Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

RTE asked the judge about an item reportedly on a social media site. Allegedly some-one connected with one side of the issue and sitting on the CA wrote that he/she was of a fixed mind in regard to the 8th. Judge Laffoy is quoted as saying she was taking the reported comment with a pinch of salt (apparently thinking some-one might not be above stirring it) but would get her secretary to check it out.

Cabaal

Failing to come up with their own idea's, here we have some old backward TD's wearing the pro-life's campaign tops

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/10/14/snap-2/

Yesterday.

Government Buildings.

Take that, hipsters.

Independent TDs Michael Collins and Mattie McGrath sport the new pro-life ‘ Save The Eighth’ sweaters, a rival to the Repeal jumpers.

One size fits some.

eviltwin

How fitting that the 8 in their logo looks like the link of a chain.

Cabaal wrote: »

Failing to come up with their own idea's, here we have some old backward TD's wearing the pro-life's campaign tops

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/10/14/snap-2/

I hope they see what i see, Mattie (I won't vote for M/E) and Michael wearing matching tops with entwined hearts standing so close together their hands are almost.........

jameorahiely

aloyisious wrote: »

I hope they see what i see, Mattie (I won't vote for M/E) and Michael wearing matching tops with entwined hearts standing so close together their hands are almost.........

Can you explain what your are insinuating here with your comment?

PopePalpatine

jameorahiely wrote: »

Can you explain what your are insinuating here with your comment?

M/E = marriage equality, and I pretty sure aloysious is implying some homoeroticism between Mattie & Michael.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Can you explain what your are insinuating here with your comment?

Just that it's a very touching image......

jameorahiely

aloyisious wrote: »

Just that it's a very touching image......

You think they look gay? Is that it? You have some pre conceived notion of what being gay looks like. Knowing that they are not gay you are using it to try and insult them and their wives to score some cheap points.

I find your comment bigotted and disgusting on many levels. 2 men standing close to each other, they must be gay, haha

aloyisious wrote: »

RTE asked the judge about an item reportedly on a social media site. Allegedly some-one connected with one side of the issue and sitting on the CA wrote that he/she was of a fixed mind in regard to the 8th. Judge Laffoy is quoted as saying she was taking the reported comment with a pinch of salt (apparently thinking some-one might not be above stirring it) but would get her secretary to check it out.

well if its the same person they had an obvious view on the subject I don't think they said they had a fixed view. did Laffoy actually use the phrase "pinch of salt"

expectationlost wrote: »

well if its the same person they had an obvious view on the subject I don't think they said they had a fixed view. did Laffoy actually use the phrase "pinch of salt"

Yes to your question about the RTE news item and Judge laffoy and the words "pinch of salt", plus the usual others "Take it with a". I actually didn't go looking for the social media site where the alleged CA member made the quote as they and their pages are numerous As you have mentioned you don't think they said they had a fixed view, I'm wondering that if you had read what the person wrote, can you let me know which one it is, as I'd like to see what the person actually wrote. I'm a divil for detail, if it can be found.

jameorahiely wrote: »

You think they look gay? Is that it? You have some pre conceived notion of what being gay looks like. Knowing that they are not gay you are using it to try and insult them and their wives to score some cheap points.

I find your comment bigotted and disgusting on many levels. 2 men standing close to each other, they must be gay, haha

Touche..

aloyisious wrote: »

Yes to your question about the RTE news item and Judge laffoy and the words "pinch of salt", plus the usual others "Take it with a". I actually didn't go looking for the social media site where the alleged CA member made the quote as they and their pages are numerous As you have mentioned you don't think they said they had a fixed view, I'm wondering that if you had read what the person wrote, can you let me know which one it is, as I'd like to see what the person actually wrote. I'm a divil for detail, if it can be found.

I see Joe Little RTE reporter used the phrase grain of salt on the 6 news. http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2016/1015/21071799-first-meeting-of-the-citizens-assembly-takes-place-at-dublin-castle/

where did the Judge use the phrase pinch of salt?

expectationlost wrote: »

I see Joe Little RTE reporter used the phrase grain of salt on the 6 news. http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2016/1015/21071799-first-meeting-of-the-citizens-assembly-takes-place-at-dublin-castle/

where did the Judge use the phrase pinch of salt?

Ta for the podcast. Apologies, I see i mistook what Joe Little said for part of what Judge Laffoy said. Ref the reported social media comment, I see it's claimed to be from the Pro-choice side of the abortion debate. I don't know if you think the same, but if it's genuinely from a person on the Pro-choice side of the debate, i reckon that would indicate that the person has made a determination and is of a fixed mind. I reckon the same would apply if the person was from the anti-abortion side of the debate. I'd still like to find the social media site the reported comment was posted up.

aloyisious wrote: »

Ta for the podcast. Apologies, I see i mistook what Joe Little said for part of what Judge Laffoy said. Ref the reported social media comment, I see it's claimed to be from the Pro-choice side of the abortion debate. I don't know if you think the same, but if it's genuinely from a person on the Pro-choice side of the debate, i reckon that would indicate that the person has made a determination and is of a fixed mind. I reckon the same would apply if the person was from the anti-abortion side of the debate. I'd still like to find the social media site the reported comment was posted up.

they can't exlucde everyone who already has an opinion on abortion or made public comments for or against abortion from the citizens assembly

so neither did the judge say anything should be 'taken with a pinch of salt' nor did anyone say they had a fixed view of abortion, thats just your misremembered intepretation, can you make a clear distinction between the 2 in future.

expectationlost wrote: »

they can't exlucde everyone who already has an opinion on abortion or made public comments for or against abortion from the citziens convention:

That goes without saying and not anything I wrote, suggested or inferred. However, as you've raised the issue of excluding people from the CA, it'd be interesting to see what the judge might do should anyone inside the CA try to interfere with the CA's business. However, that's not my affair.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

That goes without saying and not anything I wrote, suggested or inferred. However, as you've raised the issue of excluding people from the CA, it'd be interesting to see what the judge might do should anyone inside the CA tried to interfere with the CA's business. However, that's not my affair.

What would you classify as someone within the CA interfering with the CAs business, as distinct from someone within the CA participating in the CAs business, just as a matter of interest?

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction here. The judge/chairperson has said that "openness and transparency" should be an important feature of the CA. But on the other hand is attempting to muzzle one of the people involved. Contrast this with a sitting TD, who would have no problem tweeting their views on an issue being debated in the Dail.

The whole idea of the CA is intriguing, in the sense that its function duplicates the Oireachtas in many respects, despite it lacking any real power.

Some ancient democracies believed that public representatives should be chosen randomly (as in modern jury service) and have strictly limited terms (as in modern presidents). This was to safeguard against the corruption and political lobbying that is likely to set in when an elected representative holds a seat for a long time. If you combine this kind of system with regular referendums in which the electorate votes on a particular policy/principle, but never votes for actual people to represent them, you could have a very effective democracy.

If the CA gains traction, it could eventually demand some real power. In theory, it could even render the Dail and the Seanad obsolete eventually.

Or maybe, their conclusions will just be ignored by the "real" politicians, and the whole idea abandoned.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Or maybe, their conclusions will just be ignored by the "real" politicians, and the whole idea abandoned.

That would be my suspicion, another talk shop that lets time slip by without achieving much in concrete terms,

Pherekydes

recedite wrote: »

If the CA gains traction, it could eventually demand some real power. In theory, it could even render the Dail and the Seanad obsolete eventually.

Not a bad idea. It would shut up people moaning about politicians all the time, particularly if they had the possibility of being selected at random themselves.

I have a feeling the government view the CA as a method of putting off making difficult or unpopular decisions.

recedite wrote: »

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction here. The judge/chairperson has said that "openness and transparency" should be an important feature of the CA. But on the other hand is attempting to muzzle one of the people involved. Contrast this with a sitting TD, who would have no problem tweeting their views on an issue being debated in the Dail.

she said this was her personal opinion so she wasn't blocking the person for expressing their views (online) but I think its fair to suggest that you might pause to consider the evidence that will be presented and focus your debate to within the CA for now. But I don't think there would be anything to prevent a person from expressing their views during it other then the contraversy that it creates may not be worth the trouble.

the CA could be seen as way to quieten certain cabinet minitsters and other politicians

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction here. The judge/chairperson has said that "openness and transparency" should be an important feature of the CA. But on the other hand is attempting to muzzle one of the people involved. Contrast this with a sitting TD, who would have no problem tweeting their views on an issue being debated in the Dail.

Perhaps the Judge feels that that whilst openness should be a feature of the work of the Assembly, the work should not be undermined by the individual openness of the members? Though I don't think she actually said she would 'muzzle one of the people involved'... and there is no doubt that the function of a member of the Citizens Assembly is quite different from that of a TD so what they can and can't do will obviously be different.

recedite wrote: »

The whole idea of the CA is intriguing, in the sense that its function duplicates the Oireachtas in many respects, despite it lacking any real power.

The Oireachtas:
Elects a government, Approves and passes the annual budget, Approves and passes legislation, Provides a channel of accountability of government to the people.
I don't think the Citizens Assembly does any of those things.... it's function is to "consider the following matters and to make such recommendations as it sees fit and report to the Houses of the Oireachtas". Not only does it lack power, since it only exists to report to those who do have power, but it lacks pretty much every other feature that makes the Oireachtas the Oireachtas.

recedite wrote: »

If the CA gains traction, it could eventually demand some real power. In theory, it could even render the Dail and the Seanad obsolete eventually.

Not really though. The idea of unelected committees exercising real power is generally considered anathemic to democracy (unless you're the US, or the EU), and let's be honest; there's no traction for the Citizens Assembly to gain. People will agree and disagree with the recommendations, giving politicians a chance to test the waters on their own potential response to those recommendations before committing to ignoring, rewriting, filibustering, burying, or lauding them as they think it suits their careers. And the CA, having presented it's reports and fulfilled it's function, will just cease to be.

recedite wrote: »

Or maybe, their conclusions will just be ignored by the "real" politicians, and the whole idea abandoned.

I'm sure it will be considered to have been a valuable exercise in consulting the people providing worthwhile insights, food for thought, and a demonstration of the spinelessness of the opposition and the wisdom of Enda.

expectationlost wrote: »

she said this was her personal opinion so she wasn't blocking the person for expressing their views (online) but I think its fair to suggest that you might pause to consider the evidence that will be presented and focus your debate to within the CA for now. But I don't think there would be anything to prevent a person from expressing their views during it other then the contraversy that it creates may not be worth the trouble.

the CA could be seen as way to quieten certain cabinet minitsters and other politicians

True, even if that would be making the CA a bit of a charade, coincidentally the opinion that Family & Life have of it, though F & L would probably hope not all politicians were quietened. Nothing like a bit of controversy to get a politician all het up and talking about the facts of life, as it were.

Absolam wrote: »

Perhaps the Judge feels that that whilst openness should be a feature of the work of the Assembly, the work should not be undermined by the individual openness of the members?

Yes, the judge is treating them as jurors, and trying to separate them from the media. But there is no particular reason to do this in the context of the CA, and she is not a judge in this context, she is only a chairman.

Absolam wrote: »

The Oireachtas:
Elects a government, Approves and passes the annual budget, Approves and passes legislation, Provides a channel of accountability of government to the people.
I don't think the Citizens Assembly does any of those things....

This is true, but the CA could do all those things just as well as the Dail and Seanad. Perhaps better. If this wasn't true, then we wouldn't use the same sort of short-term and random selection of citizens for jury duties.
The CA is being used to gauge public opinion and to represent the people, which is a duplication of what the Oireactas is supposed to do.

Theoretically the CA could recommend a referendum to change the constitution to give it the powers currently reserved for the Oireachtas, and if the career politicians allowed that to happen (like turkeys voting for Christmas) it could happen.

Absolam wrote: »

Not really though. The idea of unelected committees exercising real power is generally considered anathemic to democracy (unless you're the US, or the EU)

Well now you said it. The EU and US is partly ruled by unelected bureacrats and committees put in place by lobbyists. And partly by career politicians who are wide open to bribery and corruption from the same sources. The ancient and original democracies operated much more like this CA idea.

People will agree and disagree with the recommendations, giving politicians a chance to test the waters on their own potential response to those recommendations before committing to ignoring, rewriting, filibustering, burying, or lauding them as they think it suits their careers. And the CA, having presented it's reports and fulfilled it's function, will just cease to be.

Generally I agree, but this is not the first incarnation of the CA and I don't think it will be the last. As the members become more cocky, and the institution becomes more popular with the public, I just wonder whether the CA can be kept in its box indefinitely by the combined efforts of the judge/chairman and the career politicians.

recedite wrote: »

Yes, the judge is treating them as jurors, and trying to separate them from the media. But there is no particular reason to do this in the context of the CA, and she is not a judge in this context, she is only a chairman.
This is true, but the CA could do all those things just as well as the Dail and Seanad. Perhaps better. If this wasn't true, then we wouldn't use the same sort of short-term and random selection of citizens for jury duties.
The CA is being used to gauge public opinion and to represent the people, which is a duplication of what the Oireactas is supposed to do.

Theoretically the CA could recommend a referendum to change the constitution to give it the powers currently reserved for the Oireachtas, and if the career politicians allowed that to happen (like turkeys voting for Christmas) it could happen.

Well now you said it. The EU and US is partly ruled by unelected bureacrats and committees put in place by lobbyists. And partly by career politicians who are wide open to bribery and corruption from the same sources. The ancient and original democracies operated much more like this CA idea.

Generally I agree, but this is not the first incarnation of the CA and I don't think it will be the last. As the members become more cocky, and the institution becomes more popular with the public, I just wonder whether the CA can be kept in its box indefinitely by the combined efforts of the judge/chairman and the career politicians.

I'm thinking that the public has got out of it's box and has shown it's power by electing so many (outsider) independents that the Dail regulars have come up with the "let the people decide" CA so that they can do whatever they want with the CA report (stifle people-power) unlike the result of a referendum which they can't ignore. I'd hope that the CA box san't be closed and puts "A referendum is needed ASAP in it's report. Putting a judge in the seat avoids political blame (we had nothing to do with it's decision).

Ref unelected committees, there's also the version which can be "peopled" by elected persons, the Dail Committees, invented by the elected persons and peopled by them to produce reports which generally do nothing to improve the situation and gather dust on the shelves.

aloyisious wrote: »

Putting a judge in the seat avoids political blame (we had nothing to do with it's decision).

Yes, I think so. The CA is like that bomb disposal robot they send in when they think something is likely to blow up in their face :pac:
But, like that robot, there is the possibility of it evolving to the point where eventually it says "hey dude, I've been thinking, and I think its your turn now to go in and poke the bomb".

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Yes, the judge is treating them as jurors, and trying to separate them from the media. But there is no particular reason to do this in the context of the CA, and she is not a judge in this context, she is only a chairman.

Where do you get that idea from? Judge Laffoy never said any such thing...

recedite wrote: »

This is true, but the CA could do all those things just as well as the Dail and Seanad. Perhaps better. If this wasn't true, then we wouldn't use the same sort of short-term and random selection of citizens for jury duties.

Insofar as any random assembly of individuals could, sure. Insofar as replicating all the functions of a bicameral parliamentary system and legislature... maybe not so much. That you imagine the fact that jurors are randomly selected makes it true that they are therefore capable of replacing an entire system of government is, well, not even laughable... it's worrying.

recedite wrote: »

The CA is being used to gauge public opinion and to represent the people, which is a duplication of what the Oireactas is supposed to do.

Even allowing the fact that you seem to be confusing a representative sample with elected representatives, no, being used to gauge public opinion and to represent the people is not what the Oireachtas is meant to do (or the Citizens Assembly either, to be fair).

recedite wrote: »

Theoretically the CA could recommend a referendum to change the constitution to give it the powers currently reserved for the Oireachtas, and if the career politicians allowed that to happen (like turkeys voting for Christmas) it could happen.

Theoretically the CA could recommend everyone should wear underpants on their heads to protect them from the mind rays, and if the career politicians allowed that to happen it could happen. In fact though, the Assembly has not been asked to report on what powers it should have, or what people should do with their underwear, so it probably won't.

recedite wrote: »

Well now you said it. The EU and US is partly ruled by unelected bureacrats and committees put in place by lobbyists. And partly by career politicians who are wide open to bribery and corruption from the same sources. The ancient and original democracies operated much more like this CA idea.

Actually, I didn't say that. Nevertheless your high opinion of ancient and original democracies doesn't confer any legitimacy on this particular unelected assembly as an alternative to the Oireachtas, does it?

recedite wrote: »

Generally I agree, but this is not the first incarnation of the CA and I don't think it will be the last. As the members become more cocky, and the institution becomes more popular with the public, I just wonder whether the CA can be kept in its box indefinitely by the combined efforts of the judge/chairman and the career politicians.

I imagine many career politicians are quaking in their boots at the spectre of revolution you're conjuring

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm thinking that the public has got out of it's box and has shown it's power by electing so many (outsider) independents that the Dail regulars have come up with the "let the people decide" CA so that they can do whatever they want with the CA report (stifle people-power) unlike the result of a referendum which they can't ignore. I'd hope that the CA box san't be closed and puts "A referendum is needed ASAP in it's report. Putting a judge in the seat avoids political blame (we had nothing to do with it's decision)..

the citizens assemblies came about before the last election and was being planned before the previous one, it was pushed by academics funded by Churck Feeney/Atlantic Philanthropies.

expectationlost wrote: »

the citizens assemblies came about before the last election and was being planned before the previous one, it was pusehd by academics funded by Churck Feeney/Atlantic Philanthropies.

Scratches head, I was referring to the Dail, the TD's and how they decide to set up Dail committees to examine problems forced on their attentions by the public and the media, and then choose from amongst their own members to sit on said committees.

Ta for the info on the origins of the CA and its promoter. I am an admirer of Chuck Feeney and his work for the good of the Irish public.

Edit.... I see that you might have been referring to my comment about the Dail regulars have come up with the "let the people decide" CA. I know they didn't but suspect equally that (most of) the Dail members are using the CA as a handy device to long-finger the thorny abortion issue, also on the notion of allowing the Irish people have another referendum on it, unlike the Nice treaty and the Lisbon treaty where it was in the public interest of course.

aloyisious wrote: »

Ta for the info on the origins of the CA and its promoter. I am an admirer of Chuck Feeney and his work for the good of the Irish public.

I may generally support similar things he supports but I hate to think that the money (earned through a business based on tax avoidance) and the wishes of one man has so much influence over a government and a nation through his other (at one time secret) grants and the lobbying for the use of citizens assemblies.