nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Clare Daly Wants an Answer

ciarafem

The Irish Times has a story about Clare Daly’s attempts to have a question about the way the family courts work answered in the Dáil. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0113/1224310194083.html

It seems weird that in a so called democracy a TD can’t get an answer to what she calls ‘capricious and unlawful’ decisions by the courts. I wonder has it as much to do with the fact that Clare Daly is female and she should not be questioning her male ‘superiors’ as anything else?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

kieran26

I reead the whole article without reading who wrote it, all the while thinking it reads like it was written by john waters I was right. I ddn't see anything sexist in that!

monkeypants

“The Minister has no official responsibility to Dáil Éireann for these matters”.

Was he referring to Shatter?

Dravokivich

ciarafem wrote: »

I wonder has it as much to do with the fact that Clare Daly is female and she should not be questioning her male ‘superiors’ as anything else?

Short anwser, No.

ejmaztec

She should have started crying, she'd have got an answer then.

Uriel.

The only answer Clare Daly should ever get for any question is "F**k Off".

Same goes to Joe Higgins.

Why? Because they're both clowns.

Sindri

I was going to post are you a lesbian by any chance but I don't want to get banned so I'll just say there is nothing sexist in that.

ciarafem

Uriel. wrote: »

The only answer Clare Daly should ever get for any question is "F**k Off".

Same goes to Joe Higgins.

Why? Because they're both clowns.

If she is a clown does that mean that the issues she has raised are 'clownish' or do you see any merit in the questions she raised?

Ellis Dee

I've read the Waters article several times and am still not sure what the hell it's all about.

But I suppose it's par for the course where a champion hobby horse rider like him is concerned.:):)

Nice to see this right-wing defender of the kiddy-fiddler church finding something good to say about a left-winger, though.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

ciarafem

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I've read the Waters article several times and am still not sure what the hell it's all about.

I'd say he has to be careful in what he says because the courts are secret courts. He does say in his article that "I find myself stymied by 'legal advice' ”. So he might not be able to make things as clear as he would like to.

Ray Palmer

Why is her sex even being brought up?

There is some intersting considerations that the law doesn't seem to have clarified. What happens with a cohabitating couple with one person who is already married but never got a divorce?

THere is a woman around the corner from me who lived with a guy for 20 years with their kids but he never got divorced. When he died the "iwfe" took his pension and the house he lived in kicking the woman he lived with and kids out and sold the house. No will so the woman he lived with had no rights to the property. Wonder how this law applies now

Gmol

She has a boring voice so lets not listen

ciarafem

monkeypants wrote: »

“The Minister has no official responsibility to Dáil Éireann for these matters”.

Was he referring to Shatter?

I presume so since Waters says in the article that "she also sought to ask Minister for Justice Alan Shatter if he could 'assure the Dáil' ” .

humanji

ciarafem wrote: »

I'd say he has to be careful in what he says because the courts are secret courts. He does say in his article that "I find myself stymied by 'legal advice' ”. So he might not be able to make things as clear as he would like to.

Or he could be trying to make himself and his opinion sound more important than it actually is.

Uriel.

ciarafem wrote: »

If she is a clown does that mean that the issues she has raised are 'clownish' or do you see any merit in the questions she raised?

Any questions she ask are for the purpose of grandstanding.
Any solutions she proposes are fantasy land nonsense. She has a serious problem with industry, business and people generally being high achievers and high earners. If any of her "proposals" were implemented the country would sink 10 times as quick as it's sinking now.

super_furry

ciarafem wrote: »

I wonder has it as much to do with the fact that Clare Daly is female and she should not be questioning her male ‘superiors’ as anything else?

Sadly I think you're looking too deep into this for sexism that isn't there. They're not ignoring her because she's female, they're ignoring her because she's asking a tough question to which they may not have the answer. The act seems to be a mess, but to assume that Daly is being ignored because she's a woman is daft.

Frank Black

There may have been a football match on at the time when she asked her question - happens all the time.

ciarafem

Uriel. wrote: »

Any questions she ask are for the purpose of grandstanding.

I don't see what she is 'grandstanding' about.

She appears to have asked a legimate question about what the judges are at and she got nowhere. Sean Barrett is a 72 year old arch conservative who is in the same party as Alan Shatter.

He may have a thing against wimmin as well as being a pal of Shatters.

ilovelamp2000

This has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with sh*t legislation which can't be stood over.

It's a disaster of an act, it is well meaning but it's half baked and the article refers to one of the obvious **** ups that was brought about because of it.

Because of the Supreme Court's definition of what is a family under the Irish Constitution, the Constitution's protection of the family unit and a complete unwillingness by the political parties to put a referendum to the people on it the only other option was this awful piece of legislation.

I wouldn't expect any government minister to discuss anything in relation to it.

sbsquarepants

ciarafem wrote: »

The Irish Times has a story about Clare Daly’s attempts to have a question about the way the family courts work answered in the Dáil. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0113/1224310194083.html

It seems weird that in a so called democracy a TD can’t get an answer to what she calls ‘capricious and unlawful’ decisions by the courts. I wonder has it as much to do with the fact that Clare Daly is female and she should not be questioning her male ‘superiors’ as anything else?

Psst. Ciara. Pssssst.
There's a chip on your shoulder!

Ellis Dee

humanji wrote: »

Or he could be trying to make himself and his opinion sound more important than it actually is.

What? John Waters do that? Neeeevvvvveeeer ----:pac::pac::pac:

MagicSean

Pointless questions don't deserve an answer. I'm no fan of Shatter but how would he know if judges routinely made in-camera cases when they shouldn't have? And if he had been in one of them what was he supposed to do? He can appeal the decision but the judge makes the decision.

ciarafem

MagicSean wrote: »

Pointless questions don't deserve an answer. I'm no fan of Shatter but how would he know if judges routinely made in-camera cases when they shouldn't have? And if he had been in one of them what was he supposed to do? He can appeal the decision but the judge makes the decision.

If Shatter knew from his time as a solicitor that what Clare Daly raised was actually going on, should he not fix the problem now that he is Minister for Justice?

MagicSean

ciarafem wrote: »

If Shatter knew from his time as a solicitor that what Clare Daly raised was actually going on, should he not fix the problem now that he is Minister for Justice?

How? The rules are there already. It is up to someone involved in the case to appeal the judges decision to a higher court. The government can't interfere with court proceedings.

ciarafem

MagicSean wrote: »

How? The rules are there already. It is up to someone involved in the case to appeal the judges decision to a higher court. The government can't interfere with court proceedings.

I don't know the answer. I'm not a solicitor but when I read the Waters article I thought 'well done Clare - it's a pity that we don't have more TDs like you who will question what's going on'.

Predalien

MagicSean wrote: »

How? The rules are there already. It is up to someone involved in the case to appeal the judges decision to a higher court. The government can't interfere with court proceedings.

But they should be aware if some proceedings which should have been held in open court were held in camera. Shatter has been an absolute disaster as Justice Minister so far.

MagicSean

Predalien wrote: »

But they should be aware if some proceedings which should have been held in open court were held in camera.

First of all, how would they be aware? If anyone, it is the law society that should be doing something about this. And even if they are aware they cannot interfere with court proceedings. They have already set down the rules.

Predalien wrote: »

Shatter has been an absolute disaster as Justice Minister so far.

I agree. But this is a non-issue as regards his performance.

pickarooney

Ellis Dee wrote: »

But I suppose it's par for the course where a champion hobby horse rider like him is concerned.:):)

I love this expression.

Gee Bag

Dear Madam,

Family Law courts work in camera (i.e. in private) because the break down of relations within a family are a private matter. It's bad enough when things fall apart without having the neighbours look through your dirty linen.

This does not interfere with the constitutional requirement for justice to be administered in public. Same applies to the Children's Court where proceedings are also in camera in order to protect the identity of the accussed.

The article is written by noted gobshyte John Waters who seems to think the key requirement for being an intellectual is the overuse of a thesaurus.

If you want a serious answer to your question you should post in legal discussion.

As this is after hours I would suggest that all involved should be blasted with piss.

Yours cordially,

Gee Bag

ciarafem

Gee Bag wrote: »

Dear Madam,

..........................................................
Yours cordially,

Gee Bag

Dear Gee Bag,

When I read the Waters article I wondered why Clare Daly's question was not allowed in the Dáil.
It could be possible that a 72 year old male was prejudiced at an uppity female TD.
No one here has proven that this is not the case. So it is an 'After Hours' topic.

Yours very cordially

Ciarafem

MagicSean

ciarafem wrote: »

Dear Gee Bag,

When I read the Waters article I wondered why Clare Daly's question was not allowed in the Dáil.
It could be possible that a 72 year old male was prejudiced at an uppity female TD.
No one here has proven that this is not the case. So it is an 'After Hours' topic.

Yours very cordially

Ciarafem

Nobody has proven it is the case either. In fact, to suggest it was because he is sexist with no proof at all is defamatory. Shouting "sexist" just because you don't get your way is a real assault on womens rights movements.