The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm not saying the case wasn't important. I'm drawing issue with the claim that homosexuality would "still be a crime" if it wasn't for the ECHR. There's absolutely no proof that would be the case, it's completely unsubstantiated.

We wouldn't have legalised it ourselves if that was what you mean. It was an extremely long process and without Robinson and Norris and international bodies such as ECHR, it would almost certainly be still illegal. The modernisation + liberalisation of Ireland came with pressure from international institutions. Need I remind you divorce was only legalised in the late 90s after a few shots of referenda.

NuMarvel

AnGaelach wrote: »

I think the Government should have refused to have let the ECHR interfere with our Constitution or public policy. We're the ones who define what our rights are, it's a power given to us by Bunreacht na hÉireann.

The State voluntarily chose to participate in both in the European Convention of Human Rights and the UN. It would be a bit rich to sign up to those organisations, declaring to abide by their rules, and then ignore decisions that don't suit us.

And were it not for the ECHR we would have never legislated for the X Case in 2013. Successive governments ignored that issue for 20 years and only started to do something once directed to do so by the ECHR after the ABC case.

Hotblack Desiato

Why is it there's an ongoing correlation between Irish language nazis, diehard catholics, and the so-called 'pro-life' position?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why is it there's an ongoing correlation between Irish language nazis, diehard catholics, and the so-called 'pro-life' position?

Why is it there's an ongoing correlation between Anglocentric crypto-fascists, diehard feminists, and the so-called 'pro-choice' position?

Zubeneschamali

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why is it there's an ongoing correlation between Irish language nazis, diehard catholics, and the so-called 'pro-life' position?

The 8th amendment was a Catholic one to begin with - every other Christian church in Ireland was opposed to passing the 8th in the first place, so pro-life in Ireland is of course catholic.

There is also an historic association between Catholicism and the Irish language in opposition to the Protestant Ascendancy and their English language.

And now there is the shared position of being under sustained attack from the liberal, internationalist, secular hegemony.

Samaris

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why is it there's an ongoing correlation between Irish language nazis, diehard catholics, and the so-called 'pro-life' position?

AnGaelach wrote: »

Why is it there's an ongoing correlation between Anglocentric crypto-fascists, diehard feminists, and the so-called 'pro-choice' position?

Not really seen the correlation with the language. Or whatever a crypto-fascist is. Die-hard Catholics and pro-life is hardly surprising. Die-hard feminists is hardly surprising. Neither of those are really sensible questions. Any back-up for the language connection from either side?

(And what -is- a crypto-fascist? Is it a fascist that speaks in riddles? Is it a mythical being hunted by the crypto-zoologists? What views do they hold and why are they particularly crypted? What differs them from normal fascists? Actually, what's the definition of fascist, just to get a baseline to compare relative cryptocity?)

AnGaelach wrote: »

I think the Government should have refused to have let the ECHR interfere with our Constitution or public policy. We're the ones who define what our rights are, it's a power given to us by Bunreacht na h?ireann.

No. We don't. We are signatories to the UN convention on human rights and European Convention on Human rights. So human rights in Ireland are both nationally and internationally defined.

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's unsubstantiated conjecture. Do you think it was the ECHR that made Irish people vote to support the gay marriage referendum?

What?

Are you not aware of Norris v Ireland in the European Court of Human Rights in 1988? Seriously it is absolute nonsense to claim that as unsubstantiated conjecture.

Decriminalisation of gay male sex took place largely because the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ireland’s laws contravened the European Convention on Human Rights in Norris v Ireland in 1988.

Hotblack Desiato

AnGaelach wrote: »

Why is it there's an ongoing correlation between Anglocentric crypto-fascists, diehard feminists, and the so-called 'pro-choice' position?

Amazing how people think that opposition to catholic orthodoxy is 'crypto-fascism'. Because allowing people to have choices they don't like is oppressing them..!

If you want an actual fascist you need look no further than Justin Barrett.

As for Anglocentric, language wise the entire globe is going Anglocentric, get over it.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What?

Are you not aware of Norris v Ireland in the European Court of Human Rights in 1988? Seriously it is absolute nonsense to claim that as unsubstantiated conjecture.

Decriminalisation of gay male sex took place largely because the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ireland’s laws contravened the European Convention on Human Rights in Norris v Ireland in 1988.

I'm not sure if you're just misreading everything. The person claimed that without the ECHR being gay would still be a crime today. 20 years on.

I've already said the case was enormous in decriminalising homosexuality, but that does nothing to support the belief that we would still have homosexuality criminalised here. That is unsubstantiated conjecture.

Do you honestly believe if it wasn't for the ECHR that we'd have homosexuality as a crime today?

Samaris wrote: »

Not really seen the correlation with the language. Or whatever a crypto-fascist is. Die-hard Catholics and pro-life is hardly surprising. Die-hard feminists is hardly surprising. Neither of those are really sensible questions. Any back-up for the language connection from either side?

Well, it's mockery on my part.

AnGaelach wrote: »

Do you honestly believe if it wasn't for the ECHR that we'd have homosexuality as a crime today?

I point you to the simple matter of something like Divorce, which is treated as a no-brainer in modern society.

It was only legalized in this country in 1995

And take a look at the margin...

With a margin of 9000 people only deciding that Divorce is fine in 1995 do you honestly want me to believe that they would have thought Homosexuality was fine? :pac::pac::pac::pac:

Consonata wrote: »

I point you to the simple matter of something like Divorce, which is treated as a no-brainer in modern society.

With a margin of 9000 people only deciding that Divorce is fine in 1995 do you honestly want me to believe that they would have thought Homosexuality was fine? :pac::pac::pac::pac:

Proof of something passing in 1995 is proof that something else would still be criminalised in 2017?

AnGaelach wrote: »

Proof of something passing in 1995 is proof that something else would still be criminalised in 2017?

Yes? Do you think social change just "happens". A populous who was only coming to terms with divorce in 95' isn't going to become okay with homosexuality just like that.

I don't think you really understand how insular Ireland was as a country before we joined International institutions like the ECHR, EU et al. The church had a massive grip over the country, plus social norms were dictated by the Vatican and the local parish priest, not what was seen as socially normal globally. We didn't encounter people of different cultures and traditions, and suffered as a result.

ECHR + EU with the funding that they brought, and the human rights that they brought, modernised our country majorly.

Consonata wrote: »

Yes? Do you think social change just "happens". A populous who was only coming to terms with divorce in 95' isn't going to become okay with homosexuality just like that.

And do you think 20 years isn't a long enough time for homosexuality to become decriminalised? This has just become nonsensical back and forth. The poster stated homosexuality would still be a crime today if it hadn't been for the ECHR which is neither a logical assumption or backed by any fact. It's simple conjecture.

AnGaelach wrote: »

And do you think 20 years isn't a long enough time for homosexuality to become decriminalised? This has just become nonsensical back and forth. The poster stated homosexuality would still be a crime today if it hadn't been for the ECHR which is neither a logical assumption or backed by any fact. It's simple conjecture.

Again you disregard the fact that we only came to terms with divorce by less than half a percent in 1995.

Have you any evidence to show that there was going to be a massive epiphany between then and now that we suddenly would think "yeah, sodomy is ok" in rural catholic Ireland w/o freedom of movement, free trade, investment, and the ECHR?

Consonata wrote: »

Again you disregard the fact that we only came to terms with divorce by less than half a percent in 1995.

Have you any evidence to show that there was going to be a massive epiphany between then and now that we suddenly would think "yeah, sodomy is ok" in rural catholic Ireland w/o freedom of movement, free trade, investment, and the ECHR?

Divorce passed.

The onus of proof is on the person who made the claim (that homosexuality would be a crime today), not the person calling it conjecture.

AnGaelach wrote: »

Divorce passed.

The onus of proof is on the person who made the claim (that homosexuality would be a crime today), not the person calling it conjecture.

By. less. than. half. a. percent.

Are you intentionally being dense now? I don't think you are quite getting that a population who is only just about ok with Divorce, isn't going to magically become ok with Sodomy. You are looking at Ireland through the lens of somebody who has seen it within the EU, yet refusing to look at the history of what sort of a country we were before it. (not a very good one)

volchitsa

AnGaelach wrote: »

Divorce passed.

The onus of proof is on the person who made the claim (that homosexuality would be a crime today), not the person calling it conjecture.

This is the weirdest argument. Of course it's conjecture, that's what the word "would" tells you. It's very plausible conjecture though, for the reasons the poster has given.

Proving something that didn't happen, would have done in different circumstances - it"s just funny that you've spent so long over it. What proof would you accept - a certificate from a crystal-ball gazer?

.......

This post has been deleted.

AnGaelach wrote: »

And do you think 20 years isn't a long enough time for homosexuality to become decriminalised? This has just become nonsensical back and forth. The poster stated homosexuality would still be a crime today if it hadn't been for the ECHR which is neither a logical assumption or backed by any fact. It's simple conjecture.

If you think about it yes it is a perfectly logical assumption. If Ireland was not a member of the Council of Europe/European Convention on Human Rights/European Court of Human Rights then our legislative system would not have had such an international or human rights influence and the Norris Supreme Court judgement would still be a huge influence on our legislature. I do think there is a perfectly logical assumption there.

eviltwin

AnGaelach wrote: »

Divorce passed.

The onus of proof is on the person who made the claim (that homosexuality would be a crime today), not the person calling it conjecture.

Barely. If the referendum had happened later it would have passed easily. People change, attitudes change. Imagine suggesting divorce should be illegal or homosexuality should be a crime today, you'd be laughed out of it. The same for abortion. The results of the CA show the attitude to abortion is changing too. They were normal members of the public. Abortion will be a reality in Ireland, it's just a matter of time and a government brave enough to put it to a referendum.

eviltwin wrote: »

Barely. If the referendum had happened later it would have passed easily. People change, attitudes change. Imagine suggesting divorce should be illegal or homosexuality should be a crime today, you'd be laughed out of it. The same for abortion. The results of the CA show the attitude to abortion is changing too. They were normal members of the public. Abortion will be a reality in Ireland, it's just a matter of time and a government brave enough to put it to a referendum.

Sometimes I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation though. Is it more acceptable now because it exists (legal divorce/gay male sex) or does it exist because it's more acceptable? That is where we are at with abortion really. Once it becomes legal it will become much more socially acceptable.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Sometimes I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation though. Is it more acceptable now because it exists or does it exist because it's more acceptable?

Pretty much. You don't have a shower by starting with your toe, then your foot, then your lower leg, at a snails pace. Thats not how social change (usually) happens. It happens leaps that may be intially unpopular, but gain popularity through normalization.

kevincool

AnGaelach wrote: »

I think the Government should have refused to have let the ECHR interfere with our Constitution or public policy. We're the ones who define what our rights are, it's a power given to us by Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Then ireland should be out of EU to have no one's interference

B_Wayne

kevincool wrote: »

Then ireland should be out of EU to have no one's interference

Just to clarify again, the ECHR is not associated with the EU and we voluntarily signed up for it, for good reason.