+- Drunkard's Walk Forums (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums)
+-- Forum: General (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Politics and Other Fun (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: An interesting referendum here (/showthread.php?tid=3854)
An interesting referendum here - Dartz - 10-27-2011
While Irish politics means as much to you as the weather in Scotland, I thought this was a rather interesting referendum coming, hidden alongside tomorrow's presidental election.
Currently, inquiry's are instead handled through the judiciary, with a tribunal being warranted to prepare a report to be published publicly. Anyone called before a tribunal is entitled to their legal representation and legal rights. They're regarded as a bit toothless, not being able to punish, only to report on what happened, which goes in to shaping government policy. Partly, this is because the constitution never gave the houses of government the power to establish their own inquiry's within themselves. Currently, you can not be required to testify before the Dáil, or the Seanad in this country.
But not for long, because tomorrow, this little amendment to the constitution is going to the vote tomorrow.
Quote:At present, Article 15.10 states:
“Each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official documents and the private papers of its members, and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties.”
It is proposed to renumber this as 15.10.1° and to insert the following subsections:
2° Each House shall have the power to conduct an inquiry, or an inquiry with the other House, in a manner provided for by law, into any matter stated by the House or Houses concerned to be of general public importance.
3° In the course of any such inquiry the conduct of any person (whether or not a member of either House) may be investigated and the House or Houses concerned may make findings in respect of the conduct of that person concerning the matter to which the inquiry relates.
4° It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest for the purposes of ensuring an effective inquiry into any matter to which subsection 2° applies.
Now. I've highlighted the most worrying section for your convenience. Essentially, what it means is, if the houses is able to determine that the public's interest is important enough, they can throw your legal rights out the door.
The most staggering thing to me is, most people don't realise this. Most people are transfixed by the ongoing 7-ring circus around the Presidential election, which is turning into a farce of terrorist accusations, skeletons in closets, 'assassination attempts', the word 'envelope'. It's also being slipped in alongside another amendment which'll give the State the power to reduce the pay of sitting judges, which most people will vote yes to...
It's being sold as a way to for the government to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of those at the head of the banks which caused the financial collapse here, leading to the bank guarantee and baillout which set us on the road to ruins.
So, do I want to give the government the power to compel people to come before it, to push their rights aside in the name of 'public interest', and make pronouncements as to their character and conduct?
I want that like I want a hole in my head. Well. Another one besides the usual ones that are supposed to be there. Of course... I've a horrible feeling it'll pass anyway because, well, Irish people are like that, and they're quite likely to vote Yes because nobody's made enough noise to tell them why they should vote No yet. "Ah sure it'll be grand" indeed....
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
- CattyNebulart - 10-27-2011
To me the "with due regard to the principles of fair procedures" reads like it means that they should still respect your rights, but precisely how that will be handled will be set up by the houses.
I'd like some clearer language in there, but I don't find it too worrying. Section 2 is more worrying, how will they determine what is of 'general public importance'? I can see this being used for witch-hunts for as long as they allow humans to serve in those houses.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
- Dartz - 10-27-2011
Quote:I can see this being used for witch-hunts for as long as they allow humans to serve in those houses.
That's the general worry of it, yes. And once the hunt is on, due regard to the principles of fair procedures will disappear out the window, in the name of public interest. One of the things the Irish Constitution protects is the right of a person to their 'good name'. This basically gives the government the power to destroy a person, to compel them to take the stand potentially without any representation, no right to cross examine their accuser, or any right to not be forced to incriminate themselves.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
- CattyNebulart - 10-27-2011
I'm thinking powerful, flexible, good for democracy. Choose two, and they left the door open to the first two. How it works out in practice still matters a lot.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
- Dartz - 10-27-2011
I'd be curious to know how it'd work myself. It's something the government says other country's have, with little trouble..... Somehow I doubt they've heard of McCarthyism so.
While I hate to drag up McCarthy as my constant argument against this.... I think, no further argument really need be used. If it can be abused by some enterprising sod in Government to attack his opponents, it will be used as such. Anyway, time to go exercise my duty to vote...
In other news: http://i.imgur.com/cplFz.jpg
How could I not?
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
- ECSNorway - 10-28-2011
So, Dartz, how'd the election turn out?
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
- Dartz - 10-28-2011
Micheal D Higgins for President, it appears. The final result technically isn't in yet, but the other candidates are conceding. Charming fellow and a worthy representative, he is.
EDIt: Especially when you consider this year-old debate from a talk-radio show here: Michael D Higgins -v- Michael Graham
It makes me smile.
Referendum results won't be in until tomorrow evening because the Presidential count came first, but pre-vote opinion polls suggested 76% were in favour of the amendments on Sunday.... though tallymen have suggested that the actual vote may be closer to 50/50, with a tally in Wexford showing 55% against. Boards.ie and Politics.ie are showing a strong opposition, with most users there voting against the proposal,. It's still very tense and up in the air, and could really go either way.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
- Black Aeronaut - 10-30-2011
After hearing that bit you posted in the youtube/vimeo thread back in GC... I gotta say, I LIKE this man.
- Logan Darklighter - 10-31-2011
Sounds like a typical politician to me. Same shit, different day.
- Dartz - 10-31-2011
Well, I just got home after being away. (Watch out for horses, the buggers bite)
It got shot down, 53.34% against, to 46.66% in favour.
Needless to say, I'm rather pleased about this. A victory for democracy, hmmm?
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
- robkelk - 10-31-2011
Hurrah!
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
- ECSNorway - 10-31-2011
Can't argue with you there.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
- Dartz - 11-01-2011
Indeed. It is something I like about our system. When it comes to amending the constitution, it's the people who have the final say.
Of course, the Government rather than realising there were good reasons why people chose to vote No, have decided that the public were not properly informed about the bill by the referendum commission, and misinformed by 8 Attorney Generals who went on record as saying it was a bad idea.... which if Nice and Lisbon referendums are anything to go by, means it'll come around again sometime soon.
Well, at least we can still say No a second time, and maybe they'll get it.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
- CattyNebulart - 11-01-2011
As long as they put in something to stop McCarthy the second coming it's not a bad power. You just must be careful to have that safeguard in the constitution.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."