12Phase wrote: » Doesn't have to be a second chamber you can have multiple constituency types in one chamber.
marienbad wrote: » Or a list system of PR
Bannasidhe wrote: » I want to see a Seanad with genuine powers to call the Dáil to task not an already unaccountable Dáil with even greater powers in fewer hands.
marienbad wrote: » I also voted for it to be abolished , and if that had happened then most would revert to just being cranks , now because people think it is beneath them to vote we end up with cranks with megaphones and legitimacy . And the rest of us with no vote have to just look on .
marienbad wrote: » PopePalpatine wrote: » Chances are he'd get a column in the Irish Catholic, Catholic Voice or some other ultramontane rag. Indeed ,but there he would be preaching to the converted , but not on Rte radio and television morning noon and night . On the other he is a great ad for agnosticism
PopePalpatine wrote: » Chances are he'd get a column in the Irish Catholic, Catholic Voice or some other ultramontane rag.
marienbad wrote: » Ronan Mullan wouldn't have half the media influence he has without his Senate seat .
Christy42 wrote: » Why look on? They aren't going to make a blind bit of difference either way. It really is like a student election. All full of promises about what they will do without the position any power. Sure the TDs lie to get into power but at least it is theoretically possible for them to do something useful. They are cranks with a salary for being cranks. Sure they debated about ssm but no one payed attention. Then Labour made it an issue to get into government with fine gael last time out and then we had the vote. Feel free to contact me if they look like doing something. Until then I will pay attention to the politicians who may change something.
recedite wrote: » And SSM was debated in the pub before it was debated in the Seanad. So what? True, but mainly it aped the House of Lords in the same way that the Dail was based on the House of Commons. The House of Lords only exists for historical reasons and is largely obsolete, like the monarchy. There is no good reason for a republic to ape either of these. Even our president is devoid of executive power and acts mainly as a figurehead, thus aping the British monarch.
mahoganygas wrote: » Topics like same sex marriage were first discussed in the Seanad. Long before it was ever debated in the Dail.
robindch wrote: » It was intended to be a balancing legislative chamber to the Dail; however its legislative and review powers were hobbled by De Valera in his successful 1936 constitutional power grab, so it's a little bit useless at the moment. Some more degree of seriousness on the part of voters would be good, as would a greater democratic mandate, and greater power.
Christy42 wrote: » Generally I disagree with all their policies in that they want to run for the seanad. I have a choice of two votes (I am assuming the system isn't dumb enough to allow me to vote in both) so I should apply for one but really the dang thing is barely above the self important students unions in my mind. I have spent enough time having to listen to their claims of being able to do something (anything). I did attempt change. I voted for it to be abolished. I can try get it back on the ballot for abolishen I suppose. Or I could try get them some actual power.
12Phase wrote: » There were some excellent candidates on that ballot paper too with a much more liberal outlook It wasn't like there's a lack of choice. 30 candidates. Mullen is a well organised candidate who gets a solid vote out. Agree with him or not, he's making use of the NUI panel and getting elected and the rest of us aren't largely because too many people either don't care or adopt a passive aggressive attitude towards the Seanad. The TCD panel has been really enlivened by Norris and others who have kept it relevant to younger and more liberal voters. NUI graduates need to engage and drive a bit of change.
recedite wrote: » Its just a nonsensical debating society for failed and retired TDs, which is inexplicably funded by the taxpayer.
recedite wrote: » You're right. Its just a nonsensical debating society for failed and retired TDs, which is inexplicably funded by the taxpayer.
magicbastarder wrote: » i deliberately do not vote in the seanad elections (i'm a graduate of UCD) as i think it's a joke that i have a vote, and my very politically literate father has no vote in the seanad.
magicbastarder wrote: » i deliberately do not vote in the seanad elections (i'm a graduate of UCD) as i think it's a joke that i have a vote [...]
Bryan Caplan wrote: The greatest obstacle to sound (economic) policy is not entrenched special interests or rampant lobbying, but the popular misconceptions, irrational beliefs, and personal biases held by ordinary voters.
mahoganygas wrote: » I am an NUI graduate and I'm ashamed to say that I wasn't registered to vote. That changes today.
PopePalpatine wrote: » I was expecting him to be euphoric about Mullen getting into the Seanad...maybe Breda will do so tomorrow.
Sir, – We are the two human rights lawyers your columnist Breda O’Brien cites in her efforts to paint Amnesty International Ireland’s position on abortion as less than honest (“Amnesty abandons values of Seán MacBride”, April 23rd). O’Brien relies on a 2008 journal article we co-authored before we joined Amnesty International, where we pointed out that only one regional human rights treaty, the African Women’s Protocol, explicitly names abortion as a human right. She says that we were “intellectually honest enough” when we wrote this, and suggests that Amnesty International, in saying that women and girls have a human right to access safe and legal abortion, is not. This carries the added implication that we somehow abandoned our “honesty” when working with Amnesty International. We are aggrieved at both suggestions. So let us be very clear – women and girls do have a human right to access safe and legal abortion. It is an interpreted right and not an expressly stated right in UN human rights treaties. Just as there is no explicit “right to be free from female genital mutilation (FGM)” or “right to be free from coerced or forced sterilisation” enumerated in those treaties, both are today understood as falling within the rights to privacy and to be free from torture and other ill-treatment. The rights set out in UN treaties, drafted decades ago, were designed to be applied to specific issues arising in people’s lives. These treaties are living instruments to be interpreted by treaty bodies, made up of experts elected by states, in light of current knowledge and understanding of the impact of states’ conduct on their people. That is how the development of international law works. It is clear that your columnist does not understand this. And, just as Amnesty International says, the same is true for abortion – women’s and girls’ right to access safe and legal abortion is firmly grounded in decades of jurisprudence from a range of human rights bodies and experts. What we wrote in 2008 about UN treaty bodies being a useful resource for women’s rights advocates is even truer today. Particularly in the last decade, recognition of the grave impact of denying women access to safe and legal abortion has been acknowledged by nearly every human rights body at the international and regional levels. This is in large part due to women themselves raising their voices against draconian laws such as Ireland’s. We object to being dragged into your columnist’s attack on Amnesty International Ireland because it is not only unfounded, but distracts from the reality of what is happening to women and girls, including in Ireland. We cannot comment on O’Brien’s accusing Amnesty International Ireland of disgracing one of its founding members by advocating for women’s rights, except to say that, having worked for the organisation, we can confirm that no one person in Amnesty International’s staff or membership gets to dictate the movement’s mandate. Rather, the organisation draws its mandate from international human rights law, and it does so without apology. We are proud that the world’s largest human rights organisation is standing up with women, including in Ireland. This is why we joined Amnesty International. This is laudable work that safeguards women’s health and often saves their lives. – Yours, etc, JAIME TODD-GHER, CHRISTINA ZAMPAS, Amnesty International, London.
