These Our Islands: Reading Irish and UK Sexual Oppression within the Context of Globalisation.

by citogk - n/a Tue Nov 14, 2006 19:09

The media concentrates on the fact that the young couple who are now "legit "having married. were denied the right to claim their child now that the child has bonded with the foster family.

It would be interesting to know if the student mother who signed some initial papers to start a process of adoption was offered any supports to keep baby "Anna"? What has been the role of the
State quango the Crisis Pregnancy Agency? Why did the process of appeal take so long? It would seem that the young parents tried to halt the process quite some time back. Was there a subsidised creche in her college?

These are the kind of questions the media should ask-

by C Murray Tue Nov 14, 2006 19:12

http://www.ireland.com reports that Minister Mc Dowell 'has breached the rights of Irish born
citizens by deporting their parents thus breaking the 'family unit'.
The Dept of Justice reportedly will vigourously defend the decision to deport non-national
parents. The reading and context of the traditional Irish family is narrowing in the context
of it's definition by the present administration.

by Jan Vennegoor of Hesselink Tue Nov 14, 2006 19:26

"he FF/PD administration has collectively refused to enshrine the right to safe and legal abortion within the national context "

Abortion is explicitly prohibited by the constitution. The people voted in favour of a constitutional ban in a referendum and thus far numerous referenda have voted to retain the ban.

This is democracy. Accept it, fascists.

by c murray Tue Nov 14, 2006 19:27

through legal advice to increase their chances of reclamation. This puts an incredibly young couple
under pressure to fufill the role of parents , whilst also breaking the nurturing bond that the
baby had achieved with the adoptive parents: I hope that relations between both couples are
ok enough that a communication between the parents both 'natural' and 'adoptive' will ease the
transition for the child- who is afterall at the centre of the case.

The narrowness of definition of societal roles have caused great trauma to a small group
of people.

by citizen Y Tue Nov 14, 2006 23:15

it seems to me, an ordinary citizen, that the biological parents of "Anne" are incredibly selfish. "Anne" had been in place for 14 months according to the media, before they signalled an intention that they did not wish for the adoption to go ahead. If they really had their child's best interests at heart they would have allowed her to remain with the parents she had bonded with, among her siblings and extended family.

I was listening to Joe Duffy this morning and some woman said that it didn't matter to "Anne" as a 2 year old would not remember...? So stupid. Maybe she was actually the biological mother.

by Thomas Moore. Wed Nov 15, 2006 15:14

We can read many types of oppression of the individual in the context of
the rigours and insidiousness of globalise hegemonies including the
rights to peace/education/ assembly/freedom of religious expression.

There is an unprecedented level of co-operation between the governments of these
Islands which is based specifically in the conservative analysis of individual/collective
rights and a concommitent erosion of cherished democratic rights and principles
within the globalised framework.

In the EU context - policies of Blair and Reid with regard to Biometric ids/ immigration
and secularisation (evidenced in Straw's attitude to the veil) are echoed in our
bills including Immigration, TDR and press freedom. All of these issues relating
to the creation of peace and the security of states are bought at the price of accepted
and cherished liberties- they form part of the post 9/11 reactionary politics.

However, the creation of a Utopian Europe on the basis of mass market consumption
and a facsimile of democracy is something unasked for by the majority of people.
Instead of a loose union of Nation states- we are presented with a federal model
of democracy- another bloc. Predetermination of policy based on market forces and
reactionary politics based on the put -down and repression of dissenters within the
Nation states- a guaranteed peace?

I think not- Cultural debasement and alienation of indigenous communities within
the bloc should say enough about Utopianism on a mass scale. I am related to one
of the original agriculture advisors in the Free market - and no-one mandated
this level of centralised political control within the EU.

by Declan Wed Nov 15, 2006 17:57

The couple who are the biological parents of this child gave up their daughter "Anne" when they had no means to support it.Now the couple have married and have jobs and can support the child.The adoptive parents should only be guardians of the child with the permission of the parents.

I was brought up with a father and mother who were married and committed to eachother and committed to my siblings and I. Blood is thicker than water and your family are the only ones you can truly love and be loyal to.

The parents should have the right to raise their child.

Their family is not something to be sacrificed because some individuals or groups have a political axe to grind.

by C Murray Wed Nov 15, 2006 19:46

Minster Mc Dowell was found to be in breach of the rights of Irish Children
by deporting non-national parents by Ms Justice Finlay Geoghean.

The judgement also found that he may be in breach of the European Convention of Human
Rights too.

The Law on Citizenship, drafted under the auspices of the Department of Justice has
created a legal limbo in relation to Irish Born Citizens of non-national parents.

As stated in the comment above Mr Mc Dowell has promised to vigourously defend
his decisions in relation to the Judgement.

An earlier Court ruling had upholded the Right of the Minister (all final deportation decisions
rest with him) to deport in the case of ' the common good proportionate to the needs of the child'
ie- within the family as defined by the present unamended constitution. given the amount
of cases which come under this definition a wider discourse in drafting the amendment
would be required.

to declan: there is a difference between the concept of the temporary care of foster parents
and the issue of adoption.

by C Murray Sun Nov 19, 2006 17:45

In the context of that piece of legislation passed into the Law on the 2nd June 2006:
The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006- which is unconstitutional in one of
its sections (section5) another appalling vist in relation to statutory rape and consent
is opening up.

The issue of criminalisation of boys under the present legislation.
The issue of criminalisation of young women for all sexual acts except full consensual sex.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76381

The statutory rape issue and the consent issue are unresolved, but in the light of assault
of a young girl:

1. No right to privacy in relation to her bodily integrity if she chose to have an abortion.
2. The Law allows for the cross-examination of rape victims within the Irish courts.
3. The current situation involves the rape victim being placed in close proximity to the
perpetrator whilst awaiting the courts process.
4.She is neither a woman (in Law) or a child because in terms of present legislation,
if she is carrying an unborn child she is biologically a woman and co-equal with the
child in relation to right to life issues. In terms of pshchological age she can still be
a child.
5.The conviction figures for incest/rape and sexual abuse are appallingly low and
often do not result in custodial sentences.

The Criminal Laws (Sexual Offences ) Bill are shown to be unconstitutional in theory
by their lack of gender neutrality and in practice, thus far because there is no adequate
protectional framework for victims. Two alleged vivctims of sexual assault in Sligo
had to travel to Dublin for testing Last week which opens up the issue of evidential
problems in the regions. In the light of the Laffoy decision and the appalling rushed
reaction to it the proposal of the present FF/PD administration to enshrine the
rights of the child into the Irish Constitution does not take cognisance of this legislation
and how it erodes the victims right to hearing.

The blurring of the edges of the reproductive rights debate in relation to young girls
rights when they are between the ages of 'responsibility' and adult decisions by
the legislation ensure that there is a necessity for a wider discourse in relation to
children's rights than has been availed of by the present Government. There was no
'sunset clause' allowed as amendment in this debate (a re-visit of the statute within
a two year period)

Thus can it be answered is a fifteen year old school girl pregnant and not wanting
the child a woman or a kid?

In present definition she is a woman and co-equal with the foetus in her womb.
She has no human right to bodily integrity nor to seek a safe and legal abortion.

rights

by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Ireland Sun Nov 19, 2006 21:38

Judgments of the Supreme Court made on 13th November 2006
The National Mens Council of Ireland recommend that media commentators actually read the Judgments made by the five Supreme Court Justices in the hearing labelled by the media as the "Baby Ann Adoption" case and then apologise to the public for their misrepresentation of the facts.

We believe these judgments (see www.family-men.com/news ) represent a landmark in family law that will cause an abrupt drop in family breakdown.
The principle of the case that appears to have been omitted is simply that a baby cannot be adopted from a Married Family against the wishes of the parents. What is remarkable and commendable of the majority of the Justices (see Hardiman J., Geoghegan J., Fennelly J) is that they have seized this opportunity to reverse the slippage in the Rule of Law - the established law of the Family - that custom and practice, as exercised in the family law courts, especially the lower courts, has steadily eroded in the past 40 years.

These judgments put an end to the notion that a court can ignore the established rights of the parents, that they can ignore the evidence of the conduct of the parents and can instead rely on subjective evidence from so-called experts who provide the court with recommendations based on nothing more substantial than mere 'predictions', akin to looking into a crystal ball, of the child's future welfare. That these proposals invariably suspiciously echo the extreme feminist ideological aversion to a child having the benefit of a father in their life is hugely contributory as the cause of much Marriage breakdown and explains why the Supreme Court should be lauded for their condemnation of this practice.

Now, once more that the rights of parents and their conduct are to retake centre stage we can anticipate an abrupt drop in the number of parents seeking to benefit from their own wrongdoing and this has to be for the benefit of the rest of society and especially for the innocent spouse and children involved.

These judgments also put beyond any further doubt that the child's welfare and interests are indeed at the heart of Bunreacht Na hÉireann, the Irish Constitution as it exists today and that it would in fact be harmful to any child for there to be any opposition to that position by way of a Constitutional amendment. The child's interests are congruent and inseparable from the presumption that the child's welfare will be found in the general upbringing by its natural and Married parents.

The only reason this is being questioned in some quarters is merely from an ideological abhorrence of the primordial moral institution of the Family based on Marriage.

For anyone who really cares about the position of children in Irish society the message from these judgments is very clear - every effort must be made to encourage parents to attend to their child's welfare by facilitating, not inhibiting them from procreating within Marriage and then for the State to fulfil its mandate in the Constitution where it "pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack."

Then and only then will the Common Good be observed, the dignity and freedom of the individual be assured, true social order be attained, and the legal and social framework guaranteed where we can truly provide for the optimal welfare - the religious, moral, intellectual, physical and social education - of our precious children.

Roger Eldridge, (Chairman)
National Men’s Council of Ireland,
Knockvicar,
Boyle,
Co. Roscommon

Web: Www.family-men.com
Email: familymen@eircom.net

by Harry Rea - The National Mens Council of Ireland Mon Nov 20, 2006 14:56

This remarkable piece of courageous journalism by John Waters below should be noted and commended by everyone who believes in the truth.

John's restricted column size obviously prevents him from being able to explain how the majority judgments in this case will convert into reality for families and for Irish society.

The National Mens Council of Ireland have given an overview in our article "Baby Ann Judgments will cause an abrupt drop in Family breakdown" which can be read with the full judgments at www.family-men.com/news We highly recommend anyone who has the time to read as much of the 83 pages as they can. The reader there will be rewarded by finding they are amazingly easy to read and that the essential legal principles amount to nothing more than common sense with a dollop of rationality and good old Christian morality thrown in to provide a structure.

In the coming weeks we will endeavour to translate how these principles must affect the most common cases of family breakdown that come to us for assistance. We hope that by disseminating this information far and wide especially to anyone experiencing the immoral application of the law in the family courts at present but also amongst amongst the legal professionals that there will be an increase in the expectation that the innocent spouse and children will be protected and that applications for court-ordered separations and claims for the custody of children will decline rapidly.

As the institution of Marriage is thus properly protected we also envisage there being a similar drop in claims for safety and barring orders under the Domestic Violence Act.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2006/1120/1163...4.htm

Irish Times Monday 20 November 2006

Baby Ann coverage a travesty

John Waters

The impression conveyed by media coverage in the immediate wake of last week's Supreme Court judgments in the baby Ann appeal was that the court, its hands tied by outmoded provisions of the Constitution, was prevented from doing the "decent" thing: leaving baby Ann with her prospective adoptive parents.

For two days, the airwaves were colonised by politicians, lobbyists and lawyers wielding this version to press for a "children's rights" amendment to the Constitution.

This reportage was a grotesque travesty, being based solely on the judgment of the retiring judge Catherine McGuinness, particularly her closing remarks: "It would be disingenuous not to admit that I am one of the 'quarters' who have voiced criticism of the position of the child in the Constitution. I did so publicly in the report of the Kilkenny Incest Inquiry in 1993. The present case must, however, be decided under the Constitution and the law as it now stands. With reluctance and some regret I would allow this appeal."

Overall the judgment is more nuanced than this interjection, but still, if Mrs Justice McGuinness had been the sole judge, the media coverage might be deemed reasonable. There were, however, four other judges, who held not that baby Ann's return to her parents was (lamentably) constitutionally ineluctable, but that this was the proper and just outcome.

Mr Justice Fennelly stated categorically that the natural parents, with baby Ann, constitute a family. "This," he continued, "is no mere constitutional shibboleth. Article 41 speaks of the rights of the family being 'antecedent and superior to all positive law'. In my view, that is no more than the statement of the simple facts of life."

Mr Justice Hardiman gave a detailed explanation for the context of the rights of natural parents in the Constitution and mounted a robust defence of these: "Though selflessness and devotion towards children may easily be found in other persons, it is the experience of mankind over millennia that they are very generally found in natural parents, in a form so disinterested that in the event of conflict the interest of the child will usually be preferred . . . There are certain misapprehensions on which repeated and unchallenged public airings have conferred undeserved currency. One of these relates to the position of children in the Constitution. It would be quite untrue to say that the Constitution puts the rights of parents first and those of children second. It fully acknowledges the 'natural and imprescriptible rights' and the human dignity, of children, but equally recognises the inescapable fact that a young child cannot exercise his or her own rights. The Constitution does not prefer parents to children. The preference the Constitution gives is this: it prefers parents to third parties, official or private, priest or social worker, as the enablers and guardians of the child's rights."

Many disturbing details emerged in the judgments which were left unreported or glossed over in media attempts to use the case as a battering ram against the Constitution. Several of the judges noted the shameful treatment of the parents by some of those organising this botched adoption. Amazingly, it emerges that some of the HSE social workers involved were already acquainted with the couple seeking to adopt.

Does this not amount to a clear conflict of interest? Mr Justice Hardiman pointedly observed: "It was always unfortunate, and became more unfortunate as time and events moved on, that the proposed adopters were not, as I presume they normally would be, strangers to the parents' social worker. When this fact is viewed in association with some of the language used, an element of alarm on the part of the mother is in my view understandable, not simply on the basis of the emotions which might be attributed to her, but on a wholly objective basis. Equally, she felt that she was being stalled and I cannot find that that feeling was objectively unreasonable either."

Much media coverage sought to portray the parents as taking advantage of a technicality within the Constitution and enhancing their rights by virtue of what, it was implied, was a bogus marriage. Reading the judgments, the issues that emerge are the parents' subjection to enormous pressures, unwarranted delays, denial of information about their rights and emotional blackmail as part of the effort to dissuade them from reclaiming their daughter after they decided to do so in September 2005.

The trial judge, Mr Justice MacMenamin, in all material contexts accepted the evidence of social workers rather than the parents.

Mr Justice Geoghegan drily observed: "I think that where there was a conflict of evidence of that kind the evidence must be regarded as inconclusive." I beg readers to seek out the judgments on the internet (the Court Services website makes this as difficult as possible, so just Google for "baby Ann Supreme Court judgments"). What emerges, with much else, is that, in pursuit of a pseudo-progressive agenda, the media vacated its duty to report the facts.

by gerri Mon Nov 20, 2006 22:00

I just want to say that I don't think that a nuclear family based on marriage should be given any special status in the constitution. Rather provision should be made to recognize other family forms of which there are lots.

The Ireland of a bygone era was composed of, ostensibly at least, families headed by married fathers and mothers with few out of the closet gays as well as fewer lone parents.

I don't know if Harry Rea and the National Men's Council is a Catholic organisation of some kind but it smells suspiciously like it....

by Omigod Mon Nov 20, 2006 22:21

That they must assert dominance over another sex and their own children in order to
feel like men- it'd put you right off the male species, if it wasn't for the interesting bits-
like the variety and the sex.

Girls never, ever put the wedding ring on- you have to contend with the type of
mother-addled guilt that promotes dominance as equality.

some juicy quotes for gerri:

'The feminist ideological aversion to having a male in the child's life'

(=YES , all feminists are men hating, sperm farmers).

'Insuring the faciltation of procreation of children within marriage'

=( Hide the pills, barefoot and pregnant).

Some feminists actually like men, but not the variety that write herein- I would assume John
Waters advocates this close personal relationship with the Mc Quaidites represented on
this thread.

This disection of modern feminism is of the snarling disempowered man who has
been relieved of his power by the court's interpretation of the female role which does
no favours to either sex. They will all be out at the referendum voting to up the age of consent
and ensuring the primacy of the constitutional definition of family for the next generation
of suckers- including their daughters.

by Guard On Duty Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:53

If you do not like the Constitution as it is – deal with it decently and democratically.

If you do not like the Supreme Court’s recognition of our Constitution as it is, – then deal with it in a proper manner; bring your opinion to the public, where you will find a forum in which every Citizen has an equal right to further their opinions.

If you think the Judgments from the Supreme Court are wrong – say where.

If you know of a provably better way than heterosexual Marriage to advance or even sustain our civilised existence then identify why our citizens would be better off by it – then explain it, support it and promote it.

If you think that the HSE social worker identified in this case as cheating the young couple out of their child’s more precious family bonding years, acted in fairness – then shame on you.

If you want to believe that this particular case is any less than standard behaviour when corruption takes hold as it has in our country – then there is no hope for you

If you do not understand how today we are obliged to speak out on “Probity” where probity is defined as having the qualities of honesty, uprightness, it clearly stands in stark opposition to one of our greatest challenges: corruption, then you are in for a rude awakening.

If you are proud of who you are and what you honestly believe in then please share it, make yourself known and speak out.

If you find yourself too ashamed to be identified for your beliefs and practices – then change!

Finally, if you are one of those cretins that has infested our social system and works to bring our society down, then lift your head and look around, you are being encircled by good forthright people who are searching for the stench of your work – then get your head down and crawl away as fast and far as you can. Society has always found your type detestable.