Capital Punishment? Detention for Three year olds? WTF??

I am flummoxed by the latest claims coming out from the No side.

FT asserts that a possible interpretation of bits of Lisbon mean that
capital punishment "could" be introduced, and most bizarre of all
Declan Ganley asserts that three year olds "could" be interned.

Funny enough no concrete text has been produced by either party
definitively proving either assertion, unless you sage and august
people can do so.

Next: "Lisbon slaughters family pets for French butcher shops"

Quote :

ibis wrote:
And returning to the original topic - it appears Dave and Libertas are defending the claim (p.ie thread). They have also thrown in another claim that the EU is allowing the reintroduction of the death penalty (Libertas article).

In short, they have scraped their way through the bottom of the barrel (abortion) and are down into the mud underneath.

EXPLANATIONS (*) RELATING TO THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
(2007/C 303/02)
Although they do not as such have the status oflaw, they are a valuable tool of interpretation intended to clarify the provisions of the Charter.

(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;

Does this mean someone could be made to go to school? That is generally a good idea - at the moment there is a desperate situation in Ireland with very little action in relation to non-attendance.

(b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’.

I don't like this so much. I could well have seen Tony Blair stringing up a few radical Islamic preachers if the time was sufficiently warlike.
cactus flower
Tool-Master's Apprentice Stage III: Apprentice Publisher



Posts : 3022
Joined : 14 Mar 2008

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

And returning to the original
topic - it appears Dave and Libertas are defending the claim (p.ie thread). They have also thrown in another claim that the EU is allowing the reintroduction of the death penalty (Libertas article).

In short, they have scraped their way through the bottom of the barrel (abortion) and are down into the mud underneath.

EXPLANATIONS (*) RELATING TO THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
(2007/C 303/02)
Although
they do not as such have the status oflaw, they are a valuable tool of
interpretation intended to clarify the provisions of the Charter.

(d)
the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational
supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him
before the competent legal authority;

Does this mean someone
could be made to go to school? That is generally a good idea - at the
moment there is a desperate situation in Ireland with very little
action in relation to non-attendance.

No - there's several countries where persistent non-attenders can be ordered by
courts to attend school under supervision, since school attendance is a
legal obligation - up until 16, usually. This exemption means that
supervised court-ordered school attendance cannot be challenged as an
infringement of personal liberty.

cactus flower wrote:

(b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A
State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of
acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such
penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and
in accordance with its provisions…’.

I don't like this so much. I could well have seen Tony Blair stringing up a few radical Islamic preachers if the time was sufficiently warlike.

"Time of war or of imminent threat of war" is legally well-defined. The UK
has acceded to the 13th Protocol of the European Convention on Human
Rights, which prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances
including war. The EU pushes for member states to sign up to this
Protocol, but has to accept that not all member states have done so - hence the exemption.

cactus flower wrote:
ibis wrote:
And returning to the original topic - it appears Dave and Libertas are defending the claim (p.ie thread). They have also thrown in another claim that the EU is allowing the reintroduction of the death penalty (Libertas article).

In short, they have scraped their way through the bottom of the barrel (abortion) and are down into the mud underneath.


EXPLANATIONS (*) RELATING TO THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
(2007/C 303/02)
Although they do not as such have the status oflaw, they are a valuable tool of interpretation intended to clarify the provisions of the Charter.

(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;

Does this mean someone could be made to go to school? That is generally a good idea - at the moment there is a desperate situation in Ireland with very little action in relation to non-attendance.


No - there's several countries where persistent non-attenders can be ordered by courts to attend school under supervision, since school attendance is a legal obligation - up until 16, usually. This exemption means that supervised court-ordered school attendance cannot be challenged as an infringement of personal liberty.


cactus flower wrote:
(b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’.

I don't like this so much. I could well have seen Tony Blair stringing up a few radical Islamic preachers if the time was sufficiently warlike.


"Time of war or of imminent threat of war" is legally well-defined. The UK has acceded to the 13th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances including war. The EU pushes for member states to sign up to this Protocol, but has to accept that not all member states have done so - hence the exemption.
ibis
Pedaller



Posts : 1175
Joined : 13 Mar 2008




Re: Off Topic Thread
by cactus flower Today at 7:42 pm

Thank you Ibis.

If they would bring in a protocol requiring that the Minister of State for Education is taken into detention if s/he doesn't provide school places for everyone and make sure they took them up, I would definitely vote for it.

BTW, do you know if we have acceded to the 13th Protocol of the ECHR ?
cactus flower
Tool-Master's Apprentice Stage III: Apprentice Publisher



Posts : 3023
Joined : 14 Mar 2008




Re: Off Topic Thread
by ibis Today at 8:09 pm

cactus flower wrote:
Thank you Ibis.

If they would bring in a protocol requiring that the Minister of State for Education is taken into detention if s/he doesn't provide school places for everyone and make sure they took them up, I would definitely vote for it.

BTW, do you know if we have acceded to the 13th Protocol of the ECHR ?


In 2002.

Ganley suggested that the CFHR introduces detentioon for three year olds. That is total nonsense of the highest order.

The Charter does not Provide for Detention of minors. However it does not prevent it, i.e. it is a limitation on the extent of the rights in the Charter. That limitation only is effective where it is in accordance with law. The Charter is not introducing detention for minors in Ireland. Our own law would be unaffected in that regard and the Constitutional and legal protections we currently enjoy would be undiminished.

The thing is, I don't think Declan Ganley or Libertas are at all worried if they are right or wrong. Their aim seems to make people think that these things might be in the Treaty. They hope that these fears, which they have wrongly planted, coupled with the sense that the Treaty is incomprehensible will prompt people to vote no.

I would rather listen to Coir who, whatever else you think about them, are sincere.

What about Artane and all that - aren't we notorious for detaining young people ? When did we stop doing it then ?
Do we not take children into 'care' ?

Perhaps so but the protections which we currently have will not be lessened by signing up to Lisbon.

The suggestion that voting for Lisbon is voting to introduce detention of 3 year olds for educational purposes is a wrong suggestion. People will have to make their minds up as to whether it is deliberately dishonest or not. I have made up my mind.

cactus flower wrote:

What about Artane and all that - aren't we notorious for detaining young people ? When did we stop doing it then ?
Do we not take children into 'care' ?

Indeed we do - see link. I suspect Ganley has taken the point that a child up to two years old is usually considered an infant, rather than a child, so that theoretically the reference to a minor can include a three-year old.

Effectively, he's pointed out that we are able to detain minors under Irish law, and will continue to be able to do so if the Charter is ratified! That we don't actually detain three-year olds...well, you know, "facts not politics", as they say.

did gilmore know what he was referring too, that would have been best of gilmore knew the law that ganley was exaggerating

lostexpectation wrote:

did gilmore know what he was referring too, that would have been best of gilmore knew the law that ganley was exaggerating

I suspect he was too "WTF?" for that. That's the advantage of completely off-the-wall claims - you always achieve surprise.

i actually doubt he knew the rule and that the one little victory for ganley in this

lostexpectation wrote:

i actually doubt he knew the rule and that the one little victory for ganley in this

Hmm. Not that Ganley was able to quote it, apparently.

ibis wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

i actually doubt he knew the rule and that the one little victory for ganley in this

Hmm. Not that Ganley was able to quote it, apparently.

I was watching that last night and it struck me as bizarre. Ganley was fumbling around under the TV3 tea table looking for the elusive clause in vain.

Plus, where did Ganley get that accent from? It sounds at one moment American, the next Australian and then only the merest flecks of Dublinese. It's hard to take him seriously when he says "We" or "Our" with that nowhere accent.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

i actually doubt he knew the rule and that the one little victory for ganley in this

Hmm. Not that Ganley was able to quote it, apparently.

I was watching that last night and it struck me as bizarre. Ganley was fumbling around under the TV3 tea table looking for the elusive clause in vain.

Plus, where did Ganley get that accent from? It sounds at one moment American, the next Australian and then only the merest flecks of Dublinese. It's hard to take him seriously when he says "We" or "Our" with that nowhere accent.

He emigrated to the UK when he were young and then on to Eastern Europe and then on to the US (part time) also living in Galway. I'd call it an everywhere accent , rather than a nowhere accent.

ibis wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

i actually doubt he knew the rule and that the one little victory for ganley in this

Hmm. Not that Ganley was able to quote it, apparently.

ah yeah your right i read the description of him scrabbling for his notes, i guess it took press release cochrane to find it.

cookiemonster wrote:

He emigrated to the UK when he were young and then on to Eastern Europe and then on to the US (part time) also living in Galway. I'd call it an everywhere accent , rather than a nowhere accent.

And you would be right.

He's quite the internationalist, isn't he?

Is he what Mary Robinson lit all those bloody candles for ?

cactus flower wrote:

Is he what Mary Robinson lit all those bloody candles for ?

No, that was just to piss off the greens.

cactus flower wrote:

Is he what Mary Robinson lit all those bloody candles for ?

Candles? I thought it was just the one in the window of the Áras.

One a night I suppose Ard Taoiseach.

cactus flower wrote:

One a night I suppose Ard Taoiseach.

That's true, I thought it was one of those permanent ones, like the Eternal Flames that you see in churches.

Or the one outside AIBIFS in the IFSC.

cookiemonster wrote:

Or the one outside AIBIFS in the IFSC.

I just noticed a whole load of lights in the graveyard on my way home. I wandered in to pay respects and was a little freaked out to say the least. I've been drunk in graveyards before but these were a new one on me.

special on libertas and its origins tmw in the time, anymore good blogs on this, i can't be arsed chasing it meself