Archives

OK

Random entry RSS

Loading

  • Posted in:

    The Chassis underneath the Stasis

    It’s a couple of years since I observed somewhere or other that, if Enda Kenny chose to have an election in the springtime of 2016, he would fight it not against Micheál Martin and Gerry Adams but against Pádraig Pearse and Joseph Mary Plunkett. So it has come to pass, although this meaning of the outcome, like most of the others, has been overlooked or fudged in the moronic cacophony of the pol corrs, who have managed to achieve a quite astonishing feat of anti-journalism by reducing an unprecedented moment in Irish politics to a succession of quasi-routine news days. I had been hoping to stay out of it. Having deliberately abstained from voting for the first time, and for the most part reading and listening to nothing but the dogs’ and street-criers’ accounts of the fallout through my open window, I imagined the whole thing would be over by now and we restored to our normal state of non-government by showroom dummies. When I heard the outline of the outcome – some five weeks’ since, at the time of writing – I immediately perceived that the arithmetic presented an insoluble conundrum for virtually every one of the 158 freshly-elected deputies, not to mention those we laughably call leaders. What has astonished me (somewhat) is that almost nobody mentions the impossibility of the arithmetic. Most of the commentary since February 27th appears to have consisted in speculations, hints and musings about likely alliances, ‘exclusive’ information about possible seductions, lists of demands and breathless whispers of phone calls and texts, all delivered well into April as if it were still February. But there is no possibility – other than a theoretical one – of a workable government being formed out of the present Dáil arithmetic. This is so obvious that we should be deeply concerned by the fact that it has not become conventional wisdom and given rise to the rather urgent question: what now? When the pol corrs have not been talking up the talks about talks aimed at a minority administration of Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael supported by the other, or a National Government of the two, they have been murmuring about the feasibility of various permutations of independents and others in conjunction with either FF or FG. But it must surely be obvious that this latter category of administration is conceivable only at the most theoretical and abstracted level of conjecture, since it would require the harmonic incorporation of between half-a-dozen and a dozen discrete and differently-minded entities (imagine a menagerie of wildcats, badgers, rats, ferrets, foxes and, sitting in the middle calling for order, Willie O’Dea). Since most of the swollen ranks of the raggle-taggle technicolour brigade have been elected on the basis of either local grievances or broader anti-austerity platforms, no government dependent on their continued concurrence could hope to last anything more than a few weeks. The first time a contentious issue cropped up, the mavericks would be tripping over one another to be first out of the door. In the old days, mavericks were simply bought off, but those days are gone. There are far too many, and what would the IMF say?   And in case you have not already guessed this from the track records of those predicting it, there never was the slightest prospect of a National Government. Fine Gael, having peddled a localised relapse of the Celtic Tiger as a national ‘recovery’, is hoist on its own rhetorical petard: it cannot now claim that conditions exist for the declaration of a national emergency. A minority government of either of the theoretical options is almost equally improbable. Two words: Tallaght Strategy. The dismal political fate this phrase invited upon the head of its architect, Alan Dukes, speaks to us of the perils of statesmanship in a context where Darwinian principles obtain. Nearly three decades ago, Dukes thought to gain himself a place in history by doing the decent thing and placing the national interest before party-political advantage, supporting the then minority Fianna Fáil government in a programme of austerity that would have made Claire Daly choke on her own fulminations. Perhaps Dukes foresaw the electorate rewarding his selflessness, or perhaps he had a more Machiavellian intention, but in any event history records the electorate as computing something to the effect that martyrs should seek their rewards in the next life. Fine Gael failed to cash in and Dukes became political toast. Kenny and Martin may not be Pearse and Plunkett, but they didn’t get where they are today without functioning memories and finely tuned instincts for the meaning of past events in the present. Neither of them wants to end up like Dukes, wandering the post-political landscape, the lost soul of a former contender. This is why all the continuing talk of ‘horse-trading’ is simply smokescreen: they must SEEM to be trying to form a government, but both of them know that, whichever of them ended up supporting a minority government led by the other would have signed his own political death warrant. There is, in other words, no horse. The abortive Fine Gael proposal for a “partnership government”, rejected as Village was going to press, was no more than an attempt to deny the result of the election. Any such arrangement would amount, in effect, to the nullification of electoral contests, since it would mean that in future any number of parties and candidates could engage in all kinds of debates and disagreements during an election campaign in the knowledge that, once the election was over, they were free to carve up the cake between them as though nothing had been said and nothing had occurred. The idea of a ‘rotating Taoiseach’ amounts to a satire on the office: why not – as an alternative to two periods of 30 months – simply have a night shift and a day shift on an alternating weekly basis? I have never been one for attributing a mind to the electorate. We

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Country Report in Limbo

    It’s hard to remember now. It is more than a month ago. Who remembers the delayed European Commission Country Report on Ireland, the one that got postponed until after the February election so it would not influence the voters? There was all sorts of hype about the timing and what the European Commission was or was not up to. There was little about the content of its report and nothing about why the European Commission was publishing it. As the European policy process grinds on, there is now complete silence as the time approaches for Ireland to respond to the report. That is, of course, if we have an Ireland, in the form of a working Government, that can respond. The report was part of the ten-year ‘Europe 2020 Strategy’ for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Each year, in February, the European Commission publishes Country Reports on each Member State. These assess the overall economic situation in the country and highlight issues to be dealt with. In April of each year the Member States submit a National Reform Programme setting out the steps they are taking to address the targets of the Europe 2020 strategy, taking into consideration the issues highlighted by the European Commission. In April the European Commission presents Country Specific Recommendations to each Member State after assessing their National Reform Programmes. It is all a bit tedious. But wait! The aims of the Europe 2020 Strategy are to increase the employment rate, to reduce the rate of early school leaving and to increase the numbers completing third-level education, to reduce the number of people living in poverty, to increase investment in research and development, and to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. These ambitions surely merit public scrutiny and debate. The Country Report on Ireland opens with a round of backslapping for all concerned. The “remarkable economic rebound” is applauded. The successful implementation of an “ambitious series of reforms”, austerity in other words, “with the support of the EU- IMF programme of financial assistance” is lauded. Turning “Ireland into the fastest growing economy in the European Union in 2014 and 2015” is a success story. It goes gently downhill after that with positive steps taken by Ireland celebrated in the report but ongoing vulnerabilities grimly laid out. The vulnerabilities include quaintly termed “legacy issues’ of “private and public debt, and financial sector repair”. There is an unenthusiastic nod to “some progress” being made by Ireland on last year’s Country Specific Recommendations. These addressed the need to reduce the deficit, increase the cost-effectiveness of health provision, increase the work intensity of households and reduce child poverty, and resolve the mortgage arrears issues. We heard nothing about these last year. It would seem, however, that we are more compliant when it comes to taking ownership of austerity reforms from the EU, IMF and ECB troika than when it comes to implementing more positive policy strategies. We get good marks in the report for our performance on the employment-rate target and the early-school-leaving target of the Europe 2020 Strategy. We get a polite “more effort is needed” mark when it comes to the targets for investment in research and development, reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, increasing the share of renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, reducing poverty, and completion of tertiary education. A wide range of issues needs addressing, it says: unemployment, infrastructure and health are of particular interest from an equality and sustainability perspective. Long-term unemployment is highlighted as a concern. The report identifies skills mismatches and skills shortages. It suggests a lack of inclusive growth, a polite reference to poverty and inequality. It makes particular reference to inactivity traps for certain households, the high proportion of people living in households with very low work-intensity, child poverty and the lack of access to affordable, full-time and quality childcare. Infrastructure emerges as a difficulty. It is acknowledged that “seven years of sharply reduced government investment have taken a toll on the quality and adequacy of infrastructure”. The big infrastructure issues identified are inadequacies in housing, water, public transport and climate change mitigation capacity. When it comes to healthcare, cost-effectiveness, equal access and sustainability are identified as being at issue. So now April has arrived and Ireland must submit its National Reform Programme. Incredibly the first barrier to this is the lack of a Government, and that particular barrier does not look like being resolved any time soon. That’s still the easy part. The next step is to secure a National Reform Programme that introduces new measures to address these issues from the report. By Niall Crowley

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    An optimistic take on the stasis

    After the General Election the political vista remains hazy. A minority Government led by Fine Gael but backed by Fianna Fáil looks the most likely after Fianna Fáil’s churlish rebuttal of Fine Gael’s Partnership Proposal. Before the election, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil said they refused to go into coalition with one another. Sinn Féin is refusing to go into coalition with anyone, and Fianna Fáil seems to be serious about it. Radical-left groups such as the AAA/ PBP despite proclaiming to represent the people couldn’t convince many of them to join their cause. These are the fundaments of the situation. A week before the General Election, Fine Gael ran an ad in The Sunday Times that stated Ireland was the envy of Europe. This depiction of Ireland and its reflection of Fine Gael will undoubtedly have jarred with who was vulnerable or angry at the incompetence, iniquity and misconduct of the outgoing government. During the general election campaign the Labour party leader Joan Burton demonstrated all the bluster we expect from Irish politicians on the cusp of demise. “The worst mistake we could make now”, she told her party conference in January, “is to squander our hard-earned progress by gambling on uncertainty”. She inferred from this that the people would return Labour to Government. The efforts by Labour to appeal to its voter base failed, in large part because people were jaded being lied to. A lot of people voted for Independents because of discontentment with the mainstream political parties but this vote was largely cast without expectation that the agenda of the Independent would ever be enshrined in any government policy. Interestingly, perhaps dangerously, in fact low expectations of the implications of these protest votes may be confounded. Irish politicians lie brazenly with no apology. It is the cynicism that this has generated that underpins the current deadlock. The lack of integrity has become so pervasive that it verges on a lack of legitimacy. A lot of people may simply just sigh at these remarks but that is the problem. In Ireland we have become so accustomed to political corruption and contempt that it doesn’t strike us as an issue, less still one we can do something about. Before the 2011 election Fianna Fáil was keen to insist that it “made all the difficult decisions”, despite the fact it had bankrupted the country. Dishonesty shines through even when our politicians have cornered the market in attempting to be honest: Lucinda Creighton voted against the Protection Of Life During Pregnancy Bill – an issue of conscience. What was extraordinary was that she didn’t explain why she didn’t vote with her conscience on a range of other poltical issues, many of which she felt strongly enough about to form a new political party, the earth-bound Renua party. There have been some attempts to resolve this: an elected Ceann Comhairle for example will tend to work against government (or even Fine Gael-Fianna Fáil) hegemony, albeit that it would have been more encouraging had the incumbent come from outside the ranks of the big parties. Eoghan Murphy proposed a series of “radical” reforms to the whip, which would include the ostensibly rather unradical freedom of TDs to question the leaders of their own parties. Partisan jealousies have undermined many efforts at progressive legislation. Last year the Social Democrats proposed to create an Anti-Corruption Agency based on an Australian model. It was voted down by the coalition parties. The Parliamentary structures in Ireland don’t allow independent and opposition party TDs to influence policy in a meaningful way. In the US Senate Committees are structured in such a way that independently minded politicians can influence policy. Quite recently the OECD also revealed that Ireland had one of the least effective Parliaments in Europe. On the budgetary process Ireland ranks lowest. In the UK, politicians voting against the party whip are only rarely expelled from the party. If anything the internal ethos of Irish political parties limits reform more than the internal structures of out political system. In many other countries, it is possible for politicians in the same political party to differ greatly from each other on key issues. In the Conservative party in Britain the views of David Cameron would differ greatly from those of Eurosceptic Daniel Hannan. Likewise In the UK Labour Party, the views of Trotskyite Jeremy Corbyn are radically different from Blairite Liz Kendall’s. In the US, Democrats and Republicans from the same parties disagree with each other on a host of issues: think Trump and Romney. In Germany it is an offence to interfere with the conscientious decision of a member of Parliament. In Ireland it’s almost impossible to point to any mavericks within the mainstream political parties, rather the mockable pathology is to defend everything the ruling party does as if it were gospel. The Irish political system is broken. We are facing the prospect of a second election or a coalition of parties which defied their democratic mandate by going into coalition with a party they said they would not go into coalition with. When individual TDs in coalition Governments can’t be trusted to stand up for an ideology, a mandate or even their constituents a minority Government would probably be the best option. It will be more difficult to get legislation passed, but at the moment there is virtually no oversight, almost all legislation that is proposed by the Government is passed. The second house of Parliament the Seanad is only capable of delaying legislation not repealing it; Seanad reform looks unlikely. In the US legislation has to be passed through three houses before it can be approved. A minority Government would not guarantee support for every piece of legislation that the ruling parties propose. But any stringent analysis suggest that is no bad thing. The only case for optimism is the possibility of the creation of a left and right divide in Irish Politics. The Lanigan’s ball of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil allowed

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Love over hate

    On March 8 this year – International Women’s Day – Dubliner Victoria Curtis posted a photograph of her recently bruised face on Facebook, and wrote: “This is what misogyny looks like. This is what being a faggot looks like. This is what happens women on Saturday nights walking home with their friends. This is what a man did to me after I told him it wasn’t cool for him to tell us to take off our trousers, pull down our knickers and show him our arses …This is Ireland 2016”. Curtis’ post went viral, grabbing the attention of national radio, momentarily re-opening the much needed national conversation about hate crime. The discussion provided a sober reminder, after marriage equality, that in spite of formal equality before the law Ireland in 2016 isn’t yet an equally safe place for all who live here. Almost uniquely among members of the European Union (EU) and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Republic of Ireland lacks effective hate-crime legislation (not counting the inoperable 1989 Incitement to Hatred Act). In this regard our government has come in for multiple criticisms from the Council of Europe’s Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), and the United Nation’s Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). It is likely also that the State will be deemed in breach of the 2008 EU Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, and the 2012 Victims Directive. For some years a coalition of NGOs representing, migrants, Travellers and other ethnic minorities, lesbian, gay and transgender communities, and disabled people, has been working closely with members of the Oireachtas, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and academics at the University of Limerick who produced ‘Out of the Shadows’, an evidence-based roadmap for addressing hate crime. It was hoped that at its launch there would be an announcement by government that it would present the accompanying Criminal Law (Hate Crime) Bill 2015 for enactment. The bill provides a solid formal mechanism for gardaí to identify a racist or other bias-motivated element in a crime, and for the courts to consider this at sentencing. It promised to be a very welcome first step for groups most likely to be the targets of bias-motivated violence. To the surprise of the groups involved, this anticipated move by the government did not happen. Only days later, on July 22 2015 – International Day Against Hate Crime – The Examiner broke the story about “Jane”, a working mother living in west Dublin whose young family had been subjected to a years-long and escalating campaign of racist bullying, harassment, threats and criminal damage, culminating in two masked men spraying “Blacks Out” on her living-room window and front door, and slashing all the tyres on her car. After six years of investing in relationships in her local community Jane threw in the towel, took her children out of school, and fled to stay with relatives in Donegal. In spite of some of the best will, Gardai and the local authority were powerless to protect Jane and her children. Jane’s experience is not unusual. The iReport.ie confidential racist incident reporting system, administered by the European Network Against Racism (ENAR) Ireland, records around 140 criminal acts motivated by racism each year, while the State with all its resources logs fewer than 40. Action Against Racism (AAR) is an ENAR-Ireland-supported campaigning group comprising people who have experienced racism and who are determined that our Republic should – as the name requires – promotes a safe sense of belonging and participation for all who live here. This year AAR launched the Love Not Hate campaign to push for the enactment of Hate Crime legislation by the nex government. The campaign has produced promotional material, including brochures and a video that has gone viral, explaining how hate crime works. On March 19, to mark European Day Against Racism, members of AAR dressed as love-hearts and offered free hugs to amused shoppers on Dublin’s Grafton Street. The tactic was very effective in supplementing the online petition that has already collected thousands of signatures. There will be a strong Love Not Hate contingent at this year’s Dublin Pride march. Hate-crime laws are not a panacea, and on their own will not eliminate the structural and institutional racism (and other forms of bias) of which hate crimes are a violent manifestation. But in the UK, Sweden and Finland, where such laws have been embedded for longest, the data show that they can provide a criminal justice system with a range of instruments that can facilitate the targeting of behaviours, and the promotion of a culture where in future Victoria Curtis will be able to challenge bigotry, and “Jane” will be able to live and work in a neighbourhood and raise her children, without fear. Shane O’Curry is the director of ENAR Ireland, a network of 50 organisations campaigning for political and cultural change on racism. ENAR Ireland manages iReport.ie, Ireland’s independent racist-incident-reporting mechanism. http://enarireland.org/hatecrime By Shane O’Curry

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    More to be done

    The situation is stark according to the report issued in late March. 56% of LGBTI people aged 14 to 18 year old have self-harmed, 70% have had suicidal thoughts and one in three has attempted suicide. Compared to the ‘My World National Youth Mental Health Study’, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and/or intersex (LGBTI) young people reported twice the level of self-harm; three times the level of attempted suicide; and four times the level of severe or extremely severe stress, anxiety and depression. Being LGBTI does not accounts for this situation. It is caused by the unnecessary and preventable stresses that LGBTI children and teenagers still encounter as they grow up. This situation was revealed in The ‘LGBTIreland’ Report – the biggest ever survey – launched by former President Mary McAleese. She made the telling point that things will not improve by chance, only through change. It is important for LGBTI young people and their families to know they are not alone. There are LGBTI youth and community services across the country. Schools, mental-health services and other support agencies are being increasingly proactive about creating safe and supportive environments for the LGBTI people in their care. The report highlights, however, the urgent need to accelerate this work. Last May Ireland changed what it means to grow up LGBTI: first with a resounding ‘Yes’ in the marriage equality referendum and then with the Gender Recognition Act. The research did find that the majority of LGBTI people aged 26 and over are doing well. They report good self-esteem and are proud of their LGBTI identity. However, these positive findings are not shared across all age groups. LGBTI people still face considerable barriers to good mental health, including bullying at school, fear of rejection, discrimination, harassment and violence, and negative attitudes and stereotypes. We still have much work to do to achieve the equal and inclusive society so many voted for. The LGBT Ireland Report was Ireland’s largest ever study of the mental health and wellbeing of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people. The study was funded by the National Office for Suicide Prevention and commissioned by BeLong To and GLEN. The study provides vital evidence that must now drive change. However, the findings were of little surprise to us here in BeLonG To Youth Services. We see these high levels of mental health challenges amongst the hundreds of young people we are supporting every week in our frontline services in Dublin and throughout our national network of youth services. There has been a doubling in the numbers of young people in crisis who have come to our services in recent time. Homophobic and transphobic bullying in schools, communities and even homes, is a major cause of these harrowing findings. The study found that 67% of those surveyed had witnessed anti-LGBT bullying and 50% had experienced it. It found that the majority of second-level schools do not provide safe and inclusive environments for LGBTI students. However, it did find that a growing number of teachers and principals are making an effort to change this. 25% of post-primary schools took part in BeLonG To’s ‘Stand Up!’ awareness campaign in 2015. This campaign, supported by the Department of Education, aims to end homophobic and transphobic bullying in schools by increasing awareness, friendship and support for LGBT students from other students. Clearly there is a long way to go from a base of 25% but it does represent an encouraging start. The study points to the urgency of building on this work. A 2014 evaluation of the Stand Up! campaign found that LGBT students, attending schools that participated in the campaign, reported a greater sense of empowerment and ownership of their education, and that the school was a more inclusive and accepting place after the campaign. They highlighted that they were more confident that the staff in the schools would be receptive to their needs and that they were more willing to approach a member of staff, and in particular the Social, Personal and Health Education teacher or Guidance Counsellor. BeLonG To has declared May 22nd as #BeLonGToTheFuture day to raise funds to ensure LGBT young people have access to youth support services such as peer support, resilience programmes and suicide/self-harm prevention programmes and to ensure more schools create environments that are fully inclusive, safe and supportive for LGBTI young people. Everyone has a part to play in creating this new culture, a culture that can save young lives. We achieved so much last May but there is still a job to be finished so that all LGBTI people are equal, safe, included and valued across Irish society. Moninne Griffith is Executive Director of BeLonG To By Moninne Griffith

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Planning Tribunal is too kind to itself

    When Mr Justice Feargus Flood – the Planning Tribunal’s original sole member – embarked on his mission for the truth, he was wont to require various parties to provide him with full and frank “narrative statements” to answer the many and varied allegations of wrongdoing made by Mr James Gogarty in an affidavit he had sworn and submitted to the Tribunal. Mr Gogarty was the main agitator for the Tribunal’s establishment in October 1997 but had not sworn his affidavit until 12th October 1998 – a full year later. Upon receipt, Justice Flood circulated it to Mr Gogarty’s various “accuseds” on 20th October 1998 with a demand for responding narrative statements within two weeks and a notification that public hearings into Gogarty’s allegations would commence with Mr Gogarty’s own evidence a week after that. Without understanding the furore that ensued and its backdrop to the contemporaneous decisions that have since become the subject of Supreme Court scrutiny, it would be impossible to understand what has occurred to cause the abandonment of most of Justice Flood’s findings. Certainly none of the Tribunal’s statements issued since January last year have helped such an understanding. The Tribunal’s current members should now make a full and frank narrative statement about what really went on to cause the withdrawal of all bar two of Justice Flood’s Second and Third Report corruption findings. Their recently issued, carefully crafted web statement fails miserably to do so and is disingenuous in the extreme. It advises that the Tribunal has made “alterations” to these reports and that the “so revised” reports are available to download from its website but is short on specifics, long on fudge and very misleading. Firstly, far from making mere alterations to Justice Flood’s two reports, they have been cannibalised. The Second Report (dealing with Ray Burke) has lost nearly 40% of its body weight and fourteen of its sixteen corruption findings and the Third (dealing with George Redmond) is only a shadow of its former self with all corruption findings gone (though one controversially persists in the final report). But how does the statement deal with this? Yes, it advises that all adverse findings have been removed against 11 named individuals but asserts that “adverse findings” remain against Ray Burke, Tom Brennan, Joseph McGowan, John Finnegan, Tim O’Keeffe, Roger Copsey and John Bates. It would have been more forthright to make it clear that only two of Flood’s eight corruption findings against Burke (involving Brennan & McGowan) have survived the cull and that the other adverse findings it lists are merely those of a failure to co-operate with the Tribunal, not findings of corruption at all. And the back story outlined for the Reports’ “alterations” and delays in effecting them is inaccurate, self-serving and, in some cases, demonstrably untrue. For instance, taken at face value, the statement suggests that the reason for the finding withdrawals is that Mr Justice Flood made a bona fide mistake in a ruling he delivered in early 1999 concerning the criteria he would apply in deciding which information he would and would not circulate to those accused by Mr Gogarty. It also states that this ruling was only found unconstitutional in 2005 Supreme Court judgments delivered in a challenge mounted by the Cork developer, Owen O’Callaghan, to the ruling’s continued application by the Tribunal’s current members in a later module. The statement also asserts that none of the parties condemned by Justice Flood’s two reports challenged the decision “either before or in the years immediately following” their publication. Leaving aside the fact that the Tribunal’s collapse has nothing to do with Justice Flood’s public ruling and that nobody knew what he was actually up to, this latter claim is extraordinary in view of proceedings issued by JMSE and George Redmond in 2004 and 2005 respectively. Concerning the JMSE case, the statement’s recital of its significance – that it decided that Justice Flood was also wrong in assuming the power to find parties guilty of the crime of hindering and obstructing him – is accurate as far as it goes. However, a more frank statement would have acknowledged that it was the facts that emerged during those proceedings (and the later Redmond case) about what Justice Flood had done with evidence behind the scenes, and not the O’Callaghan judgments that has done for his reports. The JMSE case revealed that, far from making an innocent mistake, Justice Flood had – according to 2010 Supreme Court judgments in that case – under cover of his 1999 ruling (later condemned in O’Callaghan) “concealed without justification” evidence which was “patently relevant” to his enquiries and, “on one tenable view, explosive”. And as if this is not clear enough, the judgments also repeat the explanation offered to the Supreme Court by counsel representing the Tribunal (including its current members) for this concealment. This gives the lie to the Tribunal’s claim that it was a bona fide error on Justice Flood’s behalf. Justice Adrian Hardiman’s judgment recites that; “He (the Tribunal’s counsel) then referred to the Tribunal’s “need to limit collateral credibility issues: they redacted the documents”. “The need to limit collateral credibility issues” is counsel-speak for an admission that Justice Flood’s purpose was to conceal the fact that Gogarty was, at worst, a serial liar. And this concealment happened at a crucial moment in the Tribunal’s history and remained unknown to any of the other participants who were already up in arms about what they did know of Justice Flood’s plans. It only became known to the JMSE side when, within weeks of its High Court outing and very late in the day, the Tribunal complied with a long overdue order for discovery made against it. Back in 1998, Justice Flood had circulated the Gogarty affidavit within days of its receipt and announced his decision to move immediately to public sittings – taking Gogarty’s evidence first. This was more than unusual as it was established and best practice for tribunals to follow the

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Refugee Reality

    Bullying of a child by staff, unauthorised searches of bags and belongings, infestations of vermin, and rooms with no heating and broken windows … just another day in the life of Ireland’s direct provision system. Copies of letters of complaint by asylum-seekers, all of which were upheld after investigation, paint a grim portrait of life inside the network of former B&Bs, hotels, accommodation centres and caravan parks that almost 5,000 people are now forced to call home. The letters obtained by Village under the Freedom of Information Act are being made public for the first time. However, they represent just a small fraction of the issues within the direct provision system, with asylum-seekers increasingly less likely to engage in a formal complaint mechanism that offered them very little protection or anonymity. At a centre in Dublin, a mother wrote of how her six-year-old son had been bullied by a member of staff at her accommodation centre. “My son has a speech problem”, she said, “and he finds it hard to pronounce words … this has been a worry for me and he gets mocked by his peers but I always assure him that nothing is wrong with him”. The woman described how one evening she had asked her son to get a laundry tablet from a member of staff. “I was walking behind my son and heard the security man … mocking … with the way he speak. This is so humiliating for [a] six-year-old boy and I was so upset and disappointed. I asked why on earth he was doing that to my son and all he could say was ‘I was joking with him’. I noticed then whenever I send [my son to] get things from the office, he is always reluctant as that must have been happening for a while. I find it so offensive for an adult such as [redacted] to bully my six-year-old son because he has a speech problem. It is hard for me to even imagine that would ever happen in this world from a grown man to a little boy”. In a handwritten note on her letter, the incident was described as a “misunderstanding” but the resident’s complaint was upheld. At another centre, a mother wrote to complain of how her child had been physically assaulted by a resident after a row between two kids. “The mother draw [sic] my son upstairs with his ear and his ear was so red and my son was greatly terrified and was so scared to go outside afterwards”, she wrote. “Every child [is] supposed to feel safe in his or her environment, this is the only hostel that some women think they have the right to beat or threaten other people’s children; they have done it to my kids about twice or three times and I have seen them do it to other kids”. In a centre in the Mid-West, a group of residents wrote about repeated gross invasions of their privacy. “The manager get in any room and search our private bags and take our stuff”, they wrote. They explained how CCTV was installed to watch the windows of their room, which were locked so that they would not open more than a centimetre. The residents also described how they were made to sign in daily and, if they did not, a letter was sent to social welfare officers seeking cuts to the tiny weekly payment of €19 that they receive. In response, the Reception and Integration Agency said rooms were checked to ensure there was nothing causing a safety or fire hazard. They said under contract, the accommodation providers were obliged to return a weekly register saying if residents were still there and that unauthorised people were not allowed in rooms. At the same centre, a disabled asylum-seeker had pleaded to be allowed to share a room with his Afghan friends because he needed help in every “aspect of life”. “They treat us the way like we are in prison”, he wrote: “They don’t care about your health, your condition, [and] depression and will make your head burst out and become crazy. Our condition is even worse than prisoners because they have some respect inside the jail but we don’t have that at all”. The complaint was investigated and it was discovered that there were fourteen vacancies at the centre and the request to stay together could easily have been facilitated. Another complaint at that centre was also upheld, about freezing conditions in one of its rooms. The asylum-seeker wrote: “I am sharing a room with two other gentlemen. The room is very small, and I am studying almost full time, and I don’t even have room to put my books in place. There is no heating in the room and the window is broken. It is very cold these nights”. In the West of Ireland, the amount of food being provided had almost caused a “serious fight” between residents and kitchen staff. The letter of complaint explained how residents were asking about some food that was being cooked, only to be told it would not be served until the following day. “The shortage of food in the dining [area] is a recurring event”, a letter said, saying residents were left “starving” and parents left to manage without sufficient food for their children. An investigator’s report said: “I am fully satisfied that the residents had a complaint and were justified in sending it on to the Reception and Integration Agency”. A year later, the problems did not appear to have been resolved and another letter was received about the quality of food. Residents said that some of what they were served was “rotten” and “smelling”. “This is not the first time we are experiencing this problem. The residents have been complaining of taking their children or themselves to the hospital for food poisoning, and no change has been done. We have been served rice that has been rotting for days”, it said.

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Don’t just commit, implement

    So, now we have been promised a “Government working to give every person equality of opportunity in a fair society” in the Programme for Government. Leaving aside the limited ambition as goals of equality of opportunity and fairness, the Programme does contain a raft of equality commitments. There is something for nearly everyone in the audience. Women, people with disabilities, older people, young people, Travellers and carers get substantive mention. Lone parents are less fortunate and get one commitment on income disregards. Refugees and asylum-seekers are least evident with a vague promise to promote integration, but no indication of how this is to be done, and one to reform Direct Provision, but only for its negative impact on family life. The equality infrastructure is what sustains the commitment to such promises. It includes the policy processes, policy plans, institutions, and legislation that drives their implementation. It is useful to assess how the Programme commits to the further strengthening of this equality infrastructure. This strengthening is needed given its rather tattered post-economic-crisis state. The Programme has a dramatic commitment to “develop the process of budget and policy proofing as a means of advancing equality, reducing poverty and strengthening economic and social rights”. If properly implemented this has great potential. It is to be the responsibility of the Budget and Finance Committee with the involvement of a new independent fiscal and budget office and Government departments and with support from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC). There is, however, no mention of the statutory duty on public bodies to have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, promote equality of opportunity, and protect human rights. This has been in place since late 2014. No Government department has implemented it and no guidance has been provided by IHREC on its implementation. It would have been more convincing to commit to developing the institutional arrangements for implementing this statutory duty alongside the new budget-proofing process. Policy plans are valuable in establishing strategies to address the inequalities experienced by different groups and sustaining a focus on these. There is a plethora of policy plans promised: new National Women’s Strategy; new National Disability Inclusion Strategy; existing Comprehensive Employment Strategy for People with Disabilities; new National Traveller and Roma Inclusion Strategy; and new Action Plan for Educational Inclusion. There are further commitments to implement the 2012 Carers Strategy, develop a LGBT youth strategy, and pursue an integrated plan across Government Departments to reduce poverty, disadvantage and inequality. The issue with plans, though, is implementation. The development of such plans tends to be the responsibility of the Department of Justice and Equality. Their implementation tends to be the responsibility of a wide range of other less enthusiastic Government departments and agencies. Implementation of ambitious plans can get reduced to diverse projects supported by some Department of Justice and Equality funding. While the projects are valuable, this diminishes the potential of policy plans. The Programme makes no mention of how implementation of these policy plans is to be driven and ensured. Constant planning in a context of limited action and change rapidly gets disheartening. The only statutory institution for equality mentioned is the National Disability Authority. There is a vague commitment to review its role. This must be ambitious if this agency is to emerge from the shadows of uselessness. On a time-limited basis, but nonetheless valuable, a special working group is promised to audit the current delivery and implementation of local authority Traveller accommodation plans, and a taskforce is promised to promote implementation of personalised budgets for people with disabilities. The community and voluntary sector gets significant mention, but only for its provision of “the human, social and community services in all key areas of our national life” and its contribution “to the economy” and for creating “value for Irish society”. This passes over the central contribution of this sector in advancing the interests, and giving a platform to the voice, of communities experiencing inequality. Its value should be identified in terms of our democracy rather than our economy. Increased funding levels are promised to the sector. However, funding models are to focus on “quality, effectiveness and efficiency” rather than on advancing equality, rights, or social justice. The promise is further compromised by an emphasis on commissioning for services, a process that commodifies or marketises these services and turns community groups into commercial entities. Legislation gets hardly a mention. There is a strange commitment to refer the proposal of the Constitutional Convention to incorporate economic, social and cultural rights into the Constitution, for consideration by the Oireachtas Committee on Housing; and a vague promise to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. By Niall Crowley

    Loading

    Read more