Draft Michael O Brien for Senate

Zuiderzee

After watching Mr. O Brien on Q&A I was deeply moved.

He had a horrific childhood, an evil cradling, and still succeeded in life.
He has overcome brutality and evil that no human should ever experience.

He has been a Tipp Councillor and Mayor of Clonmel so he knows the mechanisms of Government, being a councillor means he's probably made more real decisions than most senators.

There are two seats vacant in the Senate, these need to be filled.

The Senate is there to represent a spectrum of society.
With the numbers involved in the Ryan report there is no question of constituancy.

I dont know that much about Mr. O Brien, but he does come accross as a man of great integrity, moral strength, conviction and courage.

Use the Senate as it was envisioned, not as a reward for party hacks and failed TD's

Rather than using the Senate as a quango for people like Eoin Harris, or a parking place for people like Dierdre De Burca, why not appoint someone like Mr. O Brien - thats if he agrees to serve the state that failed him so badly just once more?

To me he would be ideal - especially for committees dealing with Childrens rights, dealing with the Hierarchy and sorting out the mess that Bertie - and all the others - left us in, especially post Ryan Report.

Can the opposition parties not table a motion on this - or are Mr's Varadkar and Dempsey too stung by the rebuke O Brien gave them on Q&A?

God knows we need someone of his moral calibre in Government at this time

Red Alert

I'd definitely like to see him there.

Wheely

Bit hasty maybe. Very very touching 5 minutes of television yes, but the man also voted for FF his entire life, notwithstanding the failure and indeed complicity of some of its leading and founding members in the horrors he underwent. He went so far as to imlpy that he would continue to vote for them after everything he went thru, Micheal Woods botching of the indemnity deal and the adversarial nature of the Ryan inquiry which he said nearly drove him to suicide, included.

This to me doesn't display a strong ability to make decisions which aren't based on some blind loyalty to a party, an institution which imo, is as culpapble for as many wrongdoings in this country as the one under which Mr O Brien suffered.

In short, I wouldn't support such a motion, one could end up with more of a FF lackey in the Seanad than Eoghan Harris could ever be.

Even were that not the case, being raped buggered beaten and a victim of an abhorrent system rife with abusive powermongers, while heartbreaking, does not, or at least imo SHOULD not, qualify one for a seat in the Seanad.

That said, stranger things have happened......:rolleyes:

Zuiderzee

Comparing him to the sycophant that is Harris ain't fair, he has kissed ass of all political shades from Sinn Fein thru to the Unionsts in a process of self advancement.

For me its not what happened - its how he overcame it.
Him being a part of FF does not bother me.
Its a political party, has been the biggest in the country for years.

He is indepedently minded enough to take lumps out of Dempsey.

With all people and groups there are good and bad.
In my constituancy, I have some admiration for O Cuiv, and detest Fahy.
FF have achieved good and bad over the years, the current batch are muppets.

I think O Brien would make a god representitive for the victims of an abhorent system, he certainly has a public profile and seems to have the strength and passion to have overcome and achieve.

Wheely

In fairness, I said we COULD end up with a bigger FF lackey than Eoghan Harris, only comparing them in the possibility that both may respond to FF's beck and call, it was a fairly limited comparison to make, I see no similarity between them otherwise.

And while him being a member of FF doesn't bother you, given the role they had to play in what he went thru, it does bother me. They presided over the State for the vast majority of time this regime was in place. De Valera knew about it and did nothing, as did many other members of the establishment. The things that happened to Mr O Brien can't be divorced from the people who had the responsibility fo protecting him, a responsibility they failed in, a failure which in his mind wasn't a valid enough reason to break friom the party line.

IMO it shows a lack of impartial judgement.

As i said, even after the Woods debacle, and the way he was terated by Ryan, set up by FF so as to be "non adversarial" and spare the victims further trauma, he still implied he'd vote for them.

Of course he bloody reached breaking point and tore strips off Noel Dempsey, but I don't think that cancels out a lifetime of blindly following the FF party line, nor do I think it necassarily demonstrates independent mind.

And for my money the last thnig i want to see in either the Dail or the Seanad is another FF representative.

As for Eamonn o Cuiv, I've no admiration for a Minister who thinks its ok to sleep his way thru a deabte on confidence in the leadership of the country and then break his hole laughing when he gets caught, especially while the country is falling down around his ears.

goldenbrown

in 2011, coming up very fast, this society would benefit from being able to send such a dramatic message to those let down, left out, and also our overseas friend countries need to see something dramatic such as this in response to the horrific Ryan report

....this man in many respects is our Lech Walenza....

you are getting brian crowley otherwise a cairde gael ..the daniel odonnell of irish politics.....;)

deadhead13

Mannix Flynn former Letterfreck resident and campaginer for the abuse victims was elected as councillor for Dublin South East in the last local elections. He has ambitions to run for a Dail seat.

Wheely

Wheely wrote: »

And while him being a member of FF doesn't bother you, given the role they had to play in what he went thru, it does bother me.

Tell me, because I find your logic quite bizarre but still interesting, what party is appropriate for him?

He can hardly join Labour, given Emmett Stagg's...ummmm...well we all know the Phoenix Park/loitering/sex worker thing by now.

And FG is hardly for him, seeing as their response to tribunal and enquiries was to fight the victims all the way to their death beds. And of course while FF were in power for much of the time, FG were in power for the remainder so by your strange logic they too are complicit, only maybe marginally less so. Say we'll lay 35% of all the abuse cases at their door.

We're running out of parties here. Give us a hand. Who passes your complicit or not test?

djpbarry

Zuiderzee wrote: »

I dont know that much about Mr. O Brien…
…
To me he would be ideal…

You admit to knowing little about the guy, yet you think he is an ideal candidate for the Seanad? Don’t you think you’re jumping the gun a little here?

solice

Deleted User wrote: »

Tell me, because I find your logic quite bizarre but still interesting, what party is appropriate for him?

He can hardly join Labour, given Emmett Stagg's...ummmm...well we all know the Phoenix Park/loitering/sex worker thing by now.

And FG is hardly for him, seeing as their response to tribunal and enquiries was to fight the victims all the way to their death beds. And of course while FF were in power for much of the time, FG were in power for the remainder so by your strange logic they too are complicit, only maybe marginally less so. Say we'll lay 35% of all the abuse cases at their door.

We're running out of parties here. Give us a hand. Who passes your complicit or not test?

What a bizarre post!

You got all that from a comment saying it bothers them that he is a member of FF?

But to deal with it anyway...you are hardly advocating that Labour condones deviant criminal behaviour when one member of the party had "an encounter" at night in a park?

As for the FG comment, you are quiet right, they were the party in power when FF wasnt so they absolutely have to shoulder any responsibility of children being hurt under their care. But I would like to point out that it was Dev who gave the church the power and special place in the constitution that allowed them the opportunity to carry out these crimes. It was Dev who abdicated the states responsibility to provide education and handed that power over to the church.

As for Michael O Brien in the Senate, the man deserves praise for his courageous appearance on Q&A. But what are his credentials? Does he really deserve a senate seat or the presidency? I admire the man and respect him but he has to prove himself and fight for the job. This is another problem with Ireland, we put the people in power we think are nice people, not the people who would be best suited for the job! Point and case - Bertie Ahern.

Wheely

Deleted User wrote: »

He can hardly join Labour, given Emmett Stagg's...ummmm...well we all know the Phoenix Park/loitering/sex worker thing by now.?

I'm sorry, /Phoenix Park/loitering/sex worker thing...? Yeah that's the same totally as 60 years of endemic physical sexual and psychological abuse carried out by institutions licensed by the State to care for the most vulnerable children in society. Bloody idiotic comment.

Deleted User wrote: »

And FG is hardly for him, seeing as their response to tribunal and enquiries was to fight the victims all the way to their death beds. And of course while FF were in power for much of the time, FG were in power for the remainder so by your strange logic they too are complicit, only maybe marginally less so. Say we'll lay 35% of all the abuse cases at their door.?

Grand, of course there's a point to be made there. Read Solice's post, it makes pretty much the point i would have made. This WAS De Valera's Ireland.

Also the botched indemnity deal was negotiated by an FF administration, the Ryan Commission which my Mr O Brien's own admission was such a torturous process it nearly drove him to suicide was set up by a FF administration.

Deleted User wrote: »

We're running out of parties here. Give us a hand. Who passes your complicit or not test?

How incredibly witty of you, my complicit or not test, hang on till i tot up the scores, then I'll give you a hand shall I. I gave an opinion, haven't formulated a ranking system.

solice

solice wrote: »

you are hardly advocating that Labour condones deviant criminal behaviour when one member of the party had "an encounter" at night in a park?

I guess to the same extent that the poster argues that FF condones deviant sexual behaviour because Dev was ultra Catholic, yes..or no!

solice wrote: »

But I would like to point out that it was Dev who gave the church the power and special place in the constitution that allowed them the opportunity to carry out these crimes. It was Dev who abdicated the states responsibility to provide education and handed that power over to the church.

What complete and utter nonsense.

Dev did not enact Bunreacht na hEireann on his own.

I'm not sure Dev was even alive when Industrial Schools legislation was passed in Victorian times which vested power in them to take care of certain chidren.

I know he's a soft target, but please let's not place him in a time machine! On this site, solice, we observe the rules of time and space!

Wheely

Wheely wrote: »

haven't formulated a ranking system.

That's what I thought alright.

It was a pretty unscientific 'let's all hate FF' post really, wasn't it?

solice

Deleted User wrote: »

Dev did not enact Bunreacht na hEireann on his own.

I'm not sure Dev was even alive when Industrial Schools legislation was passed in Victorian times which vested power in them to take care of certain chidren.

I know he's a soft target, but please let's not place him in a time machine! On this site, solice, we observe the rules of time and space!

Dev was in charge and was the major influence when our constitution was written and rattified! His cosy relationship with the church was mirrored in the constitution. It was our constitution that gave the church the access to children, the govt. are held responsible to provide FOR an education, they are not held responsible to provide an education.

Was Dev alive in Victorian times? Are you really going to try and lay the blame for all of this on the British?

Wheely

Deleted User wrote: »

That's what I thought alright.

It was a pretty unscientific 'let's all hate FF' post really, wasn't it?

Yeah it was a pretty unscientific post, sorry, forgot I wasn't in the Science forum.

And no it wasn't a "let's all hate FF" post, congratulations on seeing thru my wily facade to discern that I have very little time for them by the way.

It was a post questioning whether or not Micheal O Brien should be voted into the Seanad on the basis of his performance on questions and answers while at the same time pointing out his devout loyalty to the FF party at the same time.

Het-Field

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess to the same extent that the poster argues that FF condones deviant sexual behaviour because Dev was ultra Catholic, yes..or no!



What complete and utter nonsense.

Dev did not enact Bunreacht na hEireann on his own.

I'm not sure Dev was even alive when Industrial Schools legislation was passed in Victorian times which vested power in them to take care of certain chidren.

I know he's a soft target, but please let's not place him in a time machine! On this site, solice, we observe the rules of time and space!

Of course Dev didnt do it on his own. JC McQuaid also had a hand in it, hence why it is such a conservative and restrictive document. It needs to be reformed, and changed. However, the current crowd of FFers dont have the balls nor the intellegence to do so. A recent constitutional reveiw group (chaired by Sean Ardagh) claimed that the crime of blasphemy should be abolished. Instead of looking to the eople, Dermot Ahern tagged on a dracononian measure onto the Defamation Bill, which penalises a "blasphemer" to the tune of 20,000 Euro. If thats not blind adherence to the Church, then I dont know what is.

Leaving Dev aside, did Michael Woods indemnify the Curch against further claims or not ? This is inspite of countless legal protocols and measures, which will eliminate frivilos and vexatious claims from the courts, and protect the Church for being exposed to claims that they are not responsible for.

Do you recall the time Bertie and Cowen jumped at Liz O Donnell for suggestin the separation of the Church and the State ? I recall Cowen saying something like "who would want a separate Church and State".

FF are inextricably linked to the Catholic Church, and the recent discussion vis-a-vis the Ryan Report, has highlighted this more then ever. FF have always had a vested interest, either the Church, the farmers, the public sector, and finally the builders. It has come full circle, and its back to Church as their key interest. Possibly because they can not darw blood from the "builders" stone, the public sector cant look at them, and the farmers burnt a certain amount of bridges during the Lisbon Campaign.

If the more forward thinking members of FF seek to remove this ability to garner "vested interests", then FF will have a capability of leading this nation. The problem is their adherence to such intersts, and the mal effects which have result, the mo0st notible of which are the Church's Indemnity of 2002, and the property bubble.

On point, I would like to see O Brien, or Christine Buckley in representative democracy of some sort. The Senate is the best place to air those views, and for the sake of a three year stint (which will be dealing with the ramifications of Ryan), it wouldnt be a bad thing at all. Regrettably, the likes of Shay Brennan, Ebhlin Byrne, Eoin Ryan, Pascal Mooney etc will need to be looked after first, and as such the seats will be divide up between those four.

The Raven.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

I think O Brien would make a god representitive for the victims of an abhorent system,...

Ironic :rolleyes:??

Wheely

Het-Field wrote: »

A recent constitutional reveiw group (chaired by Sean Ardagh) claimed that the crime of blasphemy should be abolished. Instead of looking to the eople, Dermot Ahern tagged on a dracononian measure onto the Defamation Bill, which penalises a "blasphemer" to the tune of 20,000 Euro. If thats not blind adherence to the Church, then I dont know what is.

Actually the Law Reform Commissions Consultation Paper of August 1991 on the crime of libel recommended the following

"We recommend that in any revision which may be undertaken by referendum of the Constitution, so much of Article 40.6.1. which renders the publication or utterance of blasphemous matter an offence should be deleted."

Not even that recent. That was 18 years ago. Just to reinforce your point.

Het-Field

Het-Field wrote: »

However, the current crowd of FFers dont have the balls nor the intellegence to do so.

For all your theories, I would have thought it's a tad simpler than that - they actually don't have the power or authority. The Constitution was enacted by the people, and can only be changed by the people.

And furthermore I'm not sure they have the mandate either (did anyone get voted it on a promise to tear up the Consitution?)

Het-Field wrote: »

FF have always had a vested interest, either the Church, the farmers, the public sector, and finally the builders. It has come full circle, and its back to Church as their key interest. Possibly because they can not darw blood from the "builders" stone, the public sector cant look at them, and the farmers burnt a certain amount of bridges during the Lisbon Campaign.

You omitted the tent at the Galway races, I thought it was the standard one they throw into the conspiracy stuff?

So you still think FF and the Church are linked today? And to think I know old people who didn' like the Church because they thought of it as a FG dominated institution! You get these nutty theories everwhere...

Michael Woods may have a lot to answer for. He made a really bad deal. But sitting in our armchairs at our computers questioning the viewpoint of someone who suffered abuse yet remains a member of FF is fairly presumptuous. I suspect he has a better idea of culpability, or a more keenly honed sense of where blame really lies, than many of us.

Wheely

Deleted User wrote: »

For all your theories, I would have thought it's a tad simpler than that - they actually don't have the power or authority. The Constitution was enacted by the people, and can only be changed by the people.

And furthermore I'm not sure they have the mandate either (did anyone get voted it on a promise to tear up the Consitution?).

They have the authority and power to call a referendum, in fact the government are the only people who can do that. It's not a theory and nobody was suggesting tearing up the Constitution, merely implementing a LRC recommendation to call a referendum to delete and archaic and outdated provision. Get a grip.

Deleted User wrote: »

You omitted the tent at the Galway races, I thought it was the standard one they throw into the conspiracy stuff??

Yeah I'm in total agreement, these tin-foil hat cinspiracy nuts. Like I even know loads of them myself, who, and get this, claim to have been IN that tent!!!!! CRAZY I KNOW!!!!!!!!! You know i actually THOUGHT I saw that tent one year at the Galway Races. Bloody mass hysteria eh? Fatima all over again......:rolleyes:

Deleted User wrote: »

So you still think FF and the Church are linked today? And to think I know old people who didn' like the Church because they thought of it as a FG dominated institution! You get these nutty theories everwhere...

Michael Woods may have a lot to answer for. He made a really bad deal. But sitting in our armchairs at our computers questioning the viewpoint of someone who suffered abuse yet remains a member of FF is fairly presumptuous. I suspect he has a better idea of culpability, or a more keenly honed sense of where blame really lies, than many of us.

To think you knew old people who........

WTF does THAT have to do with anything, i said Micheal Woods was culpable in relation to the indemnity deal and that FF set up the Ryan Commission which almost drove Mr O Brien to suicide. Also Woods wasn't a maverick lone wolf either, he did what he did at the behest of the Taoiseach.

And don't try and squeeze some sort of empathetic emotive role for yourself here, I'm not questioning his "viewpoint" as you say, I'm questioning his qualification for public office based on what I know of him. Its the topic of the thread and something I'm quite entitled to do.

All your doing is defending FF while pretending to be defending the honour of Micheal O Brien from those of us who question his qualifications. It's fairly transparent TBH and I'd hope that anyone viewing can see it.

Wheely

Wheely wrote: »

Yeah I'm in total agreement, these tin-foil hat cinspiracy nuts. Like I even know loads of them myself, who, and get this, claim to have been IN that tent!!!!! CRAZY I KNOW!!!!!!!!! You know i actually THOUGHT I saw that tent one year at the Galway Races. Bloody mass hysteria eh? Fatima all over again......:rolleyes:

You used more words in capitals and exclamation marks.

You win. Fair play.

Incidentally, lost in all the anti FF stuff there was a point made by someone that suffering abuse does not qualify someone for our Senate, and I agree with that.

Het-Field

Deleted User wrote: »

You used more words in capitals and exclamation marks.

You win. Fair play.

Incidentally, lost in all the anti FF stuff there was a point made by someone that suffering abuse does not qualify someone for our Senate, and I agree with that.

And Shay Brennan would be ? What about Martin Brady or Maria Corrigan who lost elections to the Dail and Senate before being placed in the latter at the behest of the Taoiseach.

COnsidering you earlier point, Michael O Brien stated that any chance of him voting for FF would be done with some reticence. His anger was directed at the Government, with some deference to Leo Varadkae.

As has been mentioned in the above post, FF ahve the power to call a constitutional referendum. Do it. Dont sit there and pay lip service to the institution of reform, without considering any vehicle to put it into practice.

Again, the comments of Brian Cowen towards Liz O Donnell, Ahern's appalling blasphemy law, and the indemnity which Michael Woods handed to the Church highlights the links that still exist, and how policy, and hetoric is still being influenced by the Church.

Het-Field

Het-Field wrote: »

And Shay Brennan would be ? What about Martin Brady or Maria Corrigan who lost elections to the Dail and Senate before being placed in the latter at the behest of the Taoiseach.

Shay what? Maria who?

I simply said that I wasn't sure this particular gentleman should be in the Senate. I am not sure that that remotely implies I endorse anyone else in there.

Het-Field wrote: »

As has been mentioned in the above post, FF ahve the power to call a constitutional referendum. Do it. Dont sit there and pay lip service to the institution of reform, without considering any vehicle to put it into practice.

A referendum won't undo what has happened, and not sure even what it would achieve in practice beyond being a formula of words. The reality is that society nowadays dictates the position of the Church, and that is at a pretty low point. I think we should take measures to reduce their influence in areas such as education, and that can be done without a referendum. Or at the next referendum we address those articles that, because of the changing attitude of society, have become antiquated or outdated. There is no denying the validity of your argument, but I don't think it would really achieve much in practice, their own acts have seen to that already, the Constitutional position doesn't save them from any approbation.

Het-Field

Deleted User wrote: »

Shay what? Maria who?

I simply said that I wasn't sure this particular gentleman should be in the Senate. I am not sure that that remotely implies I endorse anyone else in there.



A referendum won't undo what has happened, and not sure even what it would achieve in practice beyond being a formula of words. The reality is that society nowadays dictates the position of the Church, and that is at a pretty low point. I think we should take measures to reduce their influence in areas such as education, and that can be done without a referendum. Or at the next referendum we address those articles that, because of the changing attitude of society, have become antiquated or outdated. There is no denying the validity of your argument, but I don't think it would really achieve much in practice, their own acts have seen to that already, the Constitutional position doesn't save them from any approbation.

Apologies, I should ahve been a little clearer ! I meant a referendum on the Blasphemy issue.

I agree with what you say, however, the reality is the Church (who's doctrine I am a firm proponent of) should be separated from all state dealings, including social partnership. This may need a full blown referendum on the Church's involvement in the state.

Wheely

Deleted User wrote: »

You used more words in capitals and exclamation marks.

You win. Fair play.

Incidentally, lost in all the anti FF stuff there was a point made by someone that suffering abuse does not qualify someone for our Senate, and I agree with that.

Hey nice display of your powers of observation. I DID use more words in capitals and exclamation marks. Not really why I won tho.

I won because I made a joke out of your implication that the Galway tent was nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

That's why I won.:rolleyes:

Zuiderzee

Deleted User wrote: »

For all your theories, I would have thought it's a tad simpler than that - they actually don't have the power or authority. The Constitution was enacted by the people, and can only be changed by the people.

Unless its the Lisbon vote or membership of the PfP

JonathanAnon

The senate should be disbanded immediately. Ridiculous waste of money, and undemocratic. Purgatory for TDs who lose their seats, as well as housing sycophants like Eoghan Harris.

Executive Steve

Deleted User wrote: »

Incidentally, lost in all the anti FF stuff there was a point made by someone that suffering abuse does not qualify someone for our Senate, and I agree with that.

Much as i hate to agree with you on anything after your frankly idiotic, distasteful and puerile post regarding Deputy Stagg, you are 100% correct here.

[cm]tyranny

[cm]tyranny wrote: »

Much as i hate to agree with you on anything after your frankly idiotic, distasteful and puerile post regarding Deputy Stagg, you are 100% correct here.

I say that whole incident was distasteful.

What is even more distasteful is seeing him on the front bench of a party that often lectures FF on morality from some high ground they think they have. But I guess it's a subject for a whole other thread.

sceptre

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess it's a subject for a whole other thread.

It is, you know it is, and ironically enough, whatever points you were making tend to get devalued when you do that. That they're your points and you're entitled to devalue them is irrelevant when you're devaluing the thread for everyone else. But you knew that already. It's easier to stay on topic if you get off the horse. Regardless, make an effort to stay on topic without sideswiping.

Zuiderzee

JonathanAnon wrote: »

The senate should be disbanded immediately. Ridiculous waste of money, and undemocratic. Purgatory for TDs who lose their seats, as well as housing sycophants like Eoghan Harris.

Thats why, perhaps, this could be a start at getting the Senate to be something ,ore than a parking place for failed TDs and the likes of Harris.

Replace Harris with O Brien. Better deal and would certainly represent more people.

One thing for sure, if a person takes a seat in the Senate, they should not be allowed to run for the Dail while a senator.
FFS a civil servant cant run to be a councilor as far as I know

JonathanAnon

Zuiderzee wrote: »

One thing for sure, if a person takes a seat in the Senate, they should not be allowed to run for the Dail while a senator.

100% agree. I would also think the same thing about people who run for local/European/Dail positions at the same time. The only person that loses out is the state. Was just looking up wiki there, Donie Cassidy appointed to the Senate by his party leader cos he lost his seat in 2007. Who did he take over from? Mary O'Rourke, who was appointed to the Senate after she lost her seat to Donie in 2002.

And from the look of his business interests, I wouldnt think Donie spends a lot of time thinking about the state while not in the Seanad:

"Cassidy owns two Dublin hotels and has recently completed another on the site of the National Wax Museum, which he also owned. He also owns Celtic Note, a specialist Irish music store on Dublins Nassau Street and since 1984 has had the franchise to sell CD's and DVD's at Dublin Airport . He also owns several buildings in Mullingar. His other interests include record and music publishing companies. He owns the publishing rights to many well known songs such as 'Grace' and 'My Lovely Rose of Clare'."

He hardy needs the money now does he. Jobs for the boys.

Regarding Michael O'Brien, he is also a Fianna Failer. And though he certainly did speak well on QnA, I dont think he deserves a position on the basis of this. Anyway the Senate has no power. All they ever seem to do is request that the Minister for <insert any ministry here> comes in to explain some decision they have made, which they invariably never do.

Aidric

Deleted User wrote: »

He can hardly join Labour, given Emmett Stagg's...ummmm...well we all know the Phoenix Park/loitering/sex worker thing by now.

What a massively ignorant and stupid post.

oncevotedff

Zuiderzee wrote: »

I dont know that much about Mr. O Brien, but he does come accross as a man of great integrity, moral strength, conviction and courage.

I've met him on a few occasions and he's a feckin eejit (to be blunt). He'd make a great Senator.

Sand

To be honest, just close the Senate. Waste of money. It is only used by the government of the day to reward their mates with a state salary. It has no purpose or power.