Former Bank of Ireland Chief Executive Michael Soden appeared on last night's Vincent Brown in an attempt to defend both the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) and the purchase by Brian Lenihan of €54bn worth of toxic loans.
Naturally, it was always going to be a tough night for Mr Soden as the general public are far from impressed at not only being asked to bail out this country's banks but also to pay €7bn over the odds at the current market value.
However, it was not the inns and outs of the deal that caught my attention in the end but rather Mr Soden's comment, in response to anti-NAMA protestor Rita Fagan, that society should not be carrying the burden of single mothers.
Hear hear Mr Soden! Sure wasn't it the single mothers of Ireland who became consumed with greed and engaged in reckless lending practices in order to generate massive profits for a privileged minority? And those same single mothers are naturally responsible for bankrupting future generations, plunging Ireland into an unprecedented recession, and then asking for a hand-out from the same taxpayers that they previously showed utter contempt towards.
No Mr Soden, it was the bankers! So I think it is the presence of greedy, negligent and downright corrupt individuals within the banking system that are the burden Irish society should not have to bear.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Climate Change - Wait and See
I recently had a very polarised discussion with a climate change sceptic. The individual in question has a scientific background, stays up to date with developments in the field and believes that each and every individual should aim to live a more sustainable life.
So far so good!
The problem is that climate change has yet to become a proven fact in his eyes. To him, it is still just a scientific theory, albeit a popular one, and he thinks it foolish to agree treaties, enforce targets and enact laws that reduce global carbon emissions. He is not against assisting developing countries to avoid the dirty growth that characterised the advancement of developed countries during the industrial revolution but thinks the theory of climate change has to first be proven.
So in essence, he is advocating a policy of wait and see.
I explained to him that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is tasked with reviewing and assessing the most recent information (of all types) relevant to the understanding of climate change. Its work is guided by thousands of scientists from all over the world and the vast majority of theses scientists believe that climate change is real and could lead to millions upon millions of people suffering the devastating effects.
It is a scientific and not a political body and is telling us that we need to act now and that is what I am advocating.
Whichever side is right in this debate will result in disproportionately different outcomes however. If we wait and see, and the most cautious of IPCC predictions are realised, then hundreds of millions of people will be affected by climate change and the world may pass a point of no return and have to contend with irreversible climate change. If on the other hand, the world takes heed of the IPCC and negotiates a fair and safe climate deal in Copenhagen this December, then regardless of the contested reality of climate change, developing countries will be assisted in achieving sustainable growth and the developed world will be forced to move away from fossil fuels which are depleting fast anyway.
Waying up the outcomes, I cannot fathom why anyone would take such a risk, especially when the vast majority of scientific opinion rests on one side. Waiting for retrospective proof is dangerous, impractical and dismissive of the concerns of some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
So far so good!
The problem is that climate change has yet to become a proven fact in his eyes. To him, it is still just a scientific theory, albeit a popular one, and he thinks it foolish to agree treaties, enforce targets and enact laws that reduce global carbon emissions. He is not against assisting developing countries to avoid the dirty growth that characterised the advancement of developed countries during the industrial revolution but thinks the theory of climate change has to first be proven.
So in essence, he is advocating a policy of wait and see.
I explained to him that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is tasked with reviewing and assessing the most recent information (of all types) relevant to the understanding of climate change. Its work is guided by thousands of scientists from all over the world and the vast majority of theses scientists believe that climate change is real and could lead to millions upon millions of people suffering the devastating effects.
It is a scientific and not a political body and is telling us that we need to act now and that is what I am advocating.
Whichever side is right in this debate will result in disproportionately different outcomes however. If we wait and see, and the most cautious of IPCC predictions are realised, then hundreds of millions of people will be affected by climate change and the world may pass a point of no return and have to contend with irreversible climate change. If on the other hand, the world takes heed of the IPCC and negotiates a fair and safe climate deal in Copenhagen this December, then regardless of the contested reality of climate change, developing countries will be assisted in achieving sustainable growth and the developed world will be forced to move away from fossil fuels which are depleting fast anyway.
Waying up the outcomes, I cannot fathom why anyone would take such a risk, especially when the vast majority of scientific opinion rests on one side. Waiting for retrospective proof is dangerous, impractical and dismissive of the concerns of some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
Friday, August 7, 2009
March for Marriage
Join Amnesty in their support of LGBT Noise, who are organising a March for Marriage on Sunday 9th August at 1:30PM.
The march has been organised in support of equality for same sex couples in civil marriage laws and participants have been asked to assemble at Dublin City Hall on Dame Street at 1:30PM
The march has been organised in support of equality for same sex couples in civil marriage laws and participants have been asked to assemble at Dublin City Hall on Dame Street at 1:30PM
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Let Lubna Ahmad Hussein Have Her Day in Court
Sudanese journalist Lubna Ahmad Hussein and 12 other women were arrested in Khartoum on July 3rd 2009 for wearing trousers. They were arrested by the Sudanese authorities for allegedly breaching Article 152 of the Sudanese Criminal Act (1991) which states that;
"whoever commits an indecent act or an act that breaches public morality or wears clothes that are indecent or would breach public morality which causes annoyance to public feelings is liable to forty lashes or both punishments"
Hussein is not the first woman arrested under the pretence of Article 152. Hundreds of other women have fallen foul of the requirements of the law both before and after her arrest. For this very reason, Hussein wants to have her day in court in order to raise awareness of the unfair treatment of women in Sudan and to directly challenge Article 152.
So do not be distracted by the media reporting on various aspects of the case. Forget for a moment how the idea of public morality (or the preservation of public order) is often used by governments to silence free speech, ensure the supreme authority of a dominant religion or limit the enjoyment of human rights. Forget also how barbaric the punishment is. And do not allow the focus to be on Islam or Sharia, for as Hussein herself says, where in the Koran does it dictate that women such be flogged on account of what they wear?
Instead focus on Article 152 and Hussein herself. The law gives no guidance as to what clothes could be considered indecent, liable to cause annoyance to public feelings or breach public morality. There is no list. There are no examples. There is nothing. No court that claims to uphold justice could order punishment for disobeying such an arbitrary law. This is not a case of ignorance of the law being no excuse but rather an ignorant law.
As for Hussein, she has waived her right to UN immunity and has resigned from her role with the UN media office to bolster her chances of going to trial. Her defence team naturally is trying to ensure that such immunity remains intact but the bravery of Hussein, a woman who unsurprisingly has previously written articles critical of the Sudanese Government, is driving her forward and may prove unstoppable.
Lubna Ahmad Hussein deserves her day in court and whatever importance it is to her personally, it may well prove even more significant to women living in Sudan.
"whoever commits an indecent act or an act that breaches public morality or wears clothes that are indecent or would breach public morality which causes annoyance to public feelings is liable to forty lashes or both punishments"
Hussein is not the first woman arrested under the pretence of Article 152. Hundreds of other women have fallen foul of the requirements of the law both before and after her arrest. For this very reason, Hussein wants to have her day in court in order to raise awareness of the unfair treatment of women in Sudan and to directly challenge Article 152.
So do not be distracted by the media reporting on various aspects of the case. Forget for a moment how the idea of public morality (or the preservation of public order) is often used by governments to silence free speech, ensure the supreme authority of a dominant religion or limit the enjoyment of human rights. Forget also how barbaric the punishment is. And do not allow the focus to be on Islam or Sharia, for as Hussein herself says, where in the Koran does it dictate that women such be flogged on account of what they wear?
Instead focus on Article 152 and Hussein herself. The law gives no guidance as to what clothes could be considered indecent, liable to cause annoyance to public feelings or breach public morality. There is no list. There are no examples. There is nothing. No court that claims to uphold justice could order punishment for disobeying such an arbitrary law. This is not a case of ignorance of the law being no excuse but rather an ignorant law.
As for Hussein, she has waived her right to UN immunity and has resigned from her role with the UN media office to bolster her chances of going to trial. Her defence team naturally is trying to ensure that such immunity remains intact but the bravery of Hussein, a woman who unsurprisingly has previously written articles critical of the Sudanese Government, is driving her forward and may prove unstoppable.
Lubna Ahmad Hussein deserves her day in court and whatever importance it is to her personally, it may well prove even more significant to women living in Sudan.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Update: Criminal Justice Bill Passed
The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009, that was criticised both by the IHRC and the ICCL and rushed through the Dáil, has been passed by 118 votes to 23.
Whether the concerns of many commentators (including myself) are realised or not, it should be remembered that this bill was passed by a great majority. Numerous TDs complained about the timeframe imposed on them to debate the bill and yet only 23 of them felt compelled to reject it.
Fianna Fáil may well be criticised in the future for initiating such a draconian act, but that criticism should not come from the opposition parties.
Whether the concerns of many commentators (including myself) are realised or not, it should be remembered that this bill was passed by a great majority. Numerous TDs complained about the timeframe imposed on them to debate the bill and yet only 23 of them felt compelled to reject it.
Fianna Fáil may well be criticised in the future for initiating such a draconian act, but that criticism should not come from the opposition parties.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Oxfam Ireland Launches Climate Change Campaign
Yesterday, Oxfam Ireland launched its climate change campaign Climate Change Destroys Lives. Let's Face it.
Climate change is the biggest threat than mankind is facing and the most vulnerable people in the world are already feeling its devastating effects. With UN climate change negotiations due to take place in Copenhagen in 2009, now is the time to take urgent action. Watch Oxfam Ireland's new climate change video:
Join the campaign now
Climate change is the biggest threat than mankind is facing and the most vulnerable people in the world are already feeling its devastating effects. With UN climate change negotiations due to take place in Copenhagen in 2009, now is the time to take urgent action. Watch Oxfam Ireland's new climate change video:
Join the campaign now
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Organised Crime, The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 And Us
The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009, which is expected to become law before the Oireachtas summer recess, is claimed to strengthen the powers of civil authorities to cope with organised crimes. Minister Dermot Ahern has called the legislation “ground breaking” and given the systemic gangland problems that exist in Ireland, there will be a large percentage of the population that will welcome it with open arms. However, organisations such as the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) and the Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC) face the unpopular task of being the voice of reason when such pieces of legislation are set to come to pass.
Mark Kelly from the ICCL has stated that provisions within the Bill such as “secret detention hearings and detention on the unsupported word of a single Garda, trample upon the rule of law.” The IHRC for their part have said that “in light of the human rights implications of the 2009 Bill sufficient time is not being granted for full consideration of the legislative proposal by the Houses of the Oireachtas most importantly and also by the IHRC.” (Maurice Manning). It would seem an ill-advised move therefore, for the Irish Government to rush through legislation which could have drastic consequences upon the civil liberties of the people of Ireland.
The Bill provides that organised criminal offences will be tried in the Special Criminal Court. Such crimes will equate to offences against the State (and therefore fall within the Act bearing the same name) and give rise to non-jury legal proceedings. Interestingly, the media coverage of many organised crime cases has focused on the intimidation of witnesses rather than on jury tampering and there has been no evidence produced that juries are being inappropriately influenced. Therefore, since witnesses are identified in sittings of the Special Criminal Court, intimidation will still be possible and all that will be achieved will be the removal of a tenant of a fair trial. It should also be noted that the UN Human Rights Committee has previously criticised Ireland for the ongoing existence of the Special Criminal Court.
Furthermore, the Bill also purports to make changes in relation to another long standing legal right, the right of silence. Section 72(A) will be inserted into the Criminal Justice Act 2006 which includes the curious expression “any question material to the investigation”. This very general term means that inferences can be drawn if an accused exercises his/her right to silence and refuses to answer such a question. The Irish Times reported that expert Garda opinion on the operations of criminal gangs, which the Bill makes admissible in evidence, may include hearsay. This is extremely worrying given that such evidence is not based on personal experience or knowledge but rather is second hand.
Although it is a far from enviable task to draft legislation in relation to organised crime, the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 needs to be re-written. It will be undoubtedly easy for members of the public to accept the Bill as it stands, given the damaging effects to Irish society that organised crime is having, but before such acceptance, people should read it for themselves and be aware of the negative implications: http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4509/b4509d.pdf
Mark Kelly from the ICCL has stated that provisions within the Bill such as “secret detention hearings and detention on the unsupported word of a single Garda, trample upon the rule of law.” The IHRC for their part have said that “in light of the human rights implications of the 2009 Bill sufficient time is not being granted for full consideration of the legislative proposal by the Houses of the Oireachtas most importantly and also by the IHRC.” (Maurice Manning). It would seem an ill-advised move therefore, for the Irish Government to rush through legislation which could have drastic consequences upon the civil liberties of the people of Ireland.
The Bill provides that organised criminal offences will be tried in the Special Criminal Court. Such crimes will equate to offences against the State (and therefore fall within the Act bearing the same name) and give rise to non-jury legal proceedings. Interestingly, the media coverage of many organised crime cases has focused on the intimidation of witnesses rather than on jury tampering and there has been no evidence produced that juries are being inappropriately influenced. Therefore, since witnesses are identified in sittings of the Special Criminal Court, intimidation will still be possible and all that will be achieved will be the removal of a tenant of a fair trial. It should also be noted that the UN Human Rights Committee has previously criticised Ireland for the ongoing existence of the Special Criminal Court.
Furthermore, the Bill also purports to make changes in relation to another long standing legal right, the right of silence. Section 72(A) will be inserted into the Criminal Justice Act 2006 which includes the curious expression “any question material to the investigation”. This very general term means that inferences can be drawn if an accused exercises his/her right to silence and refuses to answer such a question. The Irish Times reported that expert Garda opinion on the operations of criminal gangs, which the Bill makes admissible in evidence, may include hearsay. This is extremely worrying given that such evidence is not based on personal experience or knowledge but rather is second hand.
Although it is a far from enviable task to draft legislation in relation to organised crime, the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 needs to be re-written. It will be undoubtedly easy for members of the public to accept the Bill as it stands, given the damaging effects to Irish society that organised crime is having, but before such acceptance, people should read it for themselves and be aware of the negative implications: http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4509/b4509d.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
