either.... period. Ta.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref your second: Except what the Judge said does NOT equate to something definitely in the constitution. If it was, the AG would not have asked the SC for a ruling on the legal correctness of Judge Humphrey's ruling.

Ref your third: Therein lies the rub: where [word for word] is it definitely written in the constitution that the unborn are children? I am assuming you are referring to something you think or assume is inherent to and contained in the constitution to that effect.

In answer to both of the above, remember that the Irish constitution is a little bit magical, in that it contains rights which are not actually written into it. These implied or unenumurated rights get "discovered" every now and again by judges. For example the right of a woman to have an abortion in Ireland if she was suicidal or her life was threatened, magically appeared in this way after the x-case judgement.

So in this other High court case, Judge Humpreys reasoned that unborn children would have children's rights beyond the simple right to life. Rights that might be written, or unwritten, and applicable to "the child" in general.

Now, the unborn are simple creatures, and require little except time, nourishment, and life itself. However, if they could chip in to a deportation debate by helping to prevent their dad from being deported, then surely they would, as that would be in their interests. And as they cannot speak for themselves, then in some way the state must represent their interests, just as it does when there is a threat to their life.

I realise that all this will be impossible to comprehend for somebody who denies that the unborn have any rights, or any self-interests, or that the state should stand up for them in any way. But there you go anyway. Those are the general principles involved here.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

In answer to both of the above, remember that the Irish constitution is a little bit magical, in that it contains rights which are not actually written into it. These implied or unenumurated rights get "discovered" every now and again by judges. For example the right of a woman to have an abortion in Ireland if she was suicidal or her life was threatened, magically appeared in this way after the x-case judgement.

So in this other High court case, Judge Humpreys reasoned that unborn children would have children's rights beyond the simple right to life. Rights that might be written, or unwritten, and applicable to "the child" in general.

Now, the unborn are simple creatures, and require little except time, nourishment, and life itself. However, if they could chip in to a deportation debate by helping to prevent their dad from being deported, then surely they would, as that would be in their interests. And as they cannot speak for themselves, then in some way the state must represent their interests, just as it does when there is a threat to their life.

I realise that all this will be impossible to comprehend for somebody who denies that the unborn have any rights, or any self-interests, or that the state should stand up for them in any way. But there you go anyway. Those are the general principles involved here.

I know that the woman in your quote: [For example the right of a woman to have an abortion in Ireland if she was suicidal or her life was threatened, magically appeared in this way after the x-case judgement] is a being living independently of others, as distinct from the unborn in her womb dependent on her for existance and we recognized that to be factual, and were no longer prepared in certain circumstances to put the woman's right to exist BELOW that of the unborn in her womb. I don't see anything about woman's rights to that appearing mgically, more an unblinkering of eyes and minds to comprehend that to be the reality of life from time to time. Soon we [the irish] may well vote to put a pregnant woman's right to life even more to the fore in law than that of the unborn.

The state and [I'd hazard] the Irish population in general recognize that the unborn does have rights [written & unwritten] as written in the POLDPA act whereby abortion is regulated.

Re the bit about the unborn being worried about dad being deported as against in it's interests, that [IMO] carries less weight in this discussion about abortion and the rights of a woman versus the rights of the unborn to continue existing in life. That issue is minor in conparison to the right to life and abortion so I won't let that distract me, if you don't mind.

Please pardon my error and note my replacemenr of the word ABOVE with the word BELOW in my first para above.

aloyisious

The I/Times and the I/Indo are covering two separate stories on the vote. The Times has Simon Harris as offering his support to two Pro-choice groups and the Indo has Junior Finance Minister Michael D'Arcy has suggested holding a general election and a referendum on the Eighth Amendment on the same day next summer.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/simon-harris-offers-political-support-to-two-pro-choice-groups-1.3387069.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/election-and-abortion-vote-could-be-on-same-day-says-minister-36049328.html

Please note that the I/Times link on Simon Harris is a subscriber link and may not open on the article. You may have to buy the print edition itself to read the full report.

aloyisious

Update of the Irish Times tracker graph of TD's and Senators probable voting positions on the abortion issue, re deletion of the 8th and the twelve week period for abortion.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-tracker...... Copy and paste the link to a new page to open it.

Plus an item on Irish people abroad re the voting restriction put on them if they are outside the country for 18 months. This could apparently affect voters for the YES and NO sides in the referendum.... https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/illegal-emigrant-voting-how-hometovote-could-backfire-1.3385321

end of the road

i completely agree with the restriction on irish immigrants abroad voting in irish affairs. it's perfectly fair that people who don't live in the country should have no say in it's running. the people in that article whining because they can't vote and demanding that they should be able to vote get on my wick, they need to except they made their choice and they don't get a say in this country any more. they strike me as self-entitled tbh.
hopefully the relevant authorities will get to grips and insure only those who are able to vote can vote. also those living abroad should but out of this referendum altogether, no interfering and trying to get people to vote a certain way whether it be for or against repeal, or any other type of interference.

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

i completely agree with the restriction on irish immigrants abroad voting in irish affairs. it's perfectly fair that people who don't live in the country should have no say in it's running. the people in that article whining because they can't vote and demanding that they should be able to vote get on my wick, they need to except they made their choice and they don't get a say in this country any more. they strike me as self-entitled tbh.
hopefully the relevant authorities will get to grips and insure only those who are able to vote can vote. also those living abroad should but out of this referendum altogether, no interfering and trying to get people to vote a certain way whether it be for or against repeal, or any other type of interference.

Great, so we're agreed the Vatican should also shut its fat gob and not send any instructions to the catholic church in Ireland.

I can't help but feel you'd be grand with people coming home to vote if that would swing the vote in favour of the no side. Instead you claim its awful based on a fear of a repeat of 2015.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

i completely agree with the restriction on irish immigrants abroad voting in irish affairs. it's perfectly fair that people who don't live in the country should have no say in it's running. the people in that article whining because they can't vote and demanding that they should be able to vote get on my wick, they need to except they made their choice and they don't get a say in this country any more. they strike me as self-entitled tbh.
hopefully the relevant authorities will get to grips and insure only those who are able to vote can vote. also those living abroad should but out of this referendum altogether, no interfering and trying to get people to vote a certain way whether it be for or against repeal, or any other type of interference.

Having read the article, I noted that all the contributors mentioned that staying within the voting law restrictions was the main thing for emigrants who wished to get involved in the campaign on both sides. The contributors all wanted irish people living abroad to get involved in the campaign, not by voting outside the law but by actual campaigning legally, getting the voter interested and active. No statements were included in the article urging illegal voting activity nor laying claim that "people in either campaign" were doing so.

Dr Ruth Cullen of the Pro-life Campaign metioned in the article is quoted as saying they are aware of initiatives to encourage people living abroad to come home to vote. Her quote does NOT mention improper activity on behalf of any Pro-choice camapign urging people to come home and vote illegally, NOR on the Pro-Life side either. The quote included a reference to “The sweeping assumption is that almost every Irish person living abroad wants to see legal protection withdrawn from unborn babies, and that with little prompting, they will all travel home to vote against the Eighth Amendment.... - ..... “The pro-life side can just as easily make the claim that there are as many, if not more, Irish people living abroad who appreciate the special value of the Eighth Amendment as a result of living in countries where there is zero respect for the right to life of unborn babies following the introduction of abortion.”.

Those from the Pro-Choice side contributing specifically mentioned the importance of NOT voting illegally as it could give grounds for a challenge to the peoples vote result and wishes. It was nice to see that next year there is to be a referendum held here about extending the voting franchise to Irish people living abroad in our presidential election, though NOT in Oireachtas elections or referendums. Those Irish people who are worried about other Irish people living abroad denied Irish citizenship rights to vote can rest assured, their secret wishes are fulfilled under Irish law.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

For example the right of a woman to have an abortion in Ireland if she was suicidal or her life was threatened, magically appeared in this way after the x-case judgement.

Nonsense. The X-Case ruling was based entirely on the wording of 40.3.3 and not any unenumerated rights.

The anti-choicers have been whinging about it ever since.

end of the road

Cabaal wrote: »

Great, so we're agreed the Vatican should also shut its fat gob and not send any instructions to the catholic church in Ireland.

I can't help but feel you'd be grand with people coming home to vote if that would swing the vote in favour of the no side. Instead you claim its awful based on a fear of a repeat of 2015.

in relation to this issue, whether the irish living abroad are pro-life or pro-choice is of no concern to me. if you leave the country and move abroad, but out until you return permanently. people living abroad shouldn't return to campaign either. stay away and let those of us who actually live here on a permanent basis do the campaigning and voting. and yes the Vatican should not interfere.

smacl

end of the road wrote: »

in relation to this issue, whether the irish living abroad are pro-life or pro-choice is of no concern to me. if you leave the country and move abroad, but out until you return permanently. people living abroad shouldn't return to campaign either. stay away and let those of us who actually live here on a permanent basis do the campaigning and voting. and yes the Vatican should not interfere.

So by that logic are you in favour of anyone who is not Irish but temporarily in the country at the time of an election be given a vote?

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

So by that logic are you in favour of anyone who is not Irish but temporarily in the country at the time of an election be given a vote?

by what logic. my post was very clear. and of course anyone who is not Irish but temporarily in the country at the time of an election should not get a vote. i thought that would have been obvious but i guess not.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

by what logic. my post was very clear. and of course anyone who is not Irish but temporarily in the country at the time of an election should not get a vote. i thought that would have been obvious but i guess not.

I know this is an aside to the abortion debate but you got me interested in who can, or can't, vote here. I got this data-link from Wikipedia....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union

Citizenship of the European Union (EU) is afforded to qualifying citizens of European Union member states. It was introduced by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and has been in force since 1993. European Union citizenship is additional to national citizenship.[2] EU citizenship affords rights, freedoms and legal protections to all of its citizens.
European Union citizens have the right to free movement, settlement and employment across the EU. EU citizens are also free to trade and transport goods, services and capital through EU borders, as in national market, with no restrictions on capital movements or duty-fees.

[3] Citizens also have the right to vote in and run as a candidate in local elections in the country where they live, European elections and European Citizens' Initiative.........

I know people can access and imput data onto Wikipedia which can be misleading until the site Mods or other people with true knowledge can correct errors but reckon the above is correct.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

I know this is an aside to the abortion debate but you got me interested in who can, or can't, vote here. I got this data-link from Wikipedia....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union

Citizenship of the European Union (EU) is afforded to qualifying citizens of European Union member states. It was introduced by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and has been in force since 1993. European Union citizenship is additional to national citizenship.[2] EU citizenship affords rights, freedoms and legal protections to all of its citizens.
European Union citizens have the right to free movement, settlement and employment across the EU. EU citizens are also free to trade and transport goods, services and capital through EU borders, as in national market, with no restrictions on capital movements or duty-fees.

[3] Citizens also have the right to vote in and run as a candidate in local elections in the country where they live, European elections and European Citizens' Initiative.........

I know people can access and imput data onto Wikipedia which can be misleading until the site Mods or other people with true knowledge can correct errors but reckon the above is correct.

i'd imagine you would have to be in the country for a certain amount of time to avail of it? for example, i couldn't rock over to britain near the next election and run as a candidate?

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

people living abroad shouldn't return to campaign either. stay away and let those of us who actually live here on a permanent basis do the campaigning and voting.

Let me see you try and stop me. You could not stop me in 2015, you can not stop me now. I did a lot of campaigning in 2015, and even got invited to travel over with a few buses of people from the UK who were, despite their new living location, still eligible to vote in Ireland for one reason or another.

I will be doing the same this time. And there is not a single little thing you can do about it. Though you are absolutely entirely invited to try.

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Let me see you try and stop me. You could not stop me in 2015, you can not stop me now. I did a lot of campaigning in 2015, and even travelled over with a few buses of people from the UK who were, despite their new living location, still eligible to vote in Ireland for one reason or another.

I will be doing the same this time. And there is not a single little thing you can do about it. Though you are absolutely entirely invited to try.

He's too late. The time for objecting to people on the basis that they don't meet the residence requirement is when the register is compiled. But that time is passed, the register which will be used for the next 12 months has just been closed.

If you're on the register, you can vote. If, in fact, you shouldn't be on the register then you may or may not be guilty of some offence in connection with the circumstances in which you came to be on the register (made a false statement, withheld information, that kind of thing). And you do commit an offence in voting when you are not entitled to be on the register. But you can vote, and your vote counts; there is no mechanism for excluding it once it has been cast.

(This is not you personally, Nozz; this is the generic "you". I am not saying that you, Nozz, are not entitled to be registered.)

There was much media attention paid to "home-to-vote" voters in the marriage equality referendum but, in fact, it's most unlikely that they determined the outcome. There weren't enough of them to account for the majority of victory.
Any group concerned that the next referendum might have its outcome affected by home-to-vote voters needed to organise themselves to identify and object to ineligible voters during the objection period (which from memory, runs from November, when the draft register is published, to February, when it is closed). It's too late now.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

(This is not you personally, Nozz; this is the generic "you". I am not saying that you, Nozz, are not entitled to be registered.)

As it happens I am not, I have not been living in Ireland myself for 10 years. But I will be campaigning. I will be travelling back (again on buses from London following an open debate like the last referendum) full of people who actually live in the UK but are, for one reason or another, eligible to vote.

It was fun the last time. Following all my posts on the subject I was invited to be the "yes" speaker in a debate near the buses. People paid a ticket price covering the bus and the debate. Yes and no Irish voters showed up, heard the debate, got on the bus and continued the debate themselves quite cordially and enjoyably, voted in Ireland, and travelled back again.

And, frankly, there is not a damn thing EOTR can do to stop any of that. But as I said, I openly invite him/her to try. I would love to see that. Even happy to tell him/her which ferry it will be when I know myself so (s)he can come lie down in front of the buses if (s)he wants.

But this will likely not happen as EOTRs entire approach to this debate has been to take pot shots at people posts, ignore all rebuttals, and then pop back up in the same thread later taking the same rebutted pot shots before running away again.... rinse and repeat.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

And you do commit an offence in voting when you are not entitled to be on the register. But you can vote, and your vote counts.

Thats a bit like saying you do commit an offence if you rob a snickers bar from a newsagent, but you can do it, and it does satisfy hunger; the calories thus obtained are real.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Thats a bit like saying you do commit an offence if you rob a snickers bar from a newsagent, but you can do it, and it does satisfy hunger; the calories thus obtained are real.

And the Snickers bar is gone, which is the salient thing from the newsagent's point of view.

The point of all this is that, if you are concerned about the referendum outcome being affected by the votes of ineligible voters, the time to do something about it is when the register is compiled. Any time after that is too late.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And, frankly, there is not a damn thing EOTR can do to stop any of that. But as I said, I openly invite him/her to try.

Nobody wants to stop you campaigning or debating. EOTR said that somebody in your position is not allowed to vote, which is correct. You haven't actually said whether you do vote or not. I'm sure it would be very tempting after putting in all that time and effort, and if they had sent a polling card to your Irish home address.

IMO if people feel that strongly about something to "come home to vote" then I'd be inclined to turn a blind eye, which I think is what actually happens. But I would not be in favour of making it too easy for them, eg by giving an official postal vote to emigrants. If they are not living here, and not all that interested in the outcome, then they should be excluded from the vote.