Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Amendment court challenge

12357

Comments

  • #122
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Are you serious? The objections have already been through the High Court, and judgement given, and through the Court of Appeal, and judgment given, and now there remains only 12 days to try and bring a final appeal to the Supreme Court. I don't see how that's anything other than very fast.

    On television legal cases get wrapped up within 45 minutes of the underlying events occurring. But you're in the real world now.

    I'd consider 85 days and ticking to get an official result on a referendum pretty odd by any standard.

    This is serious enough to warrant hearing all the various appeals over a matter of a few days.

    We could easily be looking at 180+ days before this is enacted.

    In terms of Irish legal process being slow, relatively simple cases that would take a couple of days - a few weeks at most in other jurisdictions are averaging 18+ months here due to bureaucracy and lack of resources.

    There has been significant criticism of the way things process in the courts here and time delays etc etc.

    Even the Oireachtas holidays are nuts:

    14 August 2015 to 22 September 2015

    27 weekdays / 39 days including weekends.

    They take off from 22 Dec to 14 Jan

    amongst other breaks..

    It sits about 100 days a year (123 last year but that was due to a few odd issues)

    Measured in terms of legislative output, the Irish parliamentary system is one of the least productive in the EU.


  • #123
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 25,981 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I'd consider 85 days and ticking to get an official result on a referendum pretty odd by any standard.
    Only if you consider it odd that there can be challenges in court to the way a referendum has been conducted. But once you accept that the conduct of a referendum should be open to review in the courts, then "85 days and counting" is a pretty short time.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    This is serious enough to warrant hearing all the various appeals over a matter of a few days.
    No. This is serious enough to warrant hearing all the appeals properly. Objectors have to be given time to assemble evidence, and then prepare and submit arguments. The state has to be given time to consider the arguments and frame a response. The court has to be given time to consider what it has heard and prepare a judgment. The parties have to be given time to consider the possibility of an appeal. Rinse and repeat.

    You can't devise a framework for all this which assumes that any objections to the conduct of the referendum will be bogus and can be dismissed without any serious consideration. The time limits, the processes, etc all have to be devised on the assumpt that there may be a real issue to be addressed.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    We could easily be looking at 180+ days before this is enacted.
    We're looking at well over two years, but most of this is the executive and the legislature faffing around. The judicial side of this, by constrast, has proceeded with remarkable dispatch.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    In terms of Irish legal process being slow, relatively simple cases that would take a couple of days - a few weeks at most in other jurisdictions are averaging 18+ months here due to bureaucracy and lack of resources.
    Irish hearings, once they start, generally proceed with more dispatch than in England, and take fewer days to conclude. Other countries' trials are not easily comparable, since they tend to do a lot less in court, and a lot more in the paperwork beforehand. But, yes, there can be long delays in getting a case on for hearing. But there certainly hasn't been in this particular case.

    There has been significant criticism of the way things process in the courts here and time delays etc etc.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Even the Oireachtas holidays are nuts:
    Maybe, but that's hardly a criticism of the courts. As already pointed out, the argument over whether the cert should be signed before the expiry of the appeal period or not is pointless, since even if the cert is signed immediately the Oireachtas wont's be sitting until long after the appeal period has elapsed.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Measured in terms of legislative output, the Irish parliamentary system is one of the least productive in the EU.
    When you consider some of the legislation they put out, that might not be an entirely bad thing! ;)


  • #124
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    In general though the impression coming across is there's some serious foot dragging going on.

    despite their euphoria after the result, FG sat on the referendum date announcement for a very long time which resulted in what was probably one of the longest referendum debates in Irish history.

    For some people, that actually caused rather a lot of pain and anguish as the media put the very concept various forms of family on public trial and rolled out all the anti gay commentators to have a good rant with 50% of the airtime handed over

    even months before the official campaign the BAI was upholding complaints against RTE because Derek Mooney happened to mention he'd like to get married !!

    I really do think this is being dragged out absolutely ridiculously far at this stage.

    Some of the content of the appeals was also almost farcical from what I've read anyway.

    Ireland is certainly excellent at tying itself in legal and bureaucractic knots, that's for sure!


  • #125
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,710 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    Many people would argue that these cases undermine democracy. I cannot see how these cases are healthy for democracy. They are a complete farce.

    No. The fact that the result can be challenged and the cases can be taken is in my opinion very healthy for democracy. The cases themselves are farcical but the fact they can be taken is a very good thing in my opinion. I would prefer to live in a democracy where there are checks and balances allowed rather than a tin pot dictatorship where citizens cannot challenge elections or referenda.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #126
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,710 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    In general though the impression coming across is there's some serious foot dragging going on.

    I havent got that impression at all.

    I think they've acted quite fast when you consider that the Childrens referendum was in November 2012 and couldnt be signed until April 2015 because of court challenges. In comparison these cases are taking much quicker.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #127
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 12,942 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    No. The fact that the result can be challenged and the cases can be taken is in my opinion very healthy for democracy. The cases themselves are farcical but the fact they can be taken is a very good thing in my opinion. I would prefer to live in a democracy where there are checks and balances allowed rather than a tin pot dictatorship where citizens cannot challenge elections or referenda.

    I don't agree that this particular challenge and hold up is healthy for democracy.


  • #128
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,710 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    I don't agree that this particular challenge and hold up is healthy for democracy.

    It is though in the sense that the challenge can happen. Imagine living in a country where an ordinary had no access to the courts to challenge laws of the land and how democracy happens. Imagine if Norris and Zappone and Gilligan and Foy didnt have access to challenge laws. The challenge itself is a farce but I can't agree that we should never allow cases like this to happen. There have been important cases such as McKeena in this area which found that the state can't spend government (taxpayers) money promoting one side of a referendum. It is perfectly healthy that we can allow checks and balances within our democracy.

    Yes this is a farce
    Yes it is frustratingly causing delays
    No we should ban cases like this. Let the courts examine them on a case by case basis.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #129
    newacc2015
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭newacc2015


    SpaceTime wrote: »

    even months before the official campaign the BAI was upholding complaints against RTE because Derek Mooney happened to mention he'd like to get married !!

    The BAI should be abolished with how it handled the marriage referendum. Una Mullally spent years, writing a book on Irish LGBT history. The BAI informed her, if she wanted to discuss it on air, that should would have to have an opposing body. This was before the referendum was called. WTF is up with having an opposing body on a factual history book?


  • #130
    pl4ichjgy17zwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,053 ✭✭✭pl4ichjgy17zwd


    newacc2015 wrote: »
    The BAI should be abolished with how it handled the marriage referendum. Una Mullally spent years, writing a book on Irish LGBT history. The BAI informed her, if she wanted to discuss it on air, that should would have to have an opposing body. This was before the referendum was called. WTF is up with having an opposing body on a factual history book?

    Wow, I didn't know that. That is really disgraceful.


  • #131
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    newacc2015 wrote: »
    The BAI should be abolished with how it handled the marriage referendum. Una Mullally spent years, writing a book on Irish LGBT history. The BAI informed her, if she wanted to discuss it on air, that should would have to have an opposing body. This was before the referendum was called. WTF is up with having an opposing body on a factual history book?

    If it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If it censors like a censor.. well, it's probably a board of censorship.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 25,981 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    If it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If it censors like a censor.. well, it's probably a board of censorship.
    I gotta say, though, that wanting opposing views to be heard is the opposite of censorship, isn't it?

    I don't know the ins and outs of the incident - if there was no referendum campaign under way, on what basis and in what context did the BAI require that a contrary view be heard? Maybe there is a case for objecting to this ruling, but anyone criticising it as "censorship" risks looking like a graduate of the Iona Institute school of drama queenery - "If I can't say my piece uncontradicted I'm being censored!"


  • #133
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I gotta say, though, that wanting opposing views to be heard is the opposite of censorship, isn't it?

    I don't know the ins and outs of the incident - if there was no referendum campaign under way, on what basis and in what context did the BAI require that a contrary view be heard? Maybe there is a case for objecting to this ruling, but anyone criticising it as "censorship" risks looking like a graduate of the Iona Institute school of drama queenery - "If I can't say my piece uncontradicted I'm being censored!"

    You can read all about it here:

    It related to a broadcast made nearly a year and a half before the referendum 20th Jan 2014.

    http://www.bai.ie/?ddownload=53028

    It relates to a complaint made on behalf of The Family & Media Association.

    The decision provoked a response from the NUJ and various human rights campaigners.

    https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/nuj-challenges-mooney-programme-ruling-on-same-sex-marriages/

    Broadcasting regulation like this is very unwelcome in a democracy. It's completely over the top.

    It's a complaints driven process which is massively interfering with the running of a very normal light entertainment show that was having a fairly casual chat about marriage equality.

    Also the only complaint upheld was against one side.

    The "censored" no campaigners were given 50% of the airtime and nobody was censured or censored for expressing their opinions. Only the LGBT people were!


  • #134
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 25,981 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Is this the right report, Spacetime? There is no mention in what you link of Una Mullally or her book on Irish LGBT history. And it refers to a broadcast made about a month after the referendum had been announced (as in, the Government announced that it would hold a referendum), not before. Finally, the substance of this Decision was not that there should have been guests invited to express opposing views; it was that in the absence of any guests expressing opposing views it was the role of the presenter to put alternative views to the guests he did have, which he did not do. Instead, he expressed his own view on the matter.


  • #135
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    That ruling set the precedent where by Una's book couldn't be discussed.

    Most broadcasters wouldn't touch LGBT issues for 2014 because of that. It had a chilling effect on discussion of gay issues.

    The BAI referendum guidelines do not come into force until an official referendum campaign is underway.

    They chose to extend them backwards by well over a year.

    At that rate nothing could be discussed on air ever basically. Any mater of public debate could be dragged into this.

    If you brought on someone to discuss being a Kerry fan, you'd need someone on arguing for the abolition of County Kerry.

    If you had a discussion about wearing seatbelt a, you'd need an "expert" on to discuss why it's total nonsense and you should just not bother & sure use your mobile whole you're at it.

    The BAI is complaints process is open to being used as a tool by lobbyists to censure broadcasters for saying things they don't like. That's the long and the short of it.

    A complaints driven broadcasting complaints process should be dealing with things like graphic violence or things like total lies on air presented as news, lack of standards for fact checking etc etc

    This is getting down to tying presenters and producers in knots, taking away all autonomy and basically micromanaging broadcasting to the point it would be unworkable.

    If the BAI keeps this up, I'll be lobbying very hard to have it reigned in or abolished.

    This is absolutely censorship.

    "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions." (Webster Dictionary)

    They considered the expression of an opinion to be politically incorrect, inconvenient and possibly harmful to a hypothetical referendum that hadn't been called. So, they upheld a complaint which causes a major impact on the station and chilled on air discussion on anything to do with LGBT issues.

    That is censorship.
    You can dress it up whatever way you want, it's still censorship.


  • #136
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 25,981 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    You're forgetting what I said about drama queens, spacetime. The government hasn't committed to referendums about abolishing County Kerry or the use of seatbelts. These situations are not analogous.

    And, for the record, the BAI didn't "extent the referendum guidelines backwards for well over a year". They applied rules 4.21 and 4.22, which apply at all times to the discussion of matters of public controversy and public debate. The significance of the referendum was this; the fact that a referendum had been announced meant that the issue of same-sex marriage was considered to be a matter of public controversy or public debate. Which, to be honest, I don't think is an unreasonable position. Separate codes of conduct exist for the coverage of elections and referenda themselves; they were not applied in this instance.

    You may think that discussion about matters about which referenda have been announced are going to be a bit formulaic and dull if alternative views always have to be aired, but that's not "censorship", except in the sense of the word which is current in 23 Merrion Square.

    Honestly, you're beginning to look very Iona Insitute-y, and you probably don't want that.


  • #137
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Honestly, I never resort to insulting other posters and name calling when I'm losing a debate!


  • #138
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,710 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Honestly, I never resort to insulting other posters and name calling when I'm losing a debate!

    If you have a problem with a post then report it.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #139
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Oh forget it!

    I'm wasting too many hours on boards anyway.

    Closing account.


  • #140
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 12,942 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    It is though in the sense that the challenge can happen. Imagine living in a country where an ordinary had no access to the courts to challenge laws of the land and how democracy happens. Imagine if Norris and Zappone and Gilligan and Foy didnt have access to challenge laws. The challenge itself is a farce but I can't agree that we should never allow cases like this to happen. There have been important cases such as McKeena in this area which found that the state can't spend government (taxpayers) money promoting one side of a referendum. It is perfectly healthy that we can allow checks and balances within our democracy.

    Yes this is a farce
    Yes it is frustratingly causing delays
    No we should ban cases like this. Let the courts examine them on a case by case basis.

    I have a different opinion to you. Let's leave it at that please.


  • #141
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,926 ✭✭✭Daith


    Does anyone know if the 28 days from the Court of Appeal includes weekends? or just "working" days.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Daith wrote: »
    Does anyone know if the 28 days from the Court of Appeal includes weekends? or just "working" days.

    My reading is that it's calendar days, i.e. including weekends, bank holidays etc. If it only applied to particular days, then I think it would say so (eg, the legislation on voting registration says you have X amount of days to apply for inclusion on the Voting Register Supplement, not including Sundays or Bank Holidays).

    So, by my reckoning, the Returning Officer will be free and clear to finalise the Provisional Result on Friday morning.


  • #143
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,710 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    My reading is that it's calendar days, i.e. including weekends, bank holidays etc. If it only applied to particular days, then I think it would say so (eg, the legislation on voting registration says you have X amount of days to apply for inclusion on the Voting Register Supplement, not including Sundays or Bank Holidays).

    So, by my reckoning, the Returning Officer will be free and clear to finalise the Provisional Result on Friday morning.

    There's still a possibility of Messrs Walshe and Lyons actually appealing to the Supreme Court.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #144
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    There's still a possibility of Messrs Walshe and Lyons actually appealing to the Supreme Court.

    Fair point. I think such an appeal is unlikely to happen, but it's definitely true to say that it's a possibility.


  • #145
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,926 ✭✭✭Daith


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    There's still a possibility of Messrs Walshe and Lyons actually appealing to the Supreme Court.

    Yes but it needs to be done by Thursday at the latest right?


  • #146
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,710 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Daith wrote: »
    Yes but it needs to be done by Thursday at the latest right?

    I think so. I'm advised yes by a friend in the know. I think that means the returning officer can sign on Friday and possibly the President too.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #147
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,926 ✭✭✭Daith


    Seemingly they have both lodged appeals


  • #148
    pl4ichjgy17zwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,053 ✭✭✭pl4ichjgy17zwd


    Daith wrote: »
    Seemingly they have both lodged appeals

    How surprising they dragged it out to the last possible second :rolleyes:


  • #149
    elekid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭elekid


    Daith wrote: »
    Seemingly they have both lodged appeals

    Do you have a source for this?

    If it's true, I wonder if these appeals can be refused or is there definitely going to be another delay on this now?


  • #150
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,926 ✭✭✭Daith


    elekid wrote: »
    Do you have a source for this?

    If it's true, I wonder if these appeals can be refused or is there definitely going to be another delay on this now?

    According to a poster on Gaire. The Sup Court can refuse to hear them though.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,710 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Fair point. I think such an appeal is unlikely to happen, but it's definitely true to say that it's a possibility.

    I've heard informally from a friend that both lodged appeals

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



Advertisement