Call on Irish Human Rights Commision to resign

by Link Fri May 18, 2007 15:13

The protest Ed is referring to is the Anti-war protest at Shannon Airport, scheduled for Saturday 19th of May, at 2pm

It was organised by the Peace & Neutrality Alliance
For further details see:-
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/82576

by RogerC Fri May 18, 2007 15:48

Well that all seems pretty straight forward, obviously the IHRC have been told to keep their noses out. I would agree there is no real need for them to investigate as it is obvious gross violations of human rights are occuring on a regular basis.
I also agree that the IHRC should resign as they are obviously toothless, spineless, toadying "Yes" men to this corrupt government.

by Mary Kelly Fri May 18, 2007 20:50

& good luck with the demo.

re IHRC I had a similar experience with them,no rresponse to my letters and a very self satisfied dismissive statement from Michael Farrell when I asked him why IHRC do not engage about illegal US military & CIA use of Shannon.

Theres a need to do far more than call for the resignation of IHRC. How about getting a petition signed for a start by people at the demo, and see where to go from there?

All the best to Cindy Sheehan, she is a great woman, and her resistence is very inspiring.

by Edward Horgan Fri May 18, 2007 22:59

Dont forget that there are two protests comming up at Shannon.
One tomorrow Sat 19 May at 2pm, meet at the airport security entrance or whereever. The second is next wednesday when Cindy Sheehan arrives about noon.
However, every day should be a protest day at Shannon from now on. Anytime you can, or when passing through or near Shannon make your own creative protest.

by Mick Butler Sun May 20, 2007 19:29

Well done Ed. Surely it is time this publicly funded body announced at time of the G F A and who Ahern declaed would "set, not follow best practice in human rights" should be exposed. How about some pickets at their HQ. Do not underestimate the power of SHAME for some people at least.
Beir Bua

by pj - gallagher united Tue May 29, 2007 15:01

Let me address the assertion that the IHRC has done nothing to address the issue of CIA renditions: even within the context of the Commission limited human and financial resources, the IHRC became the first national human rights institution to address the European Parliament ("Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners") on the 28th of November, 2006. The topic addressed? “Extraordinary CIA renditions and the use of the Shannon airport as a stopover”. The IHRC has no powers to investigate this airport or these planes. The IHRC has no power to compel the government to do anything. For the sake of its credibility, the IHRC must stick to the facts of which it is aware and to the precise requirements of international human rights law in this regard. Therefore, 2 years of submissions to the Irish government urged them to ensure compliance with their international obligations. When this was not successful, the IHRC turned to Europe, demonstrating its long-term commitment to the issue. This approach has proved successful at a European level for many organisations. There is now a massively increased public awareness of this issue. Why? Because credible campaigners presented hard facts. Both the concrete results achieved by the IHRC and their sustained commitment to the issue have been dispossessed in an instant by the Mr. Horgan.

The IHRC is not an NGO. It has statutory rules of procedure. Other organisations can (and indeed must) campaign on a broader platform and protest about issues outside of the often limited sphere of the law. The IHRC does not have that luxury, but (I would imagine…) fully supports the work of the multitude of human rights NGOs in Ireland who carry out such tremendous work (e.g. Frontline Defenders, Amnesty, Refugee Council, etc.) in their own way.

The approach of Edward Horgan is tantamount to fascism: “if this human rights outfit doesn’t conform to my vision of a human rights outfit, then get rid of them!”

Organisations such as the IHRC are vital for delivering a human rights message to those who would not find themselves represented by groups such as PANA, or even Amnesty, etc. (for whatever reason). And by assuming a position of absolute credibility, they can have an influence on the government in a way that inaccurate vituperations can never hope to have. If you are truly committed to a cause, the most effective approach is the one adopted. This is made easier by the large amount of organisations in this country who adopt a variety of working methods.

The campaigning of those truly committed to the cause of human rights, be they involved at NGO, governmental, international organisational, or national human rights institution level, does not deserve to be belittled by Mr. Horgan.

by Observer Tue May 29, 2007 16:29

I wish at the outset of this post to acknowledge the great work of Mr. Horgan in relation to his campaigning on the issue of the US military presence in Shannon and on the possible illegal transfer through Shannon of persons to destinations unknown where they may be at risk of torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment (Rendition).

However I must take issue with Mr. Horgan’s call for the resignation of the Commissioners of the Irish Human Rights Commission (the Commission). I do so for a number of reasons.

Firstly Mr. Horgan simply ignores the huge work done by the Commission since December 2005 when they made their initial submission to the Government calling for a system of inspections of suspected planes at Irish Airports as it was their view that not doing so in the face of credible suspicions was not compliant with Irelands obligations under international law, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the UN Convention against Torture (CAT). This intervention created massive publicity around the issue with, on one day alone, the Commissions intervention being covered on the front page of the Irish Times, an interview with Professor Gerard Quinn of the Commission on Morning Ireland and being carried as a lead item on the 1,6 and 0 o’clock news. The Commission’ work on the issue gained international attention with the intervention of Mr. Alvaro Gil Robles, the Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe in early 2006. This intervention was done in support of the Commission. The Commission also took the opportunity during 2006 to meet with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Louise Arbour, and raise the issue with her. It might be remembered that Ms. Arbour issued a statement subsequently in support of the work of the Commission. The work of the Commission culminated, perhaps, with its appearance before the special temporary committee of the European Parliament on the subject of rendition. This appearance was at the Parliament’s invitation precisely as a result of the prominence of the Commission’s work in relation to the rendition issue. This was the first time ever any National Human Rights Commission was invited to appear before the European Parliament. The President of the Commission, Dr. Maurice Manning and one of its Commissioners, Suzanne Egan, took the opportunity to inform the Committee in no uncertain terms that in the Commissions view the Irish Government was not fulfilling their international obligations. All of the above interventions received substantial media coverage both at home and abroad thus raising the profile of the issue in a way never before. Readers might also search the Oireachtas website for the many discussions which took place in the Dail and Seanad as a result of the Commission’s interventions.

Secondly, however lawyerly and, it might be argued, insensitive the letter received from the Commission was, what exactly did Mr. Horgan expect the Commission to do? Did he perhaps expect them to conduct an enquiry lasting months and months, spend thousands and thousands of euro paying lawyers to so do and then, perhaps in a years time, come to exactly the same conclusion it already has and tell the Government AGAIN that it is not fulfilling it’s international human rights obligations? Really Mr. Horgan.

The second issue is in relation to Mr. Horgan’s annoyance in the Commission’s refusal to conduct an enquiry into the general use of Shannon by the US military thus facilitating an “illegal war”. Simply put, the present troop presence in Iraq is on foot of a United Nations Resolution’s which was agreed post invasion for the purposes of rebuilding. All the resolutions are themselves are freely available on the UN Website (word of caution, the site is extremely difficult to navigate).

Therefore the Irish State presently facilitating the US military in this way is not only legal but in furtherance of a United Nations Resolution.

If I am correct, Mr. Horgan himself went to the Irish Supreme Court ( Horgan v An Taoiseach, Minister for Foreign Affairs [2003] 2 IR 468) in an effort to stop the State facilitating the US in this way. Also argued in the Supreme Court was the use of the US of Irish Airports prior to the invasion of Iraq when the disputed original resolution was in force (the one the American’s and English said was authority to invade and others, including Ireland, said was not). Having considered the matter the Supreme Court decided that the States actions were legal and continue to be legal with regard to the Irish Constitution and International Law generally.

Mr. Horgan, the Irish Human Rights Commission is not an NGO, or even a Super NGO. It is a Statutory Body. Its only regard is to the legality of a situation given the Constitution and International Human Rights Treaties to which the State is a party. This is what they have done in this instance. They are not there to decide “right” from “wrong” in a moral sense, just simply dry legalities. If it was to behave in any other way it would surrender it’s influence with the State, which would be of detriment to all of us.

I am quite sure that some members of the Commission individually find the use of Shannon morally reprehensible but they are not Commissioners to moralise. Mr. Horgan should be grateful that the issue of rendition has received more publicity than heretofore thought possible rather than heaping scorn on the likes of Michael Farrell, William Binchy, Alice Leahy, Gerard Quinn et al, who, it cannot be argued, are slow in criticising the State without fear or favour whenever required.

by Mary Kelly Tue May 29, 2007 20:18

to Observer & PJ Gallagher- united.
First why dont ye declare your true identities and let us see who is actually defending the IHRC's inaction re CIA & US military use of Shannon?

Ed Horgan's case was in the High Court & very unfortunately not appealed to Supreme Court or Strassburg. Ed will clarify this.
He had little practical support for this case, similar to Eoin Dubsky who challenged the use of Shannon for the illegal invasion of Afghanistan, thus they were not appealed.

The IHRC far from being a challenge to the Government on these matters is the opposite! They are a very useful tool. When there was some publicity about the CIA ferrying though victims to torture centres-
Mc Dowell was able to say to the media that Maurice Manning of IHRC said there was " no smoking gun in Shannon"- nothing to investigate!

Mr Michael Farrell seemed shocked when I asked him publicly why the IHRC did not themselves go to Shannon & do their own impromptu inspection of US planes transitting. His answer was that first , the IHRC had no power to do that, second the CIA prabably did not use it anymore! ( how the f*%K does he know?!) and he spouted the nonsense that has been repeated by Observer above -"Simply put, the present troop presence in Iraq is on foot of a United Nations Resolution’s which was agreed post invasion for the purposes of rebuilding" Why dont IHRC challenge that or support people who do?

Does a UN resolution agreed post invasion really legitimise an illegal invasion?!
There is no rebuilding! What an insult to the Iraqi people to say that. The mercenaries are having a field day there- with no laws governing their 'work', the US & UK presence is bolstered up by such twisted shit as has been stated by the IHRC.

It is not effective, it is NOT a dagger not even a thorn in the side of the viscious greedy corrupt cabal- Ahern, Cowen, Mc Dowell D.Ahern-that promote use of Shannon by the US.
None of them lose any sleep by the ineffectual 'statements' that come from IHRC.
It is odd to watch the storm in teacup about Ahern's mysterious finances- what about all the rewards he must be getting for being such a willing 'Shoe Shine Boy' for Mr Bush'?

As for "I am quite sure that some members of the Commission individually find the use of Shannon morally reprehensible but they are not Commissioners to moralise." Why dont ALL MEMBERS of IHRC find it reprehensible?

Why are IHRC so scared of being a challenging human rights body? Me thinks they would need a dose of sleep deprivation, sexual humilialtion, being held underwater, and some of the ' milder'ormes of torture to wake up to the realities happening with cead mile failte from the Irish.

by Observer Tue May 29, 2007 22:08

Dear Ms. Kelly,

You are quite right to point out that Mr. Horgans case was decided in the High Court rather than the Supreme Court. The fault is entirely mine. The Judge in question ( Mr. Justice Kearns) is now a member of the Supreme Court, thus my confusion. My apologies. I have no knowlege of the other poster, PJ Gallagher, and I have no professional connection whatsoever with the Irish Human Rights Commission.

As for your sugestion that the Commission is or was innactive on the issue, surely you read my previous post with the long list of its interventions.

You are also quite right to point out that Dr. Manning indicated to the European Parlimentary Committee that he was aware of no "smoking gun". If you go to the Committee website you will see the exact context in which these remarks are made. He was indicating that there has been no proven case, no witness, no sighting of a prisioner being "rendered" through Shannon. Obviously there has not as the Government have refused to follow the advice of the Irish Human Rights Commission and put in place an inspection system. Nor have the Gardai ever attempted to search a plane on foot of any complaint to them. What he was indicating is that no one has sighted a "prisoner" in a jump suit shackeled and shouting "help help". And,indeed, no one to my knowledge has. I am sure you are aware that politicians are capable of using phrases out of context to suit their own purposes. I have just checked the Commission website and note that on the day McDowell made that comment in the Dail Maurice Manning ssued a clarification so as to avoid this kind of misunderstanding.

As for the Commission actually physically searching any plane or airport THEY DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO SO. Might I sugest, with the greatest respect, that you actually read the Human Rights Commission Act, 2000, which lays out the powers and functions of the Commission.

In relation to the Commission challenging a United Nations resolution or supporting those who do, again, and with respect, this is not the Commission's function. The Commission has no role whatsoever in relation to the consideration by the United Nations Security Council of any particular resolution. The Commission is restricted by Statute to consideration of matters WITHIN THE STATE. As I stated in my previous post the Commission is a creature of Statute and simply cannot just make unfounded assertions without rigorous legal analysis and any actions taken have to be within the powers and functions of the Commission. Again, for the sake of clarity, the Commission is not an NGO.

I simply do not know what individual Commissioners think on the matter, I am merely assuming that some or all are uncomfortable, as am I , with the use of Shannon in the present manner. However, the Commission can only do what it legally can. You may not like that but, unfortunately, that is the case. I hope that clarifies matters.

In relation to the last paragraph of your post I firmly believe you owe at least one member of the Commission a profound apology. You should have been aware that Mr. Michael Farrell was involved in the Civil Rights movement in Derry in the 70's and was interned without trial for his troubles. References to members of the Commission being tortured are totally innapropriate and perhaps you should consider why the issue of Shannon and rendition is not taken as seriously as it should. Perhaps it is the way the argument is put?

by pj - gallagher united Wed May 30, 2007 12:17

First off, I have no connection with the IHRC and no knowledge of the identity of Observer.

When addressing the issue, why did you insist on using terms such as the “illegal invasion of Afghanistan”? Is this to express your deep commitment to the people of Afghanistan? Is the IHRC the American government? I would imagine that anyone involved in human rights is horrified by the humanitarian disaster occurring in Afghanistan and other parts of the world, but railing against those who have no control over a situation and still go to great lengths to address it is not only self-defeating, it plays right into the hands of a classic American-style divide an rule tactic. I am quite frankly baffled at the vehemence directed at the IHRC for its efforts. Perhaps if the IHRC had succeeded in achieving a change in US government, they would suffer less criticism. At BEST, I feel that the energy put into this campaign against the IHRC is misdirected and petty.

To describe the IHRC as a useful tool to the government is ridiculous. The Irish government was apoplectic when the IHRC contributed to a damning report on CIA renditions in Ireland. The IHRC played an important role in generating publicity and when McDowell DELIBERATELY misquoted Dr. Manning, it did not go unchallenged. Yet again, an arch right-winger sowed the seeds of division in the ranks of human rights bodies and you were all to willing to swallow them down.

Michael Farrell, a previously interned civil rights activist from Derry (whose credibility is as impeccable as that of the other Commissioners), would have been trying to explain to you that the mandate of the IHRC is to ensure compliance with international human rights law and the Irish Constitution’s human rights provisions. Many members of the Commission would have come from a variety of campaigning backgrounds, but when they assumed the role of Commissioner they agreed to be bound by the mandate of the Commission. This was because Ireland has a large and active community of human rights activists who adopt a number of tactics and approaches and the IHRC could credibly use this approach. I cannot understand what is conceptually challenging about this.

Regarding supporting the people of Iraq, again there is no justification for asking why the IHRC does not support those who challenge the invasion, the people of Iraq and of Afghanistan. The IHRC is part of a worldwide network of national human rights institution that includes Afghanistan and the fledgling Iraqi Human Rights Commission (which has recently been delayed as part of the political struggle within that country). In February, members of the IHRC met in Boston with the individuals entrusted with ensuring respect for the rights of the disabled in Iraq, in order to help develop jointly best practise for addressing that concern. In March, members of the IHRC met in Geneva with the head and secretary of the Afghani Human Rights Commission. In Amman, Jordan only a month ago, the IHRC was involved in the first Arab-European Human Rights dialogue, addressing the issue of terrorism and human rights. While there, contact was made with a Mr. Hussain Shaban of the Iraqi Network for Human Rights Culture and Development to express solidarity. The conclusions of this dialogue strongly called for governmental compliance with human rights standards. Indeed, the IHRC was in a unique position to express its gratitude to the Jordanian Centre for Human Rights for refusing to comply with a request (accompanied by a bribe) from the British government to ensure that Jordan complied with bilateral guarantees on the treatment of prisoners which circumvent human rights law. To criticise the IHRC for failing in this regard is absolutely baseless and a waste of time. Channel your energies into something productive, not into criticising like-minded individuals who employ contrasting tactics. You have no right to talk about insulting the Iraqi people. That sounds like empty rhetoric.

Furthermore, why do insist on linking the invasion of Iraq with the IHRC. Again, is the IHRC the American government? NO. Has the IHRC done everything in its power to highlight and address this issue? YES. Has the IHRC employed mercenaries or thwarted redevelopment? NO. Has the IHRC bolstered the US and UK governments in this regard. NO, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Putting comments such as “ineffectual IHRC statements”, “Ahern’s mysterious finances” and “Shoe shine boy for Mr. Bush” together is surely ludicrous. What exactly is the intention of this? It is a said day for the left of this country when we cannot see the common cause of the promotion of human rights though the garbled trees of an artificially engineered political divide.

Political posturing is not, and never will be, a substitute for quiet, diligent, consistently committed work towards human rights for all.

by anon Wed May 30, 2007 15:48

"Therefore the Irish State presently facilitating the US military in this way is not only legal but in furtherance of a United Nations Resolution."

This type of language if its any reflection of the IHRC position is exactly the problem, why would the IHRC even give any credance to such nonsense it may be international/UN law but they made it up as the went along, after the fact, the IHRC is worthless if it follows the state as it make up new rules after they've broken laws that the IHRC is supposed to watchdog. Its just nonsense, if Ireland through its supply of Shannon to the US particpated in an illegal war the IHRC should recognise this to be credible and not take its view from the perpetrator who covering up after themselves.Your allowing the criminal to absolve itself of its own crime. That to me doesn't sound like very useful Human Rights Commission.

by Observer Wed May 30, 2007 15:58

Further to anon's post, I am glad to see that, whether I or you like it or not, you acknowledge that there is in place a resolution and the present use of shannon to facilitate US troops is legal under international law. That is the only thing that matters as far as the Human Rights Commission is concerned. Not the morality of the war, which I am quite sure they dont support, but the legality of the situation. That is their purpose, not the morality of any given situation. That is all I am trying to say. They are a Statutory Body. Not an NGO. And for those who might think otherwise, I most certainly do not support the way, I do not support the use of Shannon to facilate the US, either in peace time or war. I merely suggest that the Commission has been subject to unfair and at times uninformed criticism and I am simply attempting to inform people as to what exactly they can and cant do.

by pj - gallagher united Wed May 30, 2007 16:56

Unfortunately, in every modern society there is a broad spectrum of violations of, and threats to, human rights and fundamental liberties. This requires a variety of defences form a variety of organisations using a variety of tactics. Constant vigilance in this regard is the cost of democracy.

Ireland is lucky to have such a large group of human rights “bodies”, from the IHRC to Amnesty, to Trocaire, to PANA to the Refugee Council, the list is endless before even mentioning the plethora of essential community-based organisations. Each one of these plays a specific role, using limited resources and avoiding any duplication with other bodies.

National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) (of which the IHRC is one) play a specific role in relying on precise legal instruments and hard facts to prevent national governments from shirking from their international and domestic human rights law obligations. This is the approach of NHRIs the world over. It has proved to be a successful approach in a variety of diverse jurisdictions in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. Of course, the broad front of promoting and protecting human rights can only be addressed by a combination of methodologies. However, the global growth of the NHRI movement and the close cooperation between international organisations such as the Council of Europe and the United Nations would seem to suggest that on a purely pragmatic level, something is working.

It is for this reason that the aspirations cast on the IHRC are so unwarranted and self-defeating. The IHRC is not an NGO and can be neither viewed nor judged as such. At worst, it provides another vital link in the armour of the human rights community and of civil society as a whole.

Human rights organisations should complement each other.

On a different, yet extremely important, note, I am personally someone who identifies strongly with left of centre politics and counter culture lifestyles. This is not a “boast”; this blog is anonymous. I mention this because for me the importance of advancing the human rights agenda supersedes my own cultural preferences in the public sphere.

In a similar way, credible organisations such as Amnesty, Frontline and the IHRC appeal in an apolitical and non-culturally threatening way to society at large. The aim is the promotion of, and education in, human rights to the broadest possible audience. Far too often, as seems to be the case in this whole sorry affair, actions of the self-described “most committed individuals” merely put society at large off the concept of human rights. It is time for apolitical, committed human rights activists to take stock of the damage being done by fringe left elements whose staying power must be questioned. Do we want middle-aged parents to continue associate “human rights” with the communist anarchists? with anarcho primitivism? with individualist anarchism? with primitivists? with any or all of the post-leftist schools? These political ideologies may well be the preference of some of us, but again, the advancement of the human rights agenda must always take primacy. To continue to selfishly link human rights to left-wing politics in a way that does not appeal to anyone older than 20 or younger than 19 is not only naive, but it plays right into the hands of those who do not support our aims.

Equally, presenting the sound, moral arguments of a human rights concerned individual while wrapped up in a hemp jumper (my own preference) and a six foot beard, will only further damage our cause. The blurring between the advancement of cultural, political and human rights agenda must cease. NOW. Only the latter matters.

by anon Wed May 30, 2007 17:03

I said it was nonsense, there are many different interpretations on the legality of the war, even the UK AG had to change his mind and concoct the legality for themselves. And similarily in the dail. You can't operate with any credibility on the basis ( interned ex-prisoners or none) of accepting the ruling of the criminal.

by Observer Wed May 30, 2007 17:29

Anon et al,

Can you tell me simply, and in practical terms, what exactly you wanted/want the Irish Human Rights Commission to do?

by Edward Horgan - PANA Thu May 31, 2007 22:49

My response to Pj Gallagher, and observer is as follows.
Observer asked “What I wanted the IHRC to do?” The answer is simple, RESIGN. As I believe all the IHRC Commissioners are honourable people, they are being used as a sort of smoke screen behind which the Irish Government can hide, while the role of the IHRC is so restricted by legislation, that they have no real human right function, other than to issues harmless gently admonishments. As honourable people they should do the honourable thing and resign, so as to expose the powerlessness of the Commission.
I requested each of the Commissioners of the Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC) to resign, because they are perceived by many and probably most members of the public as being a body capable of and intended to defend the human rights of individuals in Ireland, or passing through Ireland, or individuals whose human rights are being violated by persons using Irish territory.
This is a serious misconception, and this is tacitly admitted by PJ Gallagher & Co. when they acknowledge that the IHRC was set up effectively by the Government, and whose role was so limited by law.

Mr Observer states that:
“Mr. Horgan, the Irish Human Rights Commission is not an NGO, or even a Super NGO. It is a Statutory Body. Its only regard is to the legality of a situation given the Constitution and International Human Rights Treaties to which the State is a party. This is what they have done in this instance.”

My point is that the IHRC has even refused to uphold the illegality of the situation at Shannon airport, especially in their contention that they have no powers to act when the human rights abuses were being perpetrated outside the jurisdiction of the Irish state. The IHRC has falsely stated or implied that persons within the Irish state, conspiring and facilitating the committing of crimes outside the state are committing a most serious criminal offence. Neither Observer nor PJ Gallagher address the comparison I have made with the Omagh bombers.

Observer further states that:

“As for the Commission actually physically searching any plane or airport THEY DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO SO. Might I sugest, with the greatest respect, that you actually read the Human Rights Commission Act, 2000, which lays out the powers and functions of the Commission.”
That is exactly my point. The IHRC is powerless by design and by an act of the Oireachtas. The failure by the IHRC whether by reason of unwillingness or powerlessness (I believe both factors applied), to take any effective action on the use of Shannon airport for facilitation of the transport of prisoners for torture and for engaging in an unlawful war, is justification for my call for resignation.

I detect a flavour of Foreign Affairs in some of the arguments of Gallagher & Co.
They seek to cite international law, and the UN Security Council in justification for the Iraq war, or at least for the occupation after 2004.
It is unlawful and contrary to the UN Charter for any state except in genuine self-defence to launch a military attack on another state. (have a good look of the UN Charter sometime).
The UN charter does not authorise the UN Security Council to issue post facto legitimisation of unlawful wars.
On the contrary, the UN General Assembly issued a binding resolution in 1970 stating that it was a “Principle of the United Nations” that any occupation of territory that was unlawfully occupied, (as Iraq was in March 2003) cannot be legitimised in hindsight.
The UN Security Council was, and is, in serious breach of its own UN Charter, and therefore in breach of international law, by issuing a resolution agreeing to the US led occupation of Iraq.
Likewise, the Irish Government is in breach of international law at Shannon airport by allowing this airport to be used by a belligerent state in an act of war. The Irish Government is also in breach of Irish criminal law in allowing and facilitating the killing of innocent people outside of borders of the Irish state, by people who are using Irish territory (Shannon airport) for these purposes.
I am sure also that Gallagher and Co. are very well aware that Mr Justice Kearns ruled in my favour in the High Court on the issue of the Irish Government being in clear breach of international law (Hague Convention on Neutrality etc.) by allowing the US military use Shannon airport for an unlawful war in Iraq. The issue of the unlawfulness of the Iraq war is also very clear. Without UN Security Council approval, this was is de facto and de jure unlawful.
If all this were simply a matter of legal niceties, then we could go any arguing the toss indefinitely.
The reality is that over half a million people have been killed unlawfully, and thousands of prisoners have been tortured (there is no lawful way to torture anyone, according to the UN Convention against Torture UNCAT and the Irish 2000 Act bring UNCAT into Irish legislation).
The IHRC commissioners, by legislative design, and by failure to pursue adequate and diligent investigation, has failed to live up to even its limited legislative role, and has failed to live up to the honourable expectations that most Irish citizens expect of it.
The only honourable option open to the IHRC is to resign.
“If not I, Who? If not now, When”
Just how many prisoners must be tortured, and how many innocent people are the Irish Government allowed by complicity in the killing of, before the IHRC will find it “EXPEDIENT” to take action.

by Observer Fri Jun 01, 2007 09:50

Mr. Horgan,

I think we agree!! Yes, you are quite right to say that the Commission is limited by " legislative design", I personally would prefer the phrase "by statute", however, I do not wish to engage in semantics. The Irish Human Rights Commission is indeed a creature of statute and CANNOT act without its powers. Your point, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the Commission should resign en mass because their powers do not extend to the extent that you think they should or to the extent that the Commission should be able to act "in loco" Government or the United Nations. You are asking them to resign becaure their powers, in your view, do not go far enough. The Commission had no hand, act or part in its own creation. In fact Dr. Manning is the Commission's second President and only last year the Commission was reappointed with substantial new membership. All these, as you accept, eminent persons took on their role knowing full well their powers, functions AND limitations and have done wonderfull work, including negotiating at the United Nations, on behalf of National Institutions worldwide, the recently adopted Disability Convention.

Surely the issue of, as you see it, lack of powers, is a matter best taken up with the legislature?

I think it most unfortunate that you would call on such honourable people to resign when they have done all that is possible within their powers. Are you honestly telling me that the issue of rendition would have achieved such a media profile and public abhorence without the intervention of the Commission? With respect Mr. Horgan, your valiant work, and I say that honestly and sincerely, over several years produced nothing like the public profile and public abhorance of rendition as did ONE, of several, interventions by the Commission.

I reject utterly any assertion that they are refusing to exercise their powers for arbitary reasons. Your phrase I believe was that they are "Unwilling to Act". If you have evidence of this Mr. Horgan an option for you, of course, is to challenge the Commisson's decision by way of judicial review. I do not expect to see you in the judicial review list anytime soon.

For information, the Irish Human Rights Commission has the most effective powers available to any national institution throughout the world. I do not say that this is a good or a bad thing. It is merely a fact. No National Instution internationally is a court or has power to substitute its view for those of the legislature or the courts. They are advisory bodies and the Irish Human Rights Commisson has "advised" Government on numerous occasions that they are of a view the the State is not living up to it's international obligations by not putting a system of random inspections in place in Irish airports.

Mr. Horgan, are you seriously telling me and those reading this that you had absolutely no knowledge of the powers and functions of the Commission prior to embarking on your request to them. Were you not directed to their website where all this information is freely available? Did you not read the Human Rights Commission Act 2000? As a highly educated man Mr. Horgan, should you not have been aware of the scope of its powers?

Your point in relation to the the State facilating illegal acts without the state is not born out in fact. The Commission have repeatidly stated that the mere refueling of planes which may be coming or going from "rendition" missions is sufficient to trigger our obligations under CAT and the ECHR. They have repeatidly told both the Government and the EU this.

In relation to the war in Iraq and the facilitation of US forces in Shannon for this purpose, how many times have I to repeat that the present use of Shannon by US forces is in furtherance of a UN Resolution for the rebuilding of Iraq. Your assertion, that by virtue of the adoption of this resolution, that the Security Council is in breach of the UN Charter is simply nonsense and displays a somewhat blinkered view of International Law. Mr. Horgan, much as you or I may not like it, a fundimental principle of International Law is that International Treaties, like the UN Charter, mean what the High Contracting Parties wish it to mean. It's not good, its not often right but it is what it is. In the present circumstances the Security Council made the decision it made and that, for the purposes of the Human Rights Commission, is that. What you are effectively trying to do, Mr. Horgan, is substitute your view for that of the international community.

To be absolutely frank, your assertion the Mr. Justice Kearns ruled in your favour is fanciful, I reproduce hereunder the relevent paragraphs of his judgement.

Article 29 of the Constitution decison by Kearns J: Plaintiff's - Ed Horgan/ Defendants - Taoiseach et al

"Accordingly I find in favour of the defendants on all aspects of the case under Article 29. It follows from this conclusion that I do not accept the plaintiff's view that the court should hold that the Government are obliged as a matter of law under Article 29 to form any particular view in relation to a war. Its only reviewable aspect lies in compliance with the requirements of Article 28."

Article 28 of the Constitution decision by Kearns J:

"The judicial organ does not decide an issue of 'participation' in this context as a primary decision maker. Under the Constitution, those decisions are vested in the Government and Dáil Éireann respectively. This is not a situation where the court can approach the matter on a "clean sheet" basis, ignoring decisions made by those constitutionally designated to do so within their own special areas of competence."

"The issue of 'participation' is not a black and white issue. It may well ultimately be, as stated by the Taoiseach, a matter of "substance and degree". However, that is quintessentially a matter for the Government and the elected public representatives in Dáil Éireann to determine and resolve. In even an extreme case, the court would be still obliged to extend a considerable margin of appreciation to those organs of State when exercising their functions and responsibilities under Article 28."

"The plaintiff is effectively asking that the Dáil be told by this court to resolve afresh on a matter on which it has already resolved on the presumed basis that the court is better suited than the Dáil for deciding what constitutes 'participation' in a war. The court cannot without proof of quite exceptional circumstances, accept this contention and accordingly the plaintiff's claim under Article 28 of the Constitution also fails."

What the Court did hold however, and to be fair to you, Mr. Horgan,is that there is a rule of customary international law that prohibits a state from facilitating another state in terms of movement of munitions etc where that state is a beligerant in a war situation (saving a UN mandate, but with a mandate it would not be offically a "war situation!) but that it was a matter for the Oireachtas to decide what constutited a war and that the courts would be very slow to interviene in such circumstances given the separation of powers save for exceptional circumstances, which were not present in Mr. Horgan's case.

That, Mr. Horgan, is called democracy!!

Can I finish Mr. Hogan by repeating my question, which you have heretofore not answered, as to what exactly and practically you expected or expect the Irish Human Rights Commission to do???