Pat Rabbitte's Questions to the Tanaiste (June 1st 2006)

national | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis

Tuesday September 19, 2006 15:10

by Chris Murray - .

Full text.

" Since last week the Labour Party has consistently argued for the closing off of
this loophole. For that reason when the Government was persuaded to deal with
it this week, last night we facilitated it being taken, which is the reason for us not
voting against the order of business.However , we have not seen the bill and there will be
little time to look at the issue. I urge the Tanaiste to cause the Minister for Justice , Equality
and Law reform to make it available as soon as possible.

What the minister said in the private briefing to the Justice spokespersons yesterday
was quite different to what he said in the Seanad.This is part of the difficulty. The Tanaiste
has referred to the plight of the victims, but there has been little mention of the families
or the victims up to now. I know of a particular case that was pending and
where the action was stayed and will not proceed, and no contact of any kind by the Health Service Executive,
appropriate personnel or anyone else has been made with the family involved. Can the Tanaiste say if a list of families involved in this debacle has been compiled, or a list of victims affected by the circumstance where the historical cases arenow likely to walk free?
Has the Tanaiste any ideas how many cases are pending? Why has contact not been made?"

(snip)

"The Tanaiste is standing in for the Taoiseach, who takes responsibility in this house for the Attorney General. Given that it is the role of the Attorney General to protect our constitution
willcan the Tanaiste say that the Attorney General was not aware of the gravity of the case concerning the constitution?

The Tanaiste told this house yesterday or the day before that the Attorney General and the DPP had joint carriage of this case. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been briefing against her since then, to the effect that she was mistaken.
Whether it is true that the case was one of joint responsibility, that there was a
De Juro and De Facto dinstinction as the case progresses, surely the Attorney general ought to have been aware of this?
Will the Tanaiste say if he was aware? If he was not aware, I suggest he was not doing his job.

As the Tanaiste knows, in the case between the appellant and applicant,
The first named in the title was Ireland, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
That is the normal description of such cases and it reflects the normal
function of the Attorney General. Accordingly I ask the Tanaiste to take the opportunity
to reassure people in this matter because parents and citizens are concerned to
know the truth.They find it very difficult to believe this situation could not have bee
anticipated bythe Governement. The minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform
told the Seanad last night that it was impossible for him to anticipate the outcome
of the case and have the legislation ready. That is complete and utter nonsense.
The suggestion that he put forward was that it would pull the rug from under the
people defending the case. This is complete and arrant nonsense.
Given the gravity of what is involved, amending legislation ought to have been in
preparation in the event of the legislation being struck down. That was not done
what is now being prepared and only after the mother and father of all battles
in this house and outside of it, is legislation which we still have not seen.

I would like to ask the Tanaiste to say to the house what action she causes to be taken
in respect of the families and victims and to advise us on the role of the Attorney general."

Text oF Ex-Tanaiste Mary Harney's reply, (Government Publications- Parliamentary Debate
Dail Eireann Thursday June first 2006)

The present Tanaiste And Minister For Justice has not replied satisfactorily
to the questions above. The simplicity of what is being done to support the
families that were caught up in the Judgement of Ms Justice Laffoy in
relation to the 1935 act. The carriage of the case and the failure in anticipation
of the fall-out from the 'CC' case which instigated the Laffoy judgement.

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006. Which passed through both
houses of the Oireachtas, (unamended) and Including Section 5, continue to concern.
The request by the Ombudsman for Children for excision of section 5 on the basis of its
constitutionality- it is not gender neutral, was ignored in the haste to pass the Bill.

The Tanaiste and Minister for Justice has allowed for the setting up of a parliamentary
sub-committee on the issue of Consent, but no Inquiry into the fall-out from the
Laffoy decision , or reason as to why the 1935 act was reviewed only as the result
of a constitutional crisis.

Should not the Oireachtas investigate the whole period leading up to
the constitutional crisis, the fall-out and the hastily drafted legislation-
quite simply put the victims of this crisis deserve answers?

save preference

Comments (11 of 11)

this is disordered

by peripheraldisorder

Wed Sep 20, 2006 18:06

no offence, but what is this about? i cannot decipher it?

what this is about eithier

by icannunderstand

Wed Sep 20, 2006 18:11

WTF is this about??

This stringing together of random words does nothing for me i must say

No offence taken

Wed Sep 20, 2006 18:26

I am thinking of doing a series of cut and pastes around the Laffoy decision to release
Mister 'A'. She was bound by the existent legislation, which though well flagged to the
present Tanaiste and Minister for Justice , led to the notorious Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006
*******************************************************************************************************

The transcript is of a speech by Mister Rabbitte, which repeatedly asked for a
copy of the new legislation that the parties were to debate on.

During the debate, for example, Ciaran Cuffe TD read a letter by the Ombudsman for Children
which asked for the excision of section 5.

Mr Howlin reffered to the section as an absurdity.

Joe Higgins was the only TD to vote against the Bill.

The drafting of the legislation as a'response' to a constitutional crisis by the present
Tanaiste / Minister for Justice, included within the body of the legislation
a section that was unconstitutional (section 5 is not gender neutral)
and indeed a return to putting the victims of rape on the stand.

The next speech is the view of the Fine Gael Party.

I also would like to examine closer the series of events which led to the Laffoy Judgement.

know where you are coming from Chris

by puzzled

Wed Sep 20, 2006 21:12

I know what you mean Chris, I cannot understand what that was all about. Mandatory Sentencing in statutory rape was proper order. It gave some protection to the young lolitas from the consequences of their provocative dress (non)sense.

If men and boys know that having sex with under age girls opens them up to automatic sentencing then they keep well clear. Don't tell me that 16 year olds can look like 20 year olds, I know they do. But are there not plenty of genuine 19+ girls/boys in the country without taking the risk. The new law is a farce and will not give our children any protection at all.

Around the time of the "judgement" I heard a conspiracy theory that I will share here.

22nd May 2006, RTE Prime Time special on terrible effects of abusive and incompetant solicitors.
One of the featured abusive solicitors was brother of Mary Robinson.
Mary Robinson is a longtime mate of Justice Adrian Hardiman.
Tuesday 23rd May, Justice Hardiman delivers the outlandish Supreme Court Judgement abolishing all legal protection for underage girls.
Result! Everyone forgot about the Prime Time special, abuses of solicitors and Mary Robinsons brother.

Look forward to your future pastes

Actually... Joe Higgins is peachy.

Wed Sep 20, 2006 21:47

..."If they were under 16, with other 16 year olds, under what I understand the Government
will come forward with today, it is providing for them to be sent to jail for five years , and if a sixteen year old girl gets pregnant, by another sixteen year old, which should not happen, she is liable to be sent to jail for five years.
The government cannot simply repeat in 2006 legislation which was for the conditions of 1935 and the government needs an immeadiate dialogue with young people and with their parents so an entire section of the young, whose mores are different to 1935 are not criminalised willy-nilly by legislation now being repeated. That is no way to dilute the urgency of protecting children and young adults from predatory adults"

Three things:

The stenographer was present and knows how to spell government.
Bertie was in New York and does not.
Joe Higgins was the only TD to vote against the bill.

So far: Labour object to section 5.
Higgins objects to the Bill in toto because it criminalises the young for sexual experimentation.

The Bill was purported to address the issue of statutory Rape.

Mr Howlin V Michael Mc Dowell. June 2nd 06

by C Murray

Thu Sep 28, 2006 16:43

Mr Howlin; " That is above and beyond the bizzare and absurd position that
girls will be criminally liable for foreplay, but not for sex. To put it bluntly
the incoherence behind the current proposals is demonstrated by pointing
to three conflicting propositions, each of which the government is seeking
to advance in this Bill.

I will give an example. I apologise for being so explicit, but it is necessary,
if two sixteen year olds engage in sexual intercourse, the boy is guilty
of a serious offence while the girl is guilty of nothing. If the girl performs oral
sex on the boy they are both guilty of a serious offence. If the boy performs
oral sex on the girl, then neither is guilty of any offence".

Ms O Mitchell. "this is great legislation"

*Mr Howlin; "Even more bizarrely, if attempted sex-

Mr O Donoghue" " The deputy should read the legislation"

Mr Howlin "The Minister, Deputy O Donoghue, should read the bill himself.
This is a fact. I know it is a surprise to him-

Mr Howlin" Even more bizarrely, if attempted sex takes place between two
sixteen year old, they are both guilty-

Mr Rabbitte "That is correct"

Mr Howlin "- of a serious crime, but if actual sex happens, they are not"

Mr Mc Dowell "not so-

Mr Howlin, "It appears that girls can only achieve innocence if they perform full sex.
I wish to raise another anomaly I have seen in the bill. If the defendent believes
a 14 year old is 15, it is a complete defence to a charge under section 2.
Since section 3 is limited to sexual acts with persons over 15, and he makes the case
that he thought the girl was 16, if he is believed by the jury, it is a complete defence
and he cannot be charged with any other offence, that he has committed a sexual
act with somebody between 15 and 16."

"our advice is that this outright discrimination will fail the test of constitutionality
and of compliance withthe European Convention of Human Rights."

These excerpts form part of Deputy Howlin's response to Minister Mc Dowell
on the Criminal Law(sexual offences) Bill2006.

The official (unexpurgated) Dail report for june 2nd 2006, is at

http://debates.oireachtas.ie

The reason why it is unconstitutional is this :On the basis of the case law of the European
Court of human rights in the Dudgeon and Norris cases, where the court regected
the idea that certain acts which were lawful for heterosexuals were unlawful for
homosexuals, a strong case can and will be made for the proposition that it is
illegal to provide an act which is lawful for a girl is unlawful for a boy.*

An interesting link....

by Michael

Thu Sep 28, 2006 17:03

Forwarded by a bird;

http://www.sexinchrist.com

of particular interest is the section: Masturbation Christ's Gift to You- it is splendid
and I was taught it would make you go blind. It opens on anal sex too.(!)

Excerpt from Lamentations 2:10

by Chris Murray

Thu Sep 28, 2006 17:16

"The virgins of Jerusalem have bowed their heads to the ground"
-indicating how virgin maidens should receive anal sex- this is from the first page
of sexinchrist the piece is entitled; "Anal Sex in Accordance with God's Will"

*(or how to Roger the Dail)*

"another suggestive scripture tells of a woman's pride in her valley.... read on, tis the
good book. George Bush would be proud of ya....

Pat Rabitt

by Totti - Communisti

Fri Sep 29, 2006 00:54

Pat Rabitt is as bad as the rest. Its easy to take the mouth full while in opposition. He might be in the next government and then people will see his hypocracy.

Chris and Cut and Pastes.

by himself

Fri Sep 29, 2006 03:14

Try sticking to the guidelines Chris.

Cut and pastes. Posts that are publicly available elsewhere on the internet, or in the mainstream media. We do realise, however, that there can sometimes by a strong case for articles published elsewhere to be brought to the attention of IMC readers. In these cases, we ask contributors to write an original introduction to the article, highlighting its relevance to Irish indymedia readers and include a link to the article. Users can also choose post a short note and a link in the Media Updates link at the top of the newswire. In particular, articles that consist of an original introduction and contain several links to articles containing background information stand a good chance of being made into front-page features

This comment will self destruct in T-minus...

Another public wrist slapping....

Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:08

I presume its ok- to publish the Ombudsman for children's request for excision of section5,
given that we are the rather unprecedented position of having the Tanaiste (4% of the
vote) holding the Dail to ransom over 50,000 (donation, loan, bribe) whilst his department
has the worst record in the Department of Justice in the History of the State?

But thank you for leaving Mr Howlin's speech up. It's very funny.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Pat Rabbitte's Questions to the Tanaiste (June 1st 2006)

Comments (11 of 11)