smacl wrote: » Rather depends whether the funding is covert or transparent and whether those trying to influence local politics play by local rules. Given the furore surrounding Trump's election and possible Russian influence, it seems clear that most people find covert foreign influence unacceptable. This is similarly true of human rights issues as SIPO's attitude to Soros illustrates. I'd also be concerned about local voices being drowned our by well funded international lobby groups, which very much seems to be the case in this debate. Democracy really shouldn't be about who has the deepest pockets, which is very much the American model.
Peregrinus wrote: » I take your point about covert funding - I object to that. But I don't object to covert foreign funding in particular. Covertness is a problem; foreign-ness isn't. I'd make an exception for funding sourced directly or indirectly from a foreign government - that's highly objectionable. As for the "deepest pocket" point, yes, campaign funding limits may be appropriate. But I don't think the limits should distinguish between foreign- and domestic-sourced funding.
I don't know that there is an easy solution to this problem.
smacl wrote: » I disagree with that insofar as by allowing large amounts of foreign money into a local debate, on what is a local issue, local voices get drowned out as they cannot compete in terms of resources they can dedicate to campaigning. In a debate such as this, local concerns get swamped by conflicting, and IMHO rather extreme, foreign interests. If these foreign interests are not representative of local sentiment I would dispute that they should have a voice. Most certainly they should not have the loudest voice. This is after all an Irish debate that solely concerns Irish citizens.
smacl wrote: » I think it is important to differentiate between principles and practicalities here. While there may be no easy solution at present that is no reason to abandon those principles. It seems very much as this type of rather insidious targeted influence through social media is coming under increasing widespread scrutiny and my feeling is that it will become heavily constrained in the near future.
Peregrinus wrote: » Obviously, it's up to the voter to decide which arguments he finds appealing or convincing, but if he is minded to find arguments advanced by somebody who happens to be, e.g, French convincing, I don't see why the state should try to influence his judgment by shielding him from those arguments or limiting his exposure to them.
smacl wrote: » It is a matter of balance. Where both sides of the debate are being largely funded with foreign money, and opaque accompanying agendas, the debate actually becomes one between those with the money at the expense of local voices. Where those with the money are foreign fundamentalists who's views are not representative of local views by what right should they be allowed influence the debate, beyond waving a fistful of dollars? While it clearly happens in practise, is cultural domination by those with the most spending power acceptable in principle?
Peregrinus wrote: » I don't think we can look for funding limits which depend on whether the views being advanced are "representative of local views". The whole point of a referendum campaign is that it's an opportunity for change people's views; it would be profoundly undemocratic to try to limit or silence the voices of those on the basis that the views they express are not already popular. Similarly I don't think we get to restrict or silence views because we label them "fundamentalist".
I don't know whether something similar is possible on facebook and the like. If Irish law forbade facebook from presenting paid stories on election/referendum issues to Irish viewers during a referendum period (in much the way that it prevents Irish broadcasters from accepting paid election ads) would that be enforceable? It's worth a try, anyway.
smacl wrote: » It is not so much that the views are unrepresentative or fundamentalist as that they represent foreign interference in local politics and culture. My understanding was that part of SIPO's remit was to prevent this kind of funding of foreign influence in local debate, as was seen with Soros. As a society we consider this type of interference unacceptable.
smacl wrote: » The technology is no doubt malleable, what we're seeing is the dance that the likes of facebook are making between meeting changing national standards and the demands of those that pay for influence. Same as any kind of marketing and advertising really, just that newer technology affords a much finer focus.
Peregrinus wrote: » I don't. But maybe I'm just weird.
It's not just that. It's that plus, in the interconnected digitised world, regulating the use of this finely-focussed technology at the national level is difficult. With a "legit" player like Facebook, you have some chance of getting them to respect Irish campaigning laws by, e.g, threatening to prevent them from collecting payments from Irish customers wishing to place ads, or otherwise interfering with their commercial interests in Ireland. But with Russian bot factories placing bogus tweets to circulate plausible but fake "news" to people identified as malleable or gullible - I agree we have to defend ourselves against that, but it's not easy to see how.
Peregrinus wrote: » Both sides in a referendum campaign will be spending money in an attempt to influence the vote. Only one side can win. Are those on the other side therefore eejits?
Peregrinus wrote: » The nationality of the person advancing the arguments is probably not that material a factor in most people's evaluation - that would be kind of an ad hominem evaluation
but, even if it is, that only means that he should know who is funding the promotion of the argument.
Peregrinus wrote: » I don't object to covert foreign funding in particular. Covertness is a problem; foreign-ness isn't.... I'd make an exception for funding sourced directly or indirectly from a foreign government - that's highly objectionable.
Peregrinus wrote: » The only people who actually have a vote in the referendum are Irish citizens - resident Irish citizens, in fact. The only way anyone can influence the outcome of the referendum is by advancing arguments which appeal to resident citizens.
smacl wrote: » I see it as cultural imperialism, which is difficult to avoid but unhealthy nonetheless.
recedite wrote: » Well, that's nothing new. There are very few parts of the world that haven't been heavily westernised and influenced by American styles of dress, music, movies, internet content, language, attitudes. Its an ongoing process of subliminal globalisation and internationalisation.
smacl wrote: » trying to force a morality on us through legislation that they don't even have in in their own country.
smacl wrote: » Bit of a jump from that to rather dubious pro-life groups trying to force a morality on us through legislation that they don't even have in in their own country.
aloyisious wrote: » Was there a sub-section 3 in section 3 of Article 40 of our constitution before 1983, or was it a brand new sub-section never before in the constitution? If not, was the unborn unprotected by 40.3.1 AND 40.3.2 of the constitution? Was the introduction made to remove the lesser laws of Ireland [those changable by the Oireachtas] from responsibility in regard to abortion and put it beyond the remit of such laws? Putting 40.3.3 into the constitution in 1983 by way of amendment seem's [at least] to imply there was a gap in protection of the right to life of the unborn from 1937 to 1983, that the right never existed in the constitution til then.
recedite wrote: » No, they are hoping to persuade Irish people not to abandon their own constitutional rights and obligations.
aloyisious wrote: » The master also made direct reference to the case where a brain-dead pregnant woman was kept on a life support system in order to keep within the legal obligations put on doctors under the 8th amendment and current legislation.
Speaking at the launch, Dr John Monaghan, a consultant obstetrician, said he believes there is "no medical evidence to get rid of the Eighth Amendment". He said he had delivered between 4,000 and 5,000 babies during his career and had never been prevented from protecting a woman’s life by the Eighth Amendment. Dr Monaghan said many doctors like him are pro-retain and he said others were giving "their personal views, not professional".
Speaking to RTNews following the launch of the Save the 8th campaign, Dr Boylan said "The Eighth Amendment has caused huge problems for the practice of obstetrics in Ireland, we've seen that with the long list of women whose lives have been deeply affected, to the point of death.
aloyisious wrote: » He said he had delivered between 4,000 and 5,000 babies during his career and had never been prevented from protecting a woman’s life by the Eighth Amendment. It's entirely possible that he never faced having to make a choice on who's life to save.
recedite wrote: » Given that stark choice, it has always been the practice to save the mother.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Boylan and Mahony clashed publically over handing ownership of the new national maternity hospital over to the nuns. Both of them are pro-choice.
smacl wrote: » The Savita Halappanavar case demonstrably shows that this is not always achieved in practise.
Savita’s consultant, Dr Katherine Astbury, did not refuse to terminate a life-threatening pregnancy because she was constrained by her interpretation of our abortion law. She didn’t think there was any threat to Savita’s health. As she said in her evidence to the coroner’s inquest: “there was no suggestion that she was in any way unwell...” No suggestion? Except that, according to the evidence of Professor Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, to the HSE enquiry, infection is the cause of a miscarriage such as Savita’s — in the second trimester of pregnancy, presenting with her membranes bulging and her baby alive — in 77% of cases. Infection should have been suspected from the very moment she was admitted to the hospital. Arulkumaran said he would have offered to terminate the pregnancy on Sunday, Oct 21, and advised termination after Savita’s waters broke in the early hours of Monday, Oct 22. Astbury should have intervened to terminate the pregnancy straight-away, on medical evidence alone. She would not have faced any legal obstruction in doing so. The issue of Irish abortion law has become a smokescreen protecting Savita’s consultant and her team at Galway University Hospital.
recedite wrote: » It shows that best practice is not always achieved in reality. You can educate yourself, or you can continue to make snide comments from a position of wilful ignorance. Your choice. Its ridiculous pro-repeal people dragging up these tragic cases again and again, claiming that the brain dead woman was only kept alive because of the law, and Savita died because of the law, when in fact the medics involved in these cases were subsequently hauled up before the law and censured for medical negligence and/or malpractice.
Ms Halappanavar’s death has brought the issue of Ireland’s abortion laws back into the global spotlight and making comment on the topic today, Dr McLoughlin said, “It is not for the court to advise the Oireachtas but they may take cognisance of these proceedings.” However, in his first recommendation he described current Medical Council guidelines on abortion as “very brief”. He recommended that the guidelines be enhanced to advise doctors on how they can intervene in relation to terminations when there is a risk to the life of the mother.He said that doctors practising in good faith “should not have to labour under the threat” of sanctions as serious as removal from the medical register or prison.
Expert witness Dr. Peter Boylan, a former Master at the National Maternity Hospital gave evidence that Savita would probably be alive if an abortion had been permitted.
