Irish Government questioned over human rights record

Nodin

Minister for Justice Alan Shatter has been questioned on Ireland's human rights record at a UN hearing in Geneva.
Successive governments in Ireland have been criticised for failing to ratify human rights' treaties that would increase protections for vulnerable groups, such as people with disabilities, migrant workers and people held in detention.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1006/humanrights.html

One would hope any defciencies are the result of the last regime, rather than the current crew....

Any thoughts, comments...........?

thebman

Six European Union member states queried whether the Government will legislate to clarify the circumstances in which abortion may be lawful.

Not going to happen on FG watch IMO.

Corsendonk

I wonder which countries we will get to review.

mikemac

The recent RTÉ documentary on people committed to mental health hospitals showed a serious issue for the State.
Now I don't know the current situation, maybe this is all resolved. But it's something to look at

He also told the hearing that ministers are considering recognising Travellers as a minority ethnic group

If they've refused to do this so far I can't see why they would change now.

laoch na mona

the gardai were pretty heavy handed back in the day

Nodin

thebman wrote: »

Not going to happen on FG watch IMO.

....a habit, unfortunately, they all seem to have.

Manach

The UN, is that not the body that allowed Libya to be elected chair of the United Nations Human Rights Commission a few years back?

irishh_bob

mikemac wrote: »

The recent RTÉ documentary on people committed to mental health hospitals showed a serious issue for the State.
Now I don't know the current situation, maybe this is all resolved. But it's something to look at



If they've refused to do this so far I can't see why they would change now.

institutionalisation of the mentally ill is obviously something you know little about , while that ( mary rafferty ) docu was factually correct , it dealt with practices which have long been outdated , things couldnt be more different in 2011 , time was in this country that people went sent to mental institutions for mildly eccentric behaviour , now you litterally have to kill someone , the pendelum has completley and utterly swung the other way and its a real problem , the liberals have gotten thier way too much

Denerick

laoch na mona wrote: »

the gardai were pretty heavy handed back in the day

A gross exaggeration. Considering the fact that the Gardaí are an unarmed police force, any accusation of police brutality in this country is surely self evidently crazy. If the odd pinko gets a slap when he confronts a policeman, or a drunken bogman gets a good hiding after trying to attack a gardaí, then... this is life.

mikemac

irishh_bob wrote: »

institutionalisation of the mentally ill is obviously something you know little about ,

Chill FFS

Sure I posted I didn't know the current situation

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

The UN, is that not the body that allowed Libya to be elected chair of the United Nations Human Rights Commission a few years back?

What does that have to do with anything?

Manach

Clearly if a body seeks to set itself as an arbitory universal human rights, then it betokens the body to ensure its own house is in order. Having Libya deal with human rights abuses, is in retrospective an odd act.
As for the Guards, I'd say 95% they act in good faith as servants of the state, however a small percentage of them do go rogue - as per the the Morris report

OS119

Nodin wrote: »

What does that have to do with anything?

its indicative of the UN's rather interesting moral compass.

other recent members of the commision include Syria, Zimbabwe, China, pakistan, Kyrgzstan, Moldova and Saudi Arabia.

i'll be listening to such people on Human Rights shortly after i hire Gary Glitter to be my baby-sitter.

irishh_bob

mikemac wrote: »

Chill FFS

Sure I posted I didn't know the current situation

thats ok , the media is utterly biased in thier reporting of this issue and the vast majority of the population never have to encounter serious mental health issues where lives are at stake

The Saint

I for one believe that it is a positive thing for every member state of the UN to have it's compliance with its human rights obligations examined for the Universal Periodic Review. Is it better to not do it at all and just bitch about the structure of the Human Rights Council?

The same pariah states listed above must also have their compliance reviewed and have recommendations made to them just like every other state in the review. At least it offers an open forum to have such issues raised and identified and have actionable points presented so that the state under review cannot argue that it was unaware of issues raised and will be under an obligation to rectify such issues before its next review.

OS119

The Saint wrote: »

...and will be under an obligation to rectify such issues before its next review.

would you like to place a €1000 bet on any of the named states doing anything about any points raised in the review - have you any evidence to suggest that any odious state has ever changed its policies because its been slagged off in a UPR?

do you even think that a human rights review written by China, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia or Syria would be worth the paper its written on?

stringing people up by their balls: fine!

dropping journalists in cauldrons of boiling oil: no problem!

only allowing people to vote if their name ends in 'Al-Saud': sounds good!

one man, one vote - Bob Mugabe is the one man with the one vote: a bastion of liberal democracy!

why would anyone even read such a document?

Nodin

OS119 wrote: »

its indicative of the UN's rather interesting moral compass.

other recent members of the commision include Syria, Zimbabwe, China, pakistan, Kyrgzstan, Moldova and Saudi Arabia.

i'll be listening to such people on Human Rights shortly after i hire Gary Glitter to be my baby-sitter.

So are you saying theres nothing of truth or merit in the subjects brought up?

The Saint

OS119 wrote: »

would you like to place a €1000 bet on any of the named states doing anything about any points raised in the review - have you any evidence to suggest that any odious state has ever changed its policies because its been slagged off in a UPR?

do you even think that a human rights review written by China, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia or Syria would be worth the paper its written on?

stringing people up by their balls: fine!

dropping journalists in cauldrons of boiling oil: no problem!

only allowing people to vote if their name ends in 'Al-Saud': sounds good!

one man, one vote - Bob Mugabe is the one man with the one vote: a bastion of liberal democracy!

why would anyone even read such a document?

Great. So do nothing then. Don't raise human rights issues for any state, don't make them respond and answer for their actions and don't highlight these issues in any public international fora? There should be no review or monitoring of the improvement or deterioration of human rights in any countries because the bad ones do nothing about it anyway?

I never said it was perfect but it is a hell of a lot better than doing fcuk all.

OS119

The Saint wrote: »

....I never said it was perfect but it is a hell of a lot better than doing fcuk all.

no, its worse than doing fcuk all.

when a law is not enforced its not a law - witness motorway speed limits - and when those who make, or enforce, the law are held in contempt people ignore the law.

the importance of HR has been denigrated because the UN has set-up a regulatory body that is more than questionable, and because even when that corrupt body makes a determination of non-complience, there is no punishment, no reckoning - shit, you can even join the regulatory body when you're one of the worst offenders!

the UN has managed a process that started out as the Nuremburg Trials, and is now akin to apppointing Bertie Ahern as a Revenue Commisioner - it is a disgusting, corrupt, laughable achievement, and it allows any state accused of any infringement to laugh in the face of the UN, rightly citing the rank hypocracy of the judging panel, and the total absense of any form of sanction applied to them, or anyone else.

Nodin

OS119 wrote: »

no, its worse than doing fcuk all.

when a law is not enforced its not a law - witness motorway speed limits - and when those who make, or enforce, the law are held in contempt people ignore the law.

the importance of HR has been denigrated because the UN has set-up a regulatory body that is more than questionable, and because even when that corrupt body makes a determination of non-complience, there is no punishment, no reckoning - shit, you can even join the regulatory body when you're one of the worst offenders!

the UN has managed a process that started out as the Nuremburg Trials, and is now akin to apppointing Bertie Ahern as a Revenue Commisioner - it is a disgusting, corrupt, laughable achievement, and it allows any state accused of any infringement to laugh in the face of the UN, rightly citing the rank hypocracy of the judging panel, and the total absense of any form of sanction applied to them, or anyone else.

So theres nothing of truth or merit in the subjects brought up?

The Saint

OS119 wrote: »

no, its worse than doing fcuk all.

when a law is not enforced its not a law - witness motorway speed limits - and when those who make, or enforce, the law are held in contempt people ignore the law.

I'm not sure why you think this is unique to the HRC. There are states sitting on the Security Council that also have contemptible human rights records. While states might not comply with IHL, I think it is at least better to catalogue such non-compliance instead of saying, well they ignore the outcomes of reviews so there's no point.

OS119 wrote: »

the importance of HR has been denigrated because the UN has set-up a regulatory body that is more than questionable, and because even when that corrupt body makes a determination of non-complience, there is no punishment, no reckoning - shit, you can even join the regulatory body when you're one of the worst offenders!

The only body of the UN that has the ability to sanction others is the Security Council, which I stated above also has members with less thank glorious human rights records. If the SC is to take action based on the outcomes of the periodic review process then the application of such sanctions would be politically motivated and exclude the possibility of sanctions on the permanent members.

Furthermore, without investigation of human rights compliance in member states and interrogation of its representatives, there is no information for other compliance inducing organs to formulate responses. Even if the body investigates and highlights violations of human right then surely that is worth something rather than the issues being completely ignored and allowing states to get away with egregious violations of IHL without investigation or censure.

OS119 wrote: »

the UN has managed a process that started out as the Nuremburg Trials, and is now akin to apppointing Bertie Ahern as a Revenue Commisioner - it is a disgusting, corrupt, laughable achievement, and it allows any state accused of any infringement to laugh in the face of the UN, rightly citing the rank hypocracy of the judging panel, and the total absense of any form of sanction applied to them, or anyone else.

Once again, you can look at the Security Council and see states that laughing in the face of international law and human rights. The Council is responsible for ensuring the maintenance of international peace and security while its members invade other countries without a mandate from the organ that they are members of.

Perhaps we should dissolve the whole structure and go back to "Hobsian state of nature".

OS119

Nodin wrote: »

So theres nothing of truth or merit in the subjects brought up?

there's only merit in bringing them up if something, at some stage, gets done about them that wouldn't get done by that states internal political processes anyway.

if the UPR brings up something in Ireland its, IMV, difficult to suggest that it wouldn't get adressed anyway - thats what free media, political activism, and a free judiciary tend to do all on their own, without help from others. if they slag down Saudi Arabia for chopping peoples hands off, KSA won't give a monkies toss because there appears to be no internal political movement to change KSA's policies, and KSA knows that there will be no UNSC sanctions because China, and Sudan, Pakistan, Syria and a dozen other hellholes don't want to create a precedent.

so, no, i think its an absolute waste of time - those countries which care about HR in their own societies will identify and adress the problems anyway, and the others won't even give the UPR a second glance.

Nodin

OS119 wrote: »

there's only merit in bringing them up if something, at some stage, gets done about them that wouldn't get done by that states internal political processes anyway.

if the UPR brings up something in Ireland its, IMV, difficult to suggest that it wouldn't get adressed anyway - thats what free media, political activism, and a free judiciary tend to do all on their own, without help from others. if they slag down Saudi Arabia for chopping peoples hands off, KSA won't give a monkies toss because there appears to be no internal political movement to change KSA's policies, and KSA knows that there will be no UNSC sanctions because China, and Sudan, Pakistan, Syria and a dozen other hellholes don't want to create a precedent.

so, no, i think its an absolute waste of time - those countries which care about HR in their own societies will identify and adress the problems anyway, and the others won't even give the UPR a second glance.

...bit odd that abortion legislation is outstanding so long then so....

OS119

Nodin wrote: »

...bit odd that abortion legislation is outstanding so long then so....

loathe as i am to even touch abortion as a subject on an Irish website, i suppose it depends on your definition of Human Rights...

for me, Human Rights is about the right to a fair trial, freedom to travel, freedom to accociate and speak, not being strung-up by my balls and electrocuted, and freedom to worship - or not.

i see the Irish situation with regards to abortion provision as a political issue, rather than an HR issue - its a manifestation of a schizophrenic body politic which mandates the allowance of abortion under the constitution, yet punishes any government or potential government that might seek to take a constitutional aspiration and make it actual policy.

if a government were to outlaw information on abortion, or to ban travel to procure one, then i'd see that as an HR issue (both as part of the abortion debacle and as seperate HR issues), rather than the current set-up which is a grubby, unsatisfactory 'fudge' of the issue, but not an HR issue in its own right.

well, thats my view anyway...

Nodin

OS119 wrote: »

loathe as i am to even touch abortion as a subject on an Irish website, i suppose it depends on your definition of Human Rights...

for me, Human Rights is about the right to a fair trial, freedom to travel, freedom to accociate and speak, not being strung-up by my balls and electrocuted, and freedom to worship - or not.

i see the Irish situation with regards to abortion provision as a political issue, rather than an HR issue - its a manifestation of a schizophrenic body politic which mandates the allowance of abortion under the constitution, yet punishes any government or potential government that might seek to take a constitutional aspiration and make it actual policy.

if a government were to outlaw information on abortion, or to ban travel to procure one, then i'd see that as an HR issue (both as part of the abortion debacle and as seperate HR issues), rather than the current set-up which is a grubby, unsatisfactory 'fudge' of the issue, but not an HR issue in its own right.

well, thats my view anyway...

There is a ruling from the high court that obliges the state to enact a law on the subject. That ruling has been awaiting action since 1992. In September 2011 the Court of human rights gave the Government 6 months to enact legistlation based on that ruling, following a court case brought before it. It's legally binding, so yes, it is officially a human rights issue.

Corsendonk

Anyone know Dana views on us submitting ourselves to foreign countries and the german interest in our abortion debate?

Bannasidhe

OS119 wrote: »

if a government were to outlaw information on abortion, or to ban travel to procure one, then i'd see that as an HR issue (both as part of the abortion debacle and as seperate HR issues), rather than the current set-up which is a grubby, unsatisfactory 'fudge' of the issue, but not an HR issue in its own right.

well, thats my view anyway...

It did.

In the 1980s it was illegal to provide information on abortion within Ireland. I was one of a large number of people living in the UK at the time who were in a position to provide such information from outside Ireland.

To avoid any possibility that the women here could be accused of directly seeking such information - we would be given their number, a code name and a time to phone. We would ring from the UK and give them information on all of the options available - including abortion but other options too - while asking no personal questions.

We all agreed it was the woman's right to choose and all the information should be made available.

The travel ban was one of the issues which led to the second abortion referendum. It arose from the X case in the early 1990s. A 14 year old girl was raped by a neighbour and became pregnant. Fearing she was suicidal, her parents decided to bring her to the UK for an abortion. Her parent's went to the police to see if DNA evidence from the foetus could be used as evidence in the prosecution of the rapist. Up shot was - the girl was prevented from travelling. Although this was later over turned by the Supreme Court.

OS119

Bannasidhe wrote: »

...Although this was later over turned by the Supreme Court.

so there is no longer a travel ban, and its no longer illegal to provide information?

so, apart from the enept politicians, and the inconvenience, whats the gaping HR issue?

Bannasidhe

OS119 wrote: »

so there is no longer a travel ban, and its no longer illegal to provide information?

so, apart from the enept politicians, and the inconvenience, whats the gaping HR issue?

I would tend to think a woman's right to choose is a HR issue.

OS119

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would tend to think a woman's right to choose is a HR issue.

she can. rightly so.

i would happily accept that if such services were available in Ireland it would be more convenient, but if a woman is neither prevented from accessing information on abortion services, nor prevented from travelling to procure such a service, i find it diffucult to conflate the debacle of the Irish abortion situation to, for instance, not being able to vote/drive/go out on your own because you haven't got a c0ck, or being hung from a crane because you like men, or being stoned to death because you had the temerity to get raped.

one of those things is a pain in the arse, and the others are gross violations of universal, inalienable Human Rights.

Nodin

OS119 wrote: »

she can. rightly so.

i would happily accept that if such services were available in Ireland it would be more convenient, but if a woman is neither prevented from accessing information on abortion services, nor prevented from travelling to procure such a service, i find it diffucult to conflate the debacle of the Irish abortion situation to, for instance, not being able to vote/drive/go out on your own because you haven't got a c0ck, or being hung from a crane because you like men, or being stoned to death because you had the temerity to get raped.

one of those things is a pain in the arse, and the others are gross violations of universal, inalienable Human Rights.

So because things don't fit your order of grading, we should say 'nothing to see here' and carry on regardless.

thebman

OS119 wrote: »

she can. rightly so.

i would happily accept that if such services were available in Ireland it would be more convenient, but if a woman is neither prevented from accessing information on abortion services, nor prevented from travelling to procure such a service, i find it diffucult to conflate the debacle of the Irish abortion situation to, for instance, not being able to vote/drive/go out on your own because you haven't got a c0ck, or being hung from a crane because you like men, or being stoned to death because you had the temerity to get raped.

one of those things is a pain in the arse, and the others are gross violations of universal, inalienable Human Rights.

The problem I would imagine is that the cost of traveling is prohibitive for many people especially the poor and the young. Then there is the additional stress of sending them to a country in which they know nothing about the health services to have the procedure.

If it is legal except we don't want one here, why is that? Why not just let one setup here since we can all admit, we are just exporting the problem at the moment and not achieving anything. Must be some reason all the people against abortion don't want one to setup here.

walrusgumble

Manach wrote: »

The UN, is that not the body that allowed Libya to be elected chair of the United Nations Human Rights Commission a few years back?

Were silent / tootheless on Iraq and Afghanistan. Not willing to recongise the right of Palestine to its own independence. Nice the see ECtHR favourites, the UK, getting their oar in

OS119

Nodin wrote: »

So because things don't fit your order of grading, we should say 'nothing to see here' and carry on regardless.

you are genuinely equating having to get on a ferry with having your balls cut off and being strung up in a football stadium?

nice moral compass.

Nodin

OS119 wrote: »

you are genuinely equating having to get on a ferry with having your balls cut off and being strung up in a football stadium?

And where did I do that, exactly? There are things which might be improved in this country, as in others. Many of these fall under the "human rights" category, insomuch as these terms are used by the various bodies involved.

blorg

@OS119- by that argument there was no problem with corruption in Ireland as we were not as bad as India. And there is nothing wrong with the economy either as we are still richer than 90% of the rest of the world.

OS119

blorg wrote: »

@OS119- by that argument there was no problem with corruption in Ireland as we were not as bad as India. And there is nothing wrong with the economy either as we are still richer than 90% of the rest of the world.

the problem with your argument is that reduces 'Human Rights' to every piddling little squabble - the idea of the concept of Human Rights was that you had a limited number of principles that massively affected everyones lives, and they were held up as the 'holy of holies', they were unbreachable.

however, when inconvenience, and thieving councillors, and your inability to buy a new BMW every two years get conflated with 'Human Rights', you damage the 'Holy of Holies' aspect of them, you drag them down to the pedestrian aspect of whether this or that planning official got a brown envelope to re-zone some land, or whether having to buy a €10 bus ticket to access an abortion is acceptable, but having to buy a €40 Ryanair ticket isn't.

at which point is 'good enough' enough - will it be when theres one abortion clinic on the island, or one in half a dozen cities, or one in every large town - or if its against your human rights to have to travel to access such a service (and who gets to decide that a 50min flight to Glasgow, or Birmingham is unacceptable, while a 2hr car journey to Dublin is ok, but a 30 minute walk is taking it too far?) should the state offer a home-visiting service?

at what ppoint are your Human Rights satisfied, and your 'wants' begining?

blorg

You could make the same argument about cancer treatment. I don't know why we bother providing it in this state at all, sure they could just get a flight to Manchester.

OS119

blorg wrote: »

You could make the same argument about cancer treatment. I don't know why we bother providing it in this state at all, sure they could just get a flight to Manchester.

is medical treatment a Human Right?

is medical treatment with a 90% success rate a human right, whereas treatment with a 75% success rate is an abuse?

if you have to take a day off work to access treatment because the centre closes at 5pm - is than an abuse of human rights or just inconvenient?

if you have to drive across the country to access treatment, rather than walking into your local hospital, is that an abuse of your human rights or just inconvenient?

i'm not suggesting that because these things are smaller than Human Rights they shouldn't be addressed - but that it is damaging to the concept of Human Rights, rather than inconvenience, to lump anything which is not having your balls cut off and being wired up to the mains/not being allowed an equal say in the running of your country/not getting a fair trial/no imprisonment without trial/no right to free speech or free association or assembly/no right to travel.

Nodin

blorg wrote: »

You could make the same argument about cancer treatment. I don't know why we bother providing it in this state at all, sure they could just get a flight to Manchester.

...and they don't have it in the Congo.

Nodin

OS119 wrote: »

is medical treatment (.............) right to travel.

Then I'd suggest starting a campaign to change the terminology used.

blorg

That gets into negative and positive rights. Most (in Eutope) would agree that healthcare (of some level) is a (positive) human right in a society that can afford it.

The situation with abortion here though is the violation of a negative right. It's not a matter of who pays for it, if you wanted to set up a private practice here you would be prevented from doing so.