jump to navigation

Austerity and human rights II May 15, 2013

Posted by Tomboktu in Austerity, Human Rights, Social Policy.
3 comments

This is the second of two posts on the topic of austerity and human rights. Yesterday I reported on a recent set of five cases taken against Greece. Today, I examine the possibility of applying EU law to challenge the way in which austerity is imposed by the troika.

Yesterday’s post was a report, with some analysis and views, on five cases that have been successful. Today’s is different: it is entirely speculative, but it might prompt action.

Two paragraphs in the Greek pension decisions contain important points. One reports the Greek government saying that it had to restrict the pensioners’ rights because of its obligations to the EU instituions and the IMF for the loans it was getting. The second quotes the ILO (referred to as the “High Level Mission” in the following paragraph):

[...] the Government indicated that data from ELSTAT showed that approximately 20 per cent of the population was facing the risk of poverty but that it did not have an opportunity, in meetings with the Troika, to discuss the impact of the social security reforms on the spread of poverty, particularly for persons of small means and the social security benefits to withstand any such trend. It also did not have the opportunity to discuss the impact that policies in the areas of taxation, wages and employment would have on the sustainability of the social security system.

The Greeek government is not alone, and the question is: can the troika — or key members of it — also be challenged legally. This post deals only with with the two European members of the troika: the ECB and the European Commission.

A legal challenge would need
(a) to identify the obligations that either of these bodies have that could be used in a legal challenge, and
(b) to identify how the legal challenge could be mounted — who has the right to take a case.

A number of legal obligations are potentially relevant. The key document here is the Lisbon Treaty. (An aside: after Lisbon, there are now essentially three fundamental legal documents governing the EU: (a) the Treaty on European Union (TEU); (b) the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and (c) the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUCFR). They are available in a 408-page PDF here.)

The first obligation is set out in the TEU. The European Commission is required to “act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties, and in conformity with the procedures, conditions and objectives set out in them” (Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union). It is that word “objectives” that provides the potential for action. Those objectives apply also to the ECB, so it is useful to summarise its obligations under Lisbon.

The basis for holding the ECB accountable is a little bit more convoluted, but gets to the same obligation. The ECB’s primary mandate under Lisbon is the objective of controlling inflation, and it has additional banking tasks concerning monetary policy, foreign exchange, etc. That mandate is set out in Article 127 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (emphasis added, original is on page no. C 83/102 of the PDF here) (thanks to Merijn Knibbe on the Real World Economics Review Blog for pointing this out):

Article 127
The primary objective of the European System of Central Banks (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ESCB’) shall be to maintain price stability. Without prejudice to the objective of price stability, the ESCB shall support the general economic policies in the Union with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Union as laid down in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union.

The point of the emphasis is that the ECB does indeed have a legal responsibility in relation to the objectives of the EU. The text on the ESCB points us to source of those objectives. The objectives set out in Article 3 cover both the neo-liberal economic free-market objectives and social objectives. Paragraph 3 of that Article contains the relevant text (page no. C 83/17), again with emphasis added:

3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.

The second source of potentially useful obligations of the ECB and the European Commission is the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (it starts at page no. C 83/389 of the PDF here.)

The EUCFR has 54 articles, 50 of which set out human rights or principles. Since the right to social protection has already been the basis of a finding of a breach of human rights law in the Greek penioners’ cases, it would probably useful to use a similar basis for a legal challenge in the EU system. The relevant part of that article is as follows

Article 34
Social security and social assistance

1. The Union recognises and respects the entitlement to social security benefits and social services providing protection in cases such as maternity, illness, industrial accidents, dependency or old age, and in the case of loss of employment, in accordance with the rules laid down by Union law and national laws and practices.
[...]

It is important to acknowledge that the wording of Article 34 of the EUCFR is different from the wording of the related article, Article 12 of the Council of Europe’s European Social Charter, which was the basis of the Greek pensioners’ case against Greece. However, the explanations of the EUCFR (PDF here) make clear that Article 34 EUCFR does draw on Article 12 ESC. Here is the relevant part of Article 12 of the ESC:

Article 12 – The right to social security
With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to social security, the Contracting Parties undertake:

1 to establish or maintain a system of social security;

2 to maintain the social security system at a satisfactory level at least equal to that required for ratification of International Labour Convention No. 102 Concerning Minimum Standards of Social Security;

3 to endeavour to raise progressively the system of social security to a higher level [...].

Of course, the difference in the wording of the two legal texts could be a problem. The Greek pensioners’ case centred on paragraph 3 of the article they invoked: the requirement to progressively raise the system of social security to a higher level, which not found in the Article 34 EUCFR.  However, as noted in yesterday’s post, the European Committee of Social Rights described the reductions imposed on pensioners in strong language: “the adopted measures risk bringing about a large scale pauperisation of a significant segment of the population”. And the European Committee of Social Rights also noted that this has been observed by various international organisations, and the Committee pointed to findings by the ILO, the European Court of Human Rights, and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Given the serious nature of the cuts, the strong language of the European Committee of Social Rights, and the range of other bodies it has drawn on in reaching its legal findings, there must be a strong presumption that the situation is also a breach of the Article 34 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, even if the exact point on raising the system of social security has not been transfered into the that EU Charter.

The final point to be made about the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights is that it applies to the European Commission and the ECB. The Charter makes that explicit:

Article 51
Field of application
1. The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. They shall therefore respect the rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof in accordance with their respective powers and respecting the limits of the powers of the Union as conferred on it in the Treaties.
[...]

However, the fact that the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights applies to two members of the troika in principle does not mean it necessarily applies in the specific circumstances of a particular situation. That will depend on examining the details of what exactly the two troika members have done, which is beyond the scope of this post.

I do not know if there is established EU case law on the when institutions are liable. Would the EU Court of Justice need to find that the two EU troika members directed that the particular cuts to Greek pensions be implemented before they would be liable to a finding of having breached either the Treaty on European Union or the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (or both)? Or would the EU Court find that although the Greek government had choices about how it would reduce its spending to comply with troika conditions for support, the two EU members of the troika are none the less liable because they had a responsibility to ensure that the cuts they demanded are not implemented in a way that breaches the rights of Greek citizens?

I am sure that an argument would be made by the EU bodies that since social welfare is primarily the responsibility of the Member States, and since the EU’s powers are severely limited to tasks that “support and complement the activities of the Member States” (Article 153 of the TFEU; PDF here), then the EU institutions cannot be held liable for any breaches of human rights in those areas. And I cite the situation of Greek pensioners only because there is a set of five cases with a legal finding that humn rights have been breached. It may be the case that the situation of a Portugese, Spanish, Cypriot or Irish citizen or group of citizens might make a more useful legal case against the ECB or European Commission. However, my objective is not to present a fully polished case, but to suggest how one might be constructed.

The final point that needs to be addressed is how to get a case to the EU Court of Justice. There are two ways of doing this. One is that a domestic case is taken, and referred by a national court to the EU Court of Justice for a ruling on preliminary questions. I do not know how you would construct a case like that to try to get a ruling against the ECB or European Commission.

A more useful approach, I think, lies in the powers of the European Parliament. Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) gives the European Parliament to bring action to have the acts of the European Commission and of the ECB reviewed for legality by the Court of Justice of the European Union. One of the bases on which the Parliament can legally challenge the ECB and European Commission are “infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers”. That power is constrained. There is a time limit of two months, which means the decisions that lead to the Greek penioners’ cases are well out of time. And a further point that would need to be examined is whether the specific actions by the ECB and the European Commission in their roles as members of the troika come within the term “acts [...] of the Commission and of the European Central Bank”.

I may be missing some key legal rules, but based on what I have read, I would like to see the European Parliament examine how it can use its powers to bring a legal case to ensure that the two EU members of the troika are required to ensure their actions comply with EU human rights law. The ideal outcome would be a judgment that the Commission and ECB have breached EU law because of the effect of the cuts they have a role in imposing. But even second-best outcomes would be a significant step forward. For example, I noted yesterday that the European Committee of Social Rights, the less-well known sibling to the European Court of Human Rights, found that the lack of analysis of the impact of cuts on Greek pensions was a breach of human rights.

The task now is for MEPs to use the resources they have available to them — research staff, legal experts, etc. — to identify suitable case and initiate proceedings. A preliminary step could be for some MEPs to seek to have the Greek pension cases examined by a parliamentary committee with a view to determining if the facts and finding give rise to a need for the Parliament to examine the acts of the Commission and the ECB in light of their Treaty obligations and their obligations under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Austerity and human rights I May 14, 2013

Posted by Tomboktu in Austerity, Human Rights, Social Policy, Unions.
4 comments

This is the first of two posts on the topic of austerity and human rights. Today I report on a recent set of five cases taken against Greece. Tomorrow, I examine the possibility of applying EU law to challenge the way in which austerity is imposed by the troika.

It would be a bit misleading to say that the Troika’s austerity packages breach human rights law. What can be said, though, is that, in five legal challenges, pension cuts in Greece imposed as part of the austerity package have been found to be in breach of European human rights law.

Three weeks ago, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR), a less-well known sibling to the European Court of Human Rights, published its rulings in the five cases challenging cuts to pensions.

The cuts are deep and wide-ranging. They are also complex because the apply to different pension schemes and pensioners of different statuses. I will not list all of the cuts here, but the approach and severity is indicated by the following three points made by the complainant trade unions:

  • pension payments have been reduced by between 50 and 70 percent, depending on the professional category (see paragraph 57 of Decision 76/2012);
  • pensioners under 55 years old with a pension of less that €1,000 [per month] suffered a 40 percent cut (paragraph 58); and
  • auxilliary pensions have been reduced by approximately 30 percent.

The Greek government tried to argue that the cuts were necessary because of its obligations to the troika. The ECSR rejected that line of argument.

With regard to the observation made by the Government to the effect that the rights safeguarded under the 1961 Charter have been restricted pursuant to the Government’s other international obligations, namely those it has under the loan arrangement with the EU institutions and the International Monetary Fund, the Committee considers that the fact that the contested provisions of domestic law seek to fulfil the requirements of other legal obligations does not remove them from the ambit of the Charter.

The five unions that brought the complaints alleged that the cuts that had been imposed on pensioners breached the rights of the pensioners under Article 12.3 of the European Social Charter. The ECSR also mentioned that Article 12.2 was relevant to the case:

Article 12 – The right to social security
With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to social security, the Contracting Parties undertake:
[...]
2. to maintain the social security system at a satisfactory level at least equal to that required for ratification of International Labour Convention No. 102 Concerning Minimum Standards of Social Security;

3.  to endeavour to raise progressively the system of social security to a higher level;
[...]

The ECSR had three grounds for finding that Greece is breaching its human rights obligations. There is lots that legal scholars could say about the three bases for the finding, but some points are worth mentioning here.

The sharpest rebuke for the Greek government is in paragraph 81 of Decision 76/2012 (and repeated in paragraph 77 of the other four Decisions):

[...] the effects of the adopted measures risk bringing about a large scale pauperisation of a significant segment of the population [...]

‘Pauperisation’ is strong language for a legal body. The following may not be the language of a legal study but: the ECSR’s choice of word is a clear and vigorous attack on the Greek government’s policies.

Second, the ECSR also found that the measures

have been introduced in a manner that does not respect the legitimate expectation of pensioners that adjustments to their social security entitlements will be implemented in a manner that takes due account of their vulnerability, settled financial expectations and ultimately their right to enjoy effect[ive] access to social protection and social security

An interesting point in that text is that pensioners have expectations. They are important enough to mention twice: as “settled” and “legitimate financial”. Any cuts must take account of those expectations. If that approach is adopted by other legal bodies that interpret and apply human rights standards — such as the Court of Justice of the EU and national constitutional courts (the Supreme Court in Ireland) — then it would be a severe challenge to the zeitgeist, not just in pensions but in other economic relations too. For example, underlying thrust in current policy on pensions generally is to close defined-benefits schemes — schemes that allow expectations to which the ECSR has accorded protection — and move workers to defined contribution schemes, forcing workers to play the stock market with their savings for retirement. (And it is not just in pensions that expectations are under threat. The day after the ECSR published the five Greek decisions, the UK Chancellor was engaged in a battle with the House of Lords on legislation which would see worker’s employment rights reduced in exchange for shares — and the financial risks that go with that — in the companies they work for.)

Third, the ECSR found that the Greek Government

has not conducted the minimum level of research and analysis into the effects of such far-reaching measures that is necessary to assess in a meaningful manner their full impact on vulnerable groups in society. Neither has it discussed the available studies with the organisations concerned, despite the fact that they represent the interests of many of the groups most affected by the measures at issue

If the Greek government did not have access to research and analysis, then it is reasonable to assume that the troika did not have such research and analysis either, a point I return to in tomorrow’s post. It is a basic point about making any policy: knowing what the effect will be. This third finding also has a second point: the lack of discussion with the organisations concerned. This is in keeping a little-studied strand in the ECSR’s case-law, which it has mainly developed under Article 30 of the Revised European Social Charter, which concern the right to protection against poverty and social exclusion.

All of that prompts the question: what practical importance does this have? I do not know the standing of ECSR decisions in Greek domestic law, so I do not know what effect the decisions will have on the behaviour of the Greek government. I can say that if these had been Irish cases, the rulings would have meant little: although the decisions of the ECSR are binding on the State, in Ireland they have no legal effect in the State. That is, they do not change internal law and the Irish courts would not be bound by them if the citizens tried to use ECSR decisions to force the government to change its course. (The exceptions to this general rule are EU law and rulings and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights when they do not conflict with the Constitution.) In fact, under Article 45 of the Constitution, the Irish courts are prohibited from adjudicating on social policy. (Another possibility, which I do not know enough about, it that the right to private property in Article 43 might be used to fight a cut to a pension.) And there is little evidence — none that I know of — that the State changes its policy to comply with obligations under ECSR case-law. (A few months ago I was at a book launch where I met a senior civil servant who has responsibility for policy on a particular area covered by one aspect of ECSR law. Over the nibbles, I mentioned a ruling that affected Ireland. The civil servant said that when he first saw a note on the ruling circulated in his department, he was concerned, but he stopped worrying when he realised it was from the ECSR, and not the EU Court of Justice: “Strasbourg can’t fine us”.)

A final point is that the rulings of the ECSR do not apply to the EU and its institutions (or to EU member states by virtue of their membership of the EU). The role of the EU is important, because two parts of the troika — the European Commission and the ECB — are EU institutions. The question of how they might be brought to account is explored tomorrow.

Some French Posters against The World Cup in Argentina 1978 April 15, 2013

Posted by irishelectionliterature in Human Rights, International Politics.
7 comments

Some French Posters against The World Cup in Argentina 1978. The first one translates ‘roughly’ as “…..when you applaud the French team , cheers cover the sounds of people being tortured…”
I was 8 going on 9 at the time and wasn’t that aware of the Human Rights issues in Argentina back then. Looking now at the squads of the various teams its striking to see how few players played their trade abroad compared to nowadays.
Strangely I loved that Argentina team that won it, especially Mario Kempes (my sons middle name is ‘Kempes’).
Anyway powerful posters
via IISH

30051001723417

30051001166658

GCN is 25 years old March 3, 2013

Posted by Tomboktu in Community, Gay Community News, Gender Issues, History, Human Rights, Inequality, LGBT Rights, media, Media and Journalism.
1 comment so far

Interview with Jerry Buttimer of Fine Gael… February 23, 2013

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Culture, Economy, Human Rights, Irish Politics.
5 comments

…in the Mail conducted by Jason O’Toole. It’s a very interesting interview not least for the fact that Buttimer remains Fine Gael’s only openly gay TD.

O’Toole notes that:

It was a heartbreaking phone call from a distraught mother that made up Jerry Buttimer’s mind. The woman, whose gay son was being taunted over his sexuality, had heard a rumour that the Cork South Central TD was also gay and desperately wanted him to meet with her son and advise him. After talking to the young man, 46-year-old Buttimer made the brave decision to become the first ever Fine Gael TD to publicly come out as being homosexual. ‘The young man was distressed to such an extent that he was on the verge of suicide,’ Buttimer says. ‘He was feeling under pressure, he had no one to talk to. He felt alienated. I told him he was not alone, that he was not the only person to feel under such pressure. I stressed that there was great facilities to help him and that there was a superb network within the gay community to support him on his journey. ‘After being able to talk about it, he has now bounced back and is very positive.’

And…

(more…)

Ireland breaches European human rights laws on workers rights January 30, 2013

Posted by Tomboktu in Employment Rights, Human Rights, Workers Rights.
9 comments

Ireland has been found to be in breach of eight European requirements on employment rights (pdf here). A total of 11 breaches of the Revised European Social Charter were itemised by the Council of Europe in legal findings published on Tuesday (29 January). The Charter is a sister human rights treaty to the European Convention on Human Rights (pdf).

The findings were made by the European Committee of Social Rights, an independent legal body set up to judge state’s conformity with the Charter.

In addition to finding that Ireland is breaching European human rights law, the Council of Europe watchdog indicates that it doubts that the State is properly implementing its legal duty to strive for full employment, and echoes an OECD report that Ireland’s performance on assisting people with job searches in ineffective. The Committee took note of the OECD’s findings that a quarter of people eligible for help from FÁS were never referred to it and that Irish spending on labour market policies relies on job creation schemes that have been judged to be ineffective. However, the Committee decided to defer coming to a legal finding of compliance or breach until the Government provides more information.

The Employment Equality Act was found to to be incompatible with the human rights standard because the maximum compensation that can be awarded is not sufficiently dissuasive and may not be enough to make good the loss a person suffers. The law was changed in 2011 to raise the amount to €40,000. Only the provisions on gender discrimination, where the upper limit does not apply, are found to meet the standard required.

Most of the shortcomings highlighted in the legal report concern the rights of non-EU workers. Ireland has been found to discriminate illegally against those workers in relation to their access to vocatonal training, their access to vocational guidance, the length of their residency requirements for access to higher education, and their access to further or continuing education.

Fees levied by Ireland for work permits were found to be excessive. At the time the Committee assessed the situation, they ranged from €500 to €2,250 (in the case of a person renewing a permit for five years).

A rule requiring both Irish and non-Irish people to be resident in a local authority area for a year before they are eligible for a maintenance grant for vocational training was also found to be a breach of the European Social Charter.

Ireland was also found that the rights of all newly employed workers — both Irish and non-Irish — is breached because they are not protected under the Unfair Dismissal Acts in their first full year in any employment. “The Committee considers that one year period of exclusion is manifestly unreasonable”, the report says. It also finds that excluding workers who have reached the normal retiring age from the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act goes beyond what is permitted in European human rights law.

The European Committee of Social Rights also finds that employment rights of army officers is breached. Officers may not seek early termination of their commission unless they repay to the state at least part of the cost of their education and training, and the decision to grant early retirement is left to the discretion of the Minister of Defence. The human rights watchdog find that this could lead to a period of service which would be too long to be compatible with the freedom to choose and leave an occupation.

The Committee found Ireland to be in conformity with six provisions, and deferred reaching a conclusion in the case of six other provisions because the Government had not provided enough information to enable the Committee to assess if the State is meeting its obligations.

The findings were made in the annual reporting procedure under the Revised European Social Charter. A quarter of the 31 articles of the Charter are examined each year, in thematic clusters. The next report will examine Ireland’s situation in relation to health, social security and social protection.

Ireland ratified the Charter thirteen years ago. Unlike the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter does not provide individual redress, but collective complaints from trade unions, employers’ bodies and European NGOs can be heard by the European Committee of Social Rights.

“I do not have to prove that I am ‘trans enough’ for anyone” December 7, 2012

Posted by Tomboktu in Crazed nonsense..., Human Rights, Inequality, Irish Politics, Justice, LGBT Rights.
4 comments

While the country was getting ready for the budget on Wednesday, elsewhere in the Leinster House complex, an Oireachtas committee took evidence on the experience and legal situation of trans people in Ireland.

All of it is worth watching, but I was particularly moved by the evidence of Darrn matthews, from 8:30 into the film:

Darrin Matthews:

Hi. My name is Darrin Matthews. I am a board member of TENI and also run he Cork Peer Trans Support Group.

I am a transgender man.

[...]

I had a woman from the Disability Allowance Office ring me and she wanted to know why my name had changed from a female name to a male name, and when I told her it was because I was transgender, she laughed at me and hung up the phone.

When I go out and I get asked for my passport as identification to get in, I sometimes get turned away because my gender marker still says “F” and I have both my birth certificate name and my current name Darrin printed.

Everybody has a right to a private life. I would just like that my right would be recognized. Issuing new birth certificates and can easily do this and prevent embarrassment and harassment and potentially dangerous situations.

My experience of being transgender doesn’t just affect me, it also affects my family. I have an amazingly supportive and loving family. My mother put herself into almost €12,000 worth of debt so she could send me to a private school because I was bullied for 2 years in my state school. My mother took out a loan to send me to a school where I could be called Darrin, not wear a girl’s uniform and be happy and every member of staff and every student called me Darrin instead of derogatory and cruel names.

I have many friends who are straight, gay and transgender. In this day and age if a gay friend of mine come to me and told me they had gotten their official diagnosis of “homosexual”, I would be shocked and appalled. Nineteen years ago homosexuality was decriminalized and people now cannot imagine a time when homosexuality was illegal. Most people don’t know that transgender people must be diagnosed with a psychiatric illness to access treatment in this country because this is such an inconceivable and ridiculous notion and is discriminatory in its nature.

I do not feel that because I was born in the wrong body that that automatically means I have a mental illness. There is still stigmatization attached to having a mental health issue in this country and to force a psychiatric condition onto another human being can have detrimental effects on a person’s self-image and self-esteem.

When a couple applies for a civil partnership, they are not asked for their gay diagnosis to prove their homosexuality. I had to prove to many people I was happier as the man I should have always been, to my mother, my siblings, to my friends. And I had to prove that I had a psychiatric illness. But I should not have to prove anything to a complete stranger and seek their acceptance. I do not have to prove that I am ‘trans enough’ for anyone.

My mother once asked if I was sure, and if I was really sure that being Darrin was what I wanted. When I told her I couldn’t go go back and be happy, she just said to me ‘Well then we can only go forward, my son’.

I always knew transitioning would never be easy but please don’t make it any harder than it already is. All I want is to be treated as an equal. To be treated with respect and dignity as much as a non-transgender person would be. Nothing more and nothing less. Thank you.

Three extracts that puzzle… December 4, 2012

Posted by Tomboktu in Human Rights, Ministers.
4 comments

Extract 1

The first extract is of the Ombudsman for Children, Emily Logan, on 17 October 2012 on RTÉ Radio Radio 1, following the publication of the report of the Inspector of Prisons, Judge Michael Reilly, on the treatment of of young people in St Patrick’s Institution:

Ombudsman for Children: When I went in in 2009 to meet with the young people, we heard over a period of three months their views and their experience much of which is in this report. In fact Judge Reilly indicates that the issues raised were raised by young people with me, and we published that last year. To be perfectly frank people were sneering at the outcome of that report largely–

Interviewer [interrupting]: When you say that people were sneering: who?

Ombudsman for Children: I publicly commented last year at my annual report that I was very disappointed that people at a very senior level in the Department of Justice, right up to the Secretary General, sat in front of a UN committee and told that UN committee that this was about children’s perception and that really dampened down the notion that any of these kinds of things that were happening, or were real, because of the people that were reporting it.

[...]

Ombudsman for Children: Last year I was, I suppose, patronised somewhat, and made fun of, if you like, and was made to feel I was being naive in thinking that what the young people were saying was true.

Extract 2

The second extract is of the then Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality, Sean Aylward, replying to questions from the UN Committee against Torture, in Geneva, 24 May 2011 :

Secretary General, Department of Justice: Ombudsman for Children’s Office: Involvement with St Patrick’s. In the longer paper which you have we refer to a report which was prepared by the independent Ombudsman for Children, Emily Logan on St Patrick’s Institution on the 9th of February 2011. That report documents the views of a selection of offenders and its purpose is to highlight rather than verify their perceptions. In doing so, the rpoert identifies a number of discrepancies between the young people’s perception and the actual reality.

Extract 3

The third extract is from the Written answer to two Parliamentary Questions, 11 January 2012.

606 Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the procedure adopted in respect of the recent appointment of Ireland’s representative to the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture; if he is satisfied with the appointment as made, having due regard to appropriate and accepted protocols and convention; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40928/11]

612 Stephen Donnelly asked the Minister for Justice and Equality with regard to the recent appointment of new members of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture, the instruction he gave to the Irish ambassador attending at the Committee of Ministers that voted on new members; if the ambassador was given any instruction to contribute to debate on the Irish candidates; and if so, the instructions; if the ambassador was given any instruction to vote on the Irish candidate; if so, the instruction; and if any representation was made to other voting members of that committee in favour of any of the Irish candidates. [41011/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I propose to take Questions Nos. 606 and 612 together.

For the first time in this State, expressions of interest were sought through public advertisement in August from suitably qualified and experienced persons for nomination as Ireland’s representative to the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). Advertisements were placed on the websites of my Department and the Public Appointments Service with the criteria for selection having regard to the requirements of the CPT for nomination.

Forty-eight expressions of interest were received. In line with the procedures for nomination to the CPT, three individuals had to be selected as the Irish nominees. The three nominees listed below were chosen in the light of the experience, expertise and characteristics identified by the Council of Europe as being relevant for membership of the CPT.

Dr Mary Rogan, Lecturer Dublin Institute of Technology, Chairperson of the Irish Penal Reform Trust;

Mr Seán Aylward, a former Director General of the Irish Prison Service and Secretary General of my Department; and

Mr Donncha O’Connell, Lecturer in Law, National University of Ireland, Galway.

The Council of Europe is satisfied with the selection process used for the nomination and commented favourably on it. I gave instructions that no particular preference should be shown for any of the three candidates. The nominees were not put forward for consideration in any order of preference, and to the best of my knowledge Ireland expressed no preference for any particular candidate and abstained from the voting at the Committee of Minister’s Deputies meeting in Strasbourg on 7 December, 2011 which appointed Ireland’s representative on the CPT. It is a matter for the Council of Europe to decide which nominees should be appointed to the CPT.

The State’s position on the rights in the kind of situation before Savita Halappanava’s death November 17, 2012

Posted by Tomboktu in Bunreacht na hÉireann, Ethics, Feminism, Health, Human Rights, Ireland, Medical Issues.
add a comment

Here is what the government says is the official procedure to be followed in the kind of situation that preceeded Savita Halappanava’s death, as explained by the Government to the European Court of Human Rights in 2009, and summarised by that Court in September 2010. [I have added the emphasis. Here they are dicussing the case of "C".]

189. As regards the third applicant specifically, the Government made the following submissions.

In the first place, they maintained in response to a question from the Court, that the procedure for obtaining a lawful abortion in Ireland was clear. The decision was made, like any other major medical matter, by a patient in consultation with her doctor. On the rare occasion there was a possibility of a risk to the life of a woman, there was “a very clear and bright line rule provided by Irish law which is neither difficult to understand or to apply because it is the same law that has been applied under Section 58 of the 1861 Act, under Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution and under the legislative provisions of every country which permits a pregnancy to be terminated on that ground”. As to the precise procedures to be followed by a pregnant woman and her doctor where an issue arose as to such a possible risk, it was the responsibility of the doctor and a termination could occur when the risk was real and substantial. If the patient did not agree with that advice, she was free to seek another medical opinion and, in the last resort, she could make an emergency application to the High Court (as outlined above). The grounds for lawful abortion in Ireland were well known and applied. Referring to the Medical Council Guidelines, the CPA Guidelines and the evidence of practitioners to the Committee on the Constitution, the Government considered it clear that, while there were issues regarding the characterisation of medical treatment essential to protect the life of the mother, medical intervention occurred when a mother’s life was threatened, the refusal of treatment on grounds of moral disapproval was prohibited and a patient was entitled to a second opinion. While the Irish Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists had no published guidelines concerning a pregnant woman presenting with life threatening conditions, that Institute would be in agreement with the Guidelines of the United Kingdom Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists concerning the management of ectopic pregnancies and it was probable that Irish gynaecologists would “by and large” follow the latter Guidelines with or without minor amendments or additions. This clear process of how a decision to terminate a pregnancy was taken in Ireland by the patient in consultation with the doctor was regularly followed in the case of ectopic pregnancies./blockquote>

[You may wish to know that Ireland was found by the European Court of Human Rights to have breached the human rights of "C".]

The 90-page PDF is available here.

Declaration of the 4th European Transgender Council September 9, 2012

Posted by Tomboktu in Gender Issues, Human Rights, Inequality, Ireland, LGBT Rights.
add a comment

I received this in an email today.

Declaration of the 4th European Transgender Council on transphobic and racist violence and harassment, targeted at three Council participants

We the participants and organizers of this 4th European Transgender Council condemn the transphobic attack directed towards three participants of our Council in Dublin – two of the newly elected steering committee members and a Council of Europe official. Two years ago delegates were attacked during the 3rd European Transgender Council in Malmö (Sweden). We are shocked and deeply concerned that this type of violence has been repeated in Ireland. Once again it has been proven that no space is a safe space for trans people.

On Saturday night, 8th September 2012, a group of ten delegates were on their way to the Council’s social events in the Temple Bar District. Two persons, unknown to them, targeted our Turkish Steering Committee member, Kemal Ördek, and physically and verbally attacked hir and hirs colleague Laura LePrince from France. Lauri Sivonen, Advisor to the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, intervened to protect the delegates and the attackers spat in his face before leaving the scene. Due to the fact that their first target was one of our Turkish delegates, we assume that the attack was not only based on trans- and homophobia, but as well on racism and xenophobia.

Lauri Sivonen, accompanied by a representative of TENI, reported the incident on Saturday night to An Garda Síochána. Kemal Ördek and Laura LePrince will give a report at the garda station as well. The gardai are expected to ensure that the delegates will have a chance to report in a safer space with respect to their gender identity and expression. TGEU has been assured that TENI will observe and follow up on the process.
In view of the above,
We require An Garda Síochána to

  • Investigate this case quickly, properly and without any trans-, homo- or xenophobic or racist prejudice.
  • Implement a trans-inclusive monitoring system that will effectively record transphobic incidences.
  • Have LGBT trained liaison officers on duty 24 hours.
  • Collaborate with TENI to make Dublin and Ireland a safer space for trans people.

    • We demand that the State of Ireland

  • Ensure that gender identity and gender expression are explicitly covered by equality legislation and work to develop hate crime legislation that protects all trans people.
  • Collaborate with Irish trans organizations and support their work to make Ireland a country that does not tolerate bigotry, discrimination or violence against trans people.
  • Raise awareness that trans people’s equality and human rights must always be respected thus making sure that such incidents cease to happen.
  • Protect trans people’s private life through gender recognition legislation that fully respect human rights according to the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe’s Recommendations and the Yogyakarta Principles.

    • Dublin, 9th September 2012.

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 280 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: