ISIS people returning thread - no Lisa Smith talk (21/12/19)

stefanovich

recedite wrote: »

We can't really stop someone like her going abroad.
And we cant really stop her coming back.


What we don't need to do is expend a lot of time, energy and money on a diplomatic mission to bring her back.
She was attracted to the Islamic State, like a shiitfly to flypaper.
Its not our problem.

Is not not illegal to be a member of a proscribed organisation? I trust she will be dealt with the same as we would an IRA member.

joeguevara

stefanovich wrote: »

Is not not illegal to be a member of a proscribed organisation? I trust she will be dealt with the same as we would an IRA member.

Firstly, it has nothing to do with any prescribed organization as a name change would make the crime null and void. At present the behavior is a crime i.e being involved in a particular activity including conversion, radicalizing and raising finance and not just terrorist acts.

Secondly there is a subtle difference between IRA membership and an organization like ISIS. I want to preface this statement by saying I abhor every new pseudo republican paramilitary organization whom I believe have no political aim and only exist to make money. The Good Friday agreement changed republicanism and brought it from the arms life to maybe not ballot box for all but definitely advocacy. Saying that a member of for the sake of argument should have no gripe against the majority of the people in this country but a radicalized ISIS member has one aim and that is to destroy western society. If they still have that aim then bringing them back is hugely different than a returning republican terrorist, even if both are abhorrent.

The_Kew_Tour

jmreire wrote: »

Sure they will touch it, they are hungry for it !!!! Its news.....Big News. Imagine the headlines " Irish ISIS Jihadi Bride return's home from war torn Syria" The ratings will go through the roof. Newspapers will be fighting each other for the " Exclusive Right's.. Lisa tell's her story, " Only in the Daily Blah Blah .
Unless of course, Lisa decides NOT to tell her story. ( But that would be another story..in it's own right )

RTE can do with all the help they can get too

MrFresh

stefanovich wrote: »

Is not not illegal to be a member of a proscribed organisation? I trust she will be dealt with the same as we would an IRA member.

Have ISIS been declared an unlawful organisation under the statute?

stefanovich

MrFresh wrote: »

Have ISIS been declared an unlawful organisation under the statute?

If not, why not?

MrFresh

stefanovich wrote: »

If not, why not?

I think only the IRA has ever been on it.

ohnonotgmail

MrFresh wrote: »

I think only the IRA has ever been on it.

INLA, the continuity IRA, the Real IRA and one other variant of the IRA that i cant remember are on it as well.

MrFresh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

INLA, the continuity IRA, the Real IRA and one other variant of the IRA that i cant remember are on it as well.

You're right about the INLA. It was added in 1983 but, afaik, the others come under the original IRA designation.

recedite

stefanovich wrote: »

Is not not illegal to be a member of a proscribed organisation? I trust she will be dealt with the same as we would an IRA member.

Genuine question - is Islamic State listed as a proscribed organisation in Ireland?
(As an aside, I'd regard it as a failed state more than an org, but that's a separate argument)

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Genuine question - is Islamic State listed as a proscribed organisation in Ireland?
(As an aside, I'd regard it as a failed state more than an org, but that's a separate argument)

No, it is not.

SporadicMan

mgn wrote: »

And came back to a hero's welcome.

The reaction to that ordeal made me lose all hope for the future of this country.

jmreire

recedite wrote: »

We can't really stop someone like her going abroad.
And we cant really stop her coming back.


What we don't need to do is expend a lot of time, energy and money on a diplomatic mission to bring her back.
She was attracted to the Islamic State, like a shiitfly to flypaper.
Its not our problem.

In Germany they have law's to cover people who do as our Lisa has done..... it's forbidden to travel abroad to another Country and engage with the like's of isis, if you do it ( and as you said, it's impossible to stop it in nearly all cases ) you can and will be prosecuted when you return...and face serious time in jail for it.

jmreire

recedite wrote: »

We can't really stop someone like her going abroad.
And we cant really stop her coming back.


What we don't need to do is expend a lot of time, energy and money on a diplomatic mission to bring her back.
She was attracted to the Islamic State, like a shiitfly to flypaper.
Its not our problem.

In Germany they have law's to cover people who do as our Lisa has done..... it's forbidden to travel abroad to another Country and engage with the like's of isis, if you do it ( and as you said, it's impossible to stop it in nearly all cases ) you can and will be prosecuted when you return...and face serious time in jail for it.
I am completely against spending 1 red cent of tax payers money for any reason on Lisa. But I don't think that there will be any Diplomatic Mission organised to bring her back either. ( Irish Diplomacy does not cut much ice in that part of the world ) ..most likely, there will be a batch of them shipped back to Europe together by the UN, ( to Germany, most likely ) and each Country will then pick up their own, so at a guess I would say a couple of Guarda / Ban Guarda would meet her in the airport, and escort her back to Dublin. This is my thinking on it, but I'm not saying that it will work out exactly like this. I read a report some where about returning isis fighters, being repatriated to their own Countrys, but only when a sufficient Nr of them had been assembled. Plus there was an interview on the Claire Boyle show, where they linked up to a journalist who was in Hassakah, and had earlier that day interviewed Lisa. The journalist said that health wise, Lisa and her child were fine, but she was suffering from the illusion that her stay in the camp would be a short one, and seemed very surprised that she had not been shipped back to Ireland straight away... According to the journalist,,,Lisa's stay in Al-Hawl would be a lengthy one.

jmreire

mgn wrote: »

She joined one of the most brutal organisations the world has seen in a long time.She is a terrorist and should treated like one.
Is that good enough for you.

Yes that's what she did all right...no argument there. BUT she has not broken any Irish Laws...and that's the whole crux of the matter. The Government need's to urgently update Irish Law so that it covers situation's like this. I guarantee you, that if she is arrested when she arrive's back ( IF she arrives back ) you will have more legal eagles than you could shake a stick at defending her "Constitutional Right's ) And as wrong as it seems, unfortunately, that's the way it is. Now if she were a German Citizen....it would have completely different outcome..

inhaler16

jmreire wrote: »

Yes that's what she did all right...no argument there. BUT she has not broken any Irish Laws...and that's the whole crux of the matter. The Government need's to urgently update Irish Law so that it covers situation's like this. I guarantee you, that if she is arrested when she arrive's back ( IF she arrives back ) you will have more legal eagles than you could shake a stick at defending her "Constitutional Right's ) And as wrong as it seems, unfortunately, that's the way it is. Now if she were a German Citizen....it would have completely different outcome..

Would EU law not supersede Irish on this matter as Isil are recognised as a terror group in the EU.

jmreire

inhaler16 wrote: »

Would EU law not supersede Irish on this matter as Isil are recognised as a terror group in the EU.

That's a good point all right, but I suppose that if it did, the Govt would have used it. Bear in mind that for Ireland, this is the 1st time we have this experience...and there is no precedent for it. Germany, on the other hand, do have previous experience and have made new laws to cover it. I Imagine that in the EU, other Country's would have similar laws, but maybe not all of them,like Ireland?
This isis thing, took the World by storm..literally.

inhaler16

jmreire wrote: »

That's a good point all right, but I suppose that if it did, the Govt would have used it. Bear in mind that for Ireland, this is the 1st time we have this experience...and there is no precedent for it. Germany, on the other hand, do have previous experience and have made new laws to cover it. I Imagine that in the EU, other Country's would have similar laws, but maybe not all of them,like Ireland?
This isis thing, took the World by storm..literally.

Well you would imagin there should be some laws in place at an EU level. Has anyone looked ? As she is an Irish/EU citizen.

mgn

jmreire wrote: »

Yes that's what she did all right...no argument there. BUT she has not broken any Irish Laws...and that's the whole crux of the matter. The Government need's to urgently update Irish Law so that it covers situation's like this. I guarantee you, that if she is arrested when she arrive's back ( IF she arrives back ) you will have more legal eagles than you could shake a stick at defending her "Constitutional Right's ) And as wrong as it seems, unfortunately, that's the way it is. Now if she were a German Citizen....it would have completely different outcome..

Yet the government are to make revenge porn and up-skirting illegal under new legislation.Funny how the can do that so easily.

jmreire

mgn wrote: »

Yet the government are to make revenge porn and up-skirting illegal under new legislation.Funny how the can do that so easily.

If it was not so serious...it would be laughable. But then again when you see how long it can take to get new Laws in place in Ireland ( Apparently, the legal aspect of the bank bailout was done in miraculous time) As an example, for more than 2 years now, we have Insurance Reform making it's way sedately through the Dail, and soon we will have the summer recess..more delay's) Given the international aspect of this though, new Laws might be enacted fairly quickly. We will see.

mgn

jmreire wrote: »

If it was not so serious...it would be laughable. But then again when you see how long it can take to get new Laws in place in Ireland ( Apparently, the legal aspect of the bank bailout was done in miraculous time) As an example, for more than 2 years now, we have Insurance Reform making it's way sedately through the Dail, and soon we will have the summer recess..more delay's) Given the international aspect of this though, new Laws might be enacted fairly quickly. We will see.

Is making fraudulent claims included in these new Insurance Reforms.

joeguevara

jmreire wrote: »

If it was not so serious...it would be laughable. But then again when you see how long it can take to get new Laws in place in Ireland ( Apparently, the legal aspect of the bank bailout was done in miraculous time) As an example, for more than 2 years now, we have Insurance Reform making it's way sedately through the Dail, and soon we will have the summer recess..more delay's) Given the international aspect of this though, new Laws might be enacted fairly quickly. We will see.

What insurance reform? All insurance regulations e.g. Solvency is as well as insurance distribution directive comes from Europe. The government have no real power over it.

However, a lot of your points make sense. The craziest thing recently was after the New Zealand attacks. Firstly the PM crazily came out wearing a Head scarf as a show of solidarity. Even though a head scarce has being universally denounced as a way of disrespecting Muslim women and a garment of oppression. Differing arguments on that. But instead of a discussion on the reasons of the attack and how to possibly fix any issues, most discussion was on the changing of the Rugby teams name ‘crusaders’ to a less offensive one. Literally all i saw was that and to a lesser extent the mental health issues of the perpetrator.

Similarly, we are not discussing why people are being radicalized and how to prevent it. Most discussion (and I understand) is about refusing entry of people who have left to join. It is a reactive knee jerk reaction and while it has probiotics value, surely it would be best served in discussing and debating why it happened in the first place!

MrFresh

inhaler16 wrote: »

Well you would imagin there should be some laws in place at an EU level. Has anyone looked ? As she is an Irish/EU citizen.

EU laws generally have to be implemented in each individual country by national legislation.

joeguevara

MrFresh wrote: »

EU laws generally have to be implemented in each individual country by national legislation.

It depends on the construction. If it’s a Directive we implement it and depending on whether it’s minimum or maximum harmonization we can hold plate the EU laws.

If it’s regulations from Europe then it is automatically adopted.

However as a common law jurisdiction, legal precedent determines the law. I believe that for instances such as the one we are discussing it will be determined in how we interpret legislation (we being judges) rather than codified Legislation.

Also we have conventions of human rights which trump Irish law. It will go to Europe and we will have no hand in the outcome. As I have posted before, she has the right to citizenship. Human rights and natural justice guarantee this. No matter how abhorrent it is and indeed her, she will have to be returned. Now what we do have control over is how her liberty os determines.

Let’s see how it plays out.

ohnonotgmail

joeguevara wrote: »

It depends on the construction. If it’s a Directive we implement it and depending on whether it’s minimum or maximum harmonization we can hold plate the EU laws.

If it’s regulations from Europe then it is automatically adopted.

However as a common law jurisdiction, legal precedent determines the law. I believe that for instances such as the one we are discussing it will be determined in how we interpret legislation (we being judges) rather than codified Legislation.

Also we have conventions of human rights which trump law. It will go to Europe and we will have no hand in the outcome. As I have posted before, she has the right to citizenship. Human rights and natural justice guarantee this. No matter how abhorrent it is and indeed her, she will have to be returned. Now what we do have control over is how her liberty os determines.

Let’s see how it plays out.

What is, or isn't, a proscribed organisation is not decided by a judge, it is written in legislation.

recedite

inhaler16 wrote: »

Would EU law not supersede Irish on this matter as Isil are recognised as a terror group in the EU.

As mentioned the EU issues directives on certain matters, which have be transposed into national law.
You'd have thought the EU would have had something to say to the Spanish govt. when they were imprisoning the opposition politicians in Catalonia (all EU citizens, after all). But no, Brussels was quiet as a mouse.

jmreire

joeguevara wrote: »

What insurance reform? All insurance regulations e.g. Solvency is as well as insurance distribution directive comes from Europe. The government have no real power over it.
When the Troika came to town ( remember them? ) One of the conditions of the bail-out was Insurance reform.....so what ever happened that Directive? If the Govt really wanted to reform the insurance "Industry" it would have been done a long time ago.....but it's too lucrative for certain sections of the business community, shareholder's etc,,, as in creche's paid 5 million in premium's over a 5 year period...but only paid out €200'000 in claims. And this with the Government's blessing... I sincerely wish that the the EU was in charge of the Ins. "Industry" here in Ireland...make it the same as apply's in Germany.

However, a lot of your points make sense. The craziest thing recently was after the New Zealand attacks. Firstly the PM crazily came out wearing a Head scarf as a show of solidarity. Even though a head scarce has being universally denounced as a way of disrespecting Muslim women and a garment of oppression. Differing arguments on that. But instead of a discussion on the reasons of the attack and how to possibly fix any issues, most discussion was on the changing of the Rugby teams name ‘crusaders’ to a less offensive one. Literally all i saw was that and to a lesser extent the mental health issues of the perpetrator.
I think that was a knee-jerk reaction....I am completely against changing name's or customs for fear of offending anyone. And the same goes for removing all outward signs of religion in public places...it's all part of a creeping destruction of who we are. Be careful what you tear down, until you know what will replace it.

Similarly, we are not discussing why people are being radicalized and how to prevent it. Most discussion (and I understand) is about refusing entry of people who have left to join. It is a reactive knee jerk reaction and while it has probiotics value, surely it would be best served in discussing and debating why it happened in the first place!

In an earlier post of mine, I said that she has to be brought home ( even if the Govt could refuse her entry) because it needs to be investigated, the why's, when's and how's of her induction into isis. Then she would need to be "turned", and become an anti-isis propagandist.

joeguevara

jmreire wrote: »

In an earlier post of mine, I said that she has to be brought home ( even if the Govt could refuse her entry) because it needs to be investigated, the why's, when's and how's of her induction into isis. Then she would need to be "turned", and become an anti-isis propagandist.

We got the Directive. Nothing to do with the troika. It’s called solvency I and it is a European wide insurance legislation.

The main reason premiums are going up is not the reason you outlined. It is two fold. Firstly solvency ii increased exponentially the minimum capital insurance firms have to ring fence to protect customers from the possibility that insurance firms can fold and customers lose the money paid. Think Quinn. We have no cintrol on insurance firms outside Ireland as we don’t regulate their solvency (we being central bank) and we only regulate conduct of business rules I.e consumer protection code and minimum competency code.

The main reason though premiums have gone up is low interest rates meaning investment returns are low. That is the main source of income for firms and not premiums.

I agree with your second point.

jmreire

joeguevara wrote: »

We got the Directive. Nothing to do with the troika. It’s called solvency I and it is a European wide insurance legislation.

The main reason premiums are going up is not the reason you outlined. It is two fold. Firstly solvency ii increased exponentially the minimum capital insurance firms have to ring fence to protect customers from the possibility that insurance firms can fold and customers lose the money paid. Think Quinn. We have no cintrol on insurance firms outside Ireland as we don’t regulate their solvency (we being central bank) and we only regulate conduct of business rules I.e consumer protection code and minimum competency code.

The main reason though premiums have gone up is low interest rates meaning investment returns are low. That is the main source of income for firms and not premiums.

I agree with your second point.

So basically, because investment' returns are low ( Quantative easing ??? ) the ordinary citizen, is expected to make up the short fall?? Sure Quinn failed, and everyone is paying I think 10% since 1992 ( again not sure about the dates ) for Quinn...I am pretty sure that all Quinn's liabilities have since been covered, but still paying the additional 10%? Most people's insurance jumped in 2015, but not just by 10%, but in 100% Multiples of previous years quote . What was that? Rescue package for investors???

jmreire

joeguevara wrote: »

We got the Directive. Nothing to do with the troika. It’s called solvency I and it is a European wide insurance legislation.

The main reason premiums are going up is not the reason you outlined. It is two fold. Firstly solvency ii increased exponentially the minimum capital insurance firms have to ring fence to protect customers from the possibility that insurance firms can fold and customers lose the money paid. Think Quinn. We have no cintrol on insurance firms outside Ireland as we don’t regulate their solvency (we being central bank) and we only regulate conduct of business rules I.e consumer protection code and minimum competency code.

The main reason though premiums have gone up is low interest rates meaning investment returns are low. That is the main source of income for firms and not premiums.

I agree with your second point.

So basically, because investment' returns are low ( Quantative easing ??? ) the ordinary citizen, is expected to make up the short fall?? Sure Quinn failed, and everyone is paying I think 10% since 1992 ( again not sure about the dates ) for Quinn...I am pretty sure that all Quinn's liabilities have since been covered, but still paying the additional 10%? Most people's insurance jumped in 2015, but not just by 10%, but in 100% Multiples of previous years quote . What was that? Rescue package for investors??? And is Ireland a special case, that we are paying paying up to €20,000 for whiplash claims ( nor reduced to £500 in England, and in Germany, you get some physio sessions, and that's it? Why we cannot seem to be able to do that here in Ireland?

inhaler16

recedite wrote: »

As mentioned the EU issues directives on certain matters, which have be transposed into national law.
You'd have thought the EU would have had something to say to the Spanish govt. when they were imprisoning the opposition politicians in Catalonia (all EU citizens, after all). But no, Brussels was quiet as a mouse.

True but there could already be legislation on EU books that was not used due to opening a can of worms against another EU member ? or was never brought to the EC/ECHR.