Archives

OK

Random entry RSS

Loading

  • Posted in:

    Imprison fewer women

    by

    by Ivana Bacik Women are a tiny minority in prisons and a particularly marginalised and vulnerable group. On average, only about 3-4% of those in prison are women. While prison numbers in Ireland generally have stabilised and even reduced in recent years, there have been increasing numbers of women committed to prison. There was an increase of 13% in 2012 over 2011. Between 2005 and 2010, there was a dramatic 87% increase in the number of women committed to prison. A large number of women are committed for short-term sentences arising out of non-violent offences. However, even short periods of imprisonment have a severe impact on these women and on their children and families. The Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT) has pointed out the notable recent increase in female committals and the need for urgent action, given persistent overcrowding in Ireland’s two women prisons. There is no open or semi-open prison for women in Ireland. All those imprisoned, even for minor offences or non-payment of fines, are sent to either the Dóchas Centre in Dublin or Limerick Prison. While Dóchas is a relatively new prison, designed to facilitate rehabilitation, the conditions in Limerick are particularly poor, and in serious need of modernisation. It comprises part of the capital plan in the Irish Prison Service’s Three Year Strategic Plan 2012-2015. Overcrowded conditions prevent effective rehabilitation, even in the Dóchas Centre. On one recent date, there were 141 women in the Dóchas Centre, which has a capacity of 105. In Limerick prison, where conditions are outdated and completely inadequate, there were 33 women detained in a space designed for 24. Because women only make up a small minority of the prison population, conditions in women’s prisons tend to be overlooked in the formation and application of penal policy. That is why a document launched jointly by the Probation Service and the Irish Prison Service in March 2014 was so welcome. Their Strategy for 2014-16, entitled ‘An Effective Response to Women who Offend’ sets out how the two agencies will work together with other statutory, community and voluntary sector partners to reduce offending and imprisonment rates among women. The Strategy recognises that most women who offend pose a low risk to society but, generally, have a high level of need. Both services have now committed to developing a gender-informed approach to working with women offenders in custody and in the community. This approach is to be informed by evidence and best practice. The services will develop a range of options to provide an effective alternative to custody and improved outcomes, for women; and enhanced integration for women offenders in the community. The launch of this Strategy was welcomed by the IPRT. It is notable that many of the actions outlined in the Strategy reflect recommendations made in the IPRT’s own December 2013 Position Paper, ‘Women in the Criminal Justice System – Towards a non-custodial approach’. The IPRT Position Paper, and the new Strategy recognise that a number of key steps can be taken to improve conditions for women in prison. The imprisonment of women must only be used as a last resort, when all other alternatives are deemed unsuitable. A review should be conducted of sentencing practices that currently result in many women receiving short custodial sentences for non-violent crimes. There should be greater use of alternatives to custody. An open prison should be provided for women. Increased support services in the community are needed to address the complex needs of many women offenders (including mental health issues and alcohol or drug addictions), and enable them to maintain links with their children and families. It is regrettable that, at a time when a welcome reduction is evident in the numbers of people sent to prison in Ireland each year, we are seeing increasing numbers of women sentenced to custody. However, the commitments made in the new Strategy, once implemented, will contribute to a more progressive penal policy, and should greatly enhance the prospects of rehabilitation and re-integration for women offenders within the criminal justice system. •

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    On the Irish Times and the Israeli lobby

    by

    Dear Editor I would like to draw your attention to an intriguing piece of editing in the Irish Times. It concerns the (excellent) dispatch from their US correspondent Simon Carswell (Thursday 31st July) regarding the influence of the ‘Israel Lobby’ on US Foreign Policy which included a reference to John Mearsheimer’s and Stephen Walt’s 2007 book ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’. A particular point I wanted to highlight to the Irish Times was that the book emphasises that not only does the Israeli lobby not command the loyalty of all of the Jewish community but even more significantly it is critically dependent on unstinting support from the ‘Christian Right’, along with associated neo-conservative etc. elements. This broad-based support from conservative Christians, across the spectrum from ‘End-Timer’ fundamentalists to more moderate Evangelical churches is increasingly clear and was acknowledged for example in Montefiore’s ‘Jerusalem the Biography’ (2011) which demonstrates its 19th century origins. However when I went on-line to check any links from the article to the book I discovered that not only was there no link, but that the two paragraphs dealing with Mearsheimer that appeared in the print version had been deleted! The printed version noted: “America’s unshakeable bond with Israel damages US interests but the power of the lobby weakens Obama’s ability to respond more aggressively, said John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago politics professor, who co-authored a 2007 book with Stephen Walt, called ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’: ‘Because the lobby is so powerful, and in this system where interest groups punch above their weight, you have a situation where any president is incapacitated when it comes to playing hardball with Israel’, he said”. But this was not included in the online version. The online version also replaced the final sub-heading “Israeli Lobby” with “Images of Casualties” and inserted the following text below this: “The circulating of images of civilian casualties in Gaza on social media may in part explain the sympathies of the American youth”. So in addition to expunging the paragraph quoting Mearsheimer on the power of the Israeli lobby, the suggestion is added that the reason for the less pro-Israeli sentiments of the US youth might be due to their exposure to on-line images! Having absorbed all this I figured it would most likely be a fruitless exercise trying to get a comment on this onto the Times’ own letters page. I conclude by saying that my motive in writing this does not come from any anti-Israel paranoia on my part. But I’m convinced that if there is to be a sustainable peace in Palestine-Israel it will be essential for Israel, and indeed those in the media who are well disposed to it, to confront its own fundamentalist roots and colonial origins and develop a much more humble, generous and proactive approach to its dealings with the Palestinians. Yours faithfully Peter Walsh, Heathervue, Greystones, Co. Wicklow

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    On ignoring access considered essential for integration of the DIT with the local community

    by

    Dear Editor, I want to draw your attention to a blatant breach of a decision made by An Bord Pleanála regarding the new Dublin Institute of Technology Campus at Grangegorman. (Ref: 29Z. ZD. 2005) on 10th May 2012. Pages 2 and 3 of the Board’s Direction (SZD2005.pdf) state: “High quality, prominent accesses are required on the eastern and western boundaries of the new Quarter, at Constitution Hill and Prussia Street. These accesses are necessary to ensure that the new Quarter integrates successfully into the existing community, to waymark the campus, to provide permeability through the site and to ease undue pressure on the existing circulation network in the area. These accesses are considered essential to the successful implementation of the planning scheme. The opening up of these accesses prior to the occupation of the facilities by the DIT students is a prerequisite of the planning scheme. Reason for modification: It is considered that the provision of a high quality access to the SDZ lands from the west is essential to the integration of the SDZ lands with the local community, as expressed in the Masterplan …” Despite the clear direction by An Bord Pleanála, the Grangegorman Development Agency (GDA) have informed us that they intend to have the first 1,000 students relocate to Grangegorman in September 2014 without the access routes from Broadstone or Prussia Street in place. They have also claimed at various stages that this decision was with the consent of Dublin City Council (DCC) and An Bord Pleanala. Although, they have retracted the claim with respect to An Bord Pleanala subsequently. Yours faithfully Pirooz Daneshmandi, Grangegorman Residents Alliance, Rathdown Road, Dublin 7

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    All changed…

    by

    By John Gormley. Was it a mere co-incidence that the election of Paul Murphy took place at the same time as the biggest ever anti-water charge demonstration; or was it just a case of Jungian synchronicity? Jung’s theory on the ‘collective unconscious’ can sometimes be a better guide to understanding history than a description of events. How does the historian analyse a mood at a particular time? It’s still difficult, for example, to understand what was happening in the German psyche in 1933/34 when democracy was abandoned. Now, I’m not for a moment comparing the anti-water charge protests with the end of the Weimar Republic and subsequent events. But on Saturday the 10th of October, something very significant happened, a mood change that is hard to define. It was as if the vacuum – the gap between the rhetoric of economic recovery and harsh reality of people’s lives – was filled by an air of outright defiance. And it was those most in touch with this feeling who triumphed in the by-elections. The more nuanced anti-water charge message of Sinn Féin was swept aside by the visceral soundbites of the Anti-Austerity Alliance/Socialist Party: ‘Axe the tax’ and ‘can’t pay, won’t pay.’ No complex neurotransmission required there, but that’s the essence of good communication, and the newly elected Paul Murphy is, if nothing else, an excellent communicator. As one of the most effective MEPs, Murphy was very unlucky to lose his seat in the European elections. The publicity he garnered on that campaign stood him in good stead for the by-election in Dublin South West. He now joins his comrades, Higgins and Coppinger to form a solid trio of political predators who will mercilessly hunt down any Labour Party stragglers. Just watch as the Labour Party herd is thrown into confusion. It’s unlikely that Joan Burton, who is now seen as the bête noire by protestors after her insulting gaffe about smartphones, can provide them with any extra protection. Those within Labour who believe that her personal popularity can help save seats are badly mistaken. It may not even be enough to save her own seat. Certainly, there was no sign of the ‘Burton bounce’ in Dublin South West with the party vote declining from 36 per cent to a mere 8 per cent. It does not augur well for the General Election in 12 months time (my prediction). Murphy will be re-elected and Labour lose both seats here. Again, the political cognoscenti will tell you that these by-election results are nothing but an aberration and that people, when push comes to shove, will revert to sensible voting patterns. But why would they do that? Right now with the mood veering from indifference and desperation to anger and defiance, the disenfranchised feel they have absolutely nothing left to lose. Being told to vote responsibly is likely to goad them into a further radical response. They have had their fill of being patronised. Socialist Party Party leader, Joe Higgins, knows better than anyone the galvanising effect of the water-charges issue. The water-charges campaign not only helped to get him elected in 1997, but also forced the Labour Party into a climbdown on the issue in 1996. The same pattern is about to re-emerge. The election of Murphy will force the Shinners into adopting a much more hard-line approach, if they are not to be outflanked on the left. This in turn will exert enormous pressure on Labour Party rank and file, who will let their individual TDs know that they can’t take any more. It would be interesting to know how many of those who marched on 10th October voted for Labour the last time. The rebate concessions on the water charges made in the budget are unlikely to satisfy people who now feel that they have the Government on the run. This demonstration was not a one-off. The next one in November could be bigger, increasing the pressure on beleaguered backbenchers. Those protestors who have talked to Joe Duffy on ‘Liveline’ have spoken about their sense of ‘empowerment’, ‘solidarity’ and even ‘elation’, feelings that they haven’t felt for quite some time, least of all in their contemplations on the Labour Party.  Now that they can sense victory, they won’t give up easily. They know that the water charge is not primarily about water conservation but about increasing the profits of Irish Water, a company that will be privatised in the future. If Labour really want to win back some credibility on this issue, they ought to give consideration to the proposal made by the Greens. Éamon Ryan has suggested inserting a clause in our Constitution to prevent our water resources falling into private hands. Joan Burton, if she has any survival instincts left, should ask Máire Whelan, the Attorney General to start drafting a suitable amendment immediately. The referendum could be held on the same day as the Marriage Equality vote. It could be a double victory for the Labour Party. Just a thought, spared for the Labour Party. • published in Village Magazine, Oct 2014

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Labour should seek repeal of Eighth amendment.

    by

    By Ivana Bacik. This summer we saw yet again the tragic consequences of the Eighth Amendment. In the Ms Y case, a young rape victim, an asylum seeker with a crisis pregnancy, was denied the abortion she sought, and ultimately forced to endure invasive medical procedures against her will. She had sought an abortion early in her pregnancy but was unable to travel abroad for one. She became suicidal, but it appears that her pregnancy was only diagnosed formally as posing a risk to her life too late for an abortion to be performed. Instead, the baby was delivered by C-section at about 25 weeks. Not all the circumstances are clear, and the HSE is currently reviewing the case. However, it is manifest that this appalling case is a direct consequence of the 1983 Eighth Amendment. That amendment enshrined Article 40.3.3 in our Constitution, giving equal rights to life to both “mother” and “unborn”. In the 1992 X case the Supreme Court interpreted this Article to mean that a rape victim was entitled to an abortion only where the pregnancy posed a “real and substantial” risk to her life. Abortion is thus only lawful in Ireland where a pregnancy poses a risk to the life of a woman, and not on any other ground; not rape, nor risk to a woman’s health, not even fatal foetal abnormality. Our law portrays women as vessels, forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. But that’s not the reality for most women in hypocritical Ireland. In 1992 we amended Article 40.3.3 to allow the right to travel for abortion. So we have a two-tier regime. Women who can travel abroad to terminate their pregnancies do so in their thousands every year. Last year 3,679 Irish women had abortions in British clinics. Since 1983, more than 150,000 women have made that journey. We may have the most restrictive law on abortion in Europe, but the Irish abortion rate is comparable with that of every other EU country. Abortion is only denied to vulnerable women unable to travel due to poverty or legal status – like Ms Y. The adoption of Article 40.3.3 has not prevented one crisis pregnancy. Yet legal change – even legislation to implement the X case – has been resisted by the powerful anti-choice lobby for decades. The Labour Party had promised this legislation and the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was finally introduced at our initiative last year. The debate on the legislation was overshadowed by public outrage at the tragic death in October 2012 of Savita Halappanavar, which highlighted the urgent need to provide clarity on the carrying out of life-saving abortions. The Act does this but deals only with the most extreme cases, involving risk to a woman’s life. This is due to the restrictive wording of the Eight Amendment, which has effectively tied the hands of the Oireachtas for 31 years. It is our duty now as legislators to address the health needs of women by holding a referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment. Only then can we introduce the compassionate legislation that is the norm throughout the EU, in which abortion is made available on a range of grounds up to specified time limits within pregnancy. There is clear public support for this. The silent majority are well ahead of politicians on this issue, despite the strident “pro-life” lobbyists. Labour has long taken liberal stances on social issues. In line with this tradition, I believe that Labour should now seek political agreement for a referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment within the remaining term of this Government. If Fine Gael do not agree to this, then a consultative group should be convened to recommend how to achieve the necessary Constitutional change. A referendum could be held early in the term of the next Government, if a responsible political consensus could be built on such a recommendation. As we learn the distressing facts about Ms Y’s case, one thing is clear: if we do not change the law, we will see more tragic cases. Only repeal of the Eighth Amendment will enable us to enact an abortion law that meets the real health needs of women in Ireland. •

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Wicklow Council Consultant sought tender for clean-up of illegal waste.

    by

      By Frank Connolly.   The multi-million scandal surrounding the illegal dumping of waste in county Wicklow is another legacy left to the new environment minister, Alan Kelly, by his predecessor, Phil Hogan and another reason why the latter’s proposed elevation to the post of European Commissioner has been questioned. In October last, Nessa Childers, MEP wrote a letter of complaint to then EU environment commissioner Janez Potocnik detailing the history of illegality, incompetence and downright dishonesty with which a succession of state agencies and private waste companies have dealt with the massive dumping of hazardous hospital, commercial and domestic waste in the ‘Garden County’ which first came into the media spotlight as long ago as 2001. In particular, she referred to the illegal landfill site at Whitestown, County Wicklow, where an estimated  million tonnes of illegal waste is located and which requires urgent remediation due to the environmental threat it poses to a local waterway that runs into the river Slaney – and to salmon-spawning and otter habitats. Childers pointed out that the failure of Wicklow County Council and the Department of the Environment to clean up the site is in breach of a judgment of the European Court of Justice in 2005 which specifically ordered immediate remediation action. The remediation has been delayed due to an extraordinary sequence of events which were revealed in a High Court action taken by Wicklow County Council against a number of parties it claimed was responsible for the illegal dumping. The Council was seeking to get damages off the polluters in order to raise the necessary cost of remediation which was estimated to be in the tens of millions by the local authority. During hearings of the case in July 2009, it emerged that an authorised officer of the Council, Donal O’Laoire, had been employed to identify the nature and source of pollution at the landfill in 2001 but had then sought to secure a contract worth in excess of €30 million to clean it up. The court heard that O’Laoire had discussed the plan with County Manager Eddie Sheehy  and County Head of Services Michael Nicholson during 2002.  But it later came unstuck when he failed to obtain the necessary lease or other interest in the landfill which would allow his company to apply for a licence from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In late 2002, the landowner John O’Reilly, refused a lease offer of €100,000 per year from O’Laoire’s company, Environmental Remediation Ltd. It emerged later that O’Laoire sought to do a deal with O’Reilly to lease the land while he was also investigating the landowner in respect of criminal charges related to illegal dumping. O’Reilly was subsequently charged and convicted along with other illegal dumpers. O’Reilly instead agreed to sell the entire site to Brownfield Restoration for a sum believed to be in the region of €2 million. Brownfield then successfully obtained a licence, more restrictive than it sought, from the EPA but was obstructed from commencing remediation work and from developing its planned waste facility. Transcripts of the High Court case which was adjourned in late 2011 following the dramatic intervention by the Minister for the Environment, Phil Hogan and his officials, who promised to provide the council with the 50m remediation costs, have revealed an extraordinary series of questionable actions by Council officers, according to local representatives and Ms Childers. Before the adjournment of the case the court had heard of alleged conflicts of interest involving O’Laoire and his company and an allegation that he was in contempt of court for breaching an order of the judge not to discuss the evidence of other witnesses, including that of County Manager Sheehy, before his own cross-examination by council for the defendants. O’Laoire was a leading witness for the Council. Instead, the court heard that O’Laoire had obtained transcripts of Sheehy’s evidence from the office of the law agent (solicitor) of the council and had discussed issues central to his cross-examination with another senior council official and members of its legal team before he entered the witness box in July 2009. It also emerged during the action that O’Laoire had helped prepare the Council’s objection to the application by Brownfield for an EPA licence even though he had himself sought to secure the contract and licence for the remediation work only months earlier. Furthermore he had been chief witness in the criminal cases taken by the Council against a number of those responsible for dumping illegal waste at Whitestown and other sites in Wicklow before the High Court action for damages took place. It also emerged that O’Laoire had failed to disclose the illegal dumping by the Council itself at Whitestown over a number of months, dumping which he had been employed to investigate. A former member of the Irish defence forces, O’Laoire was described by lawyers for the council as incommunicado when the case resumed in late 2011. The Minister’s intervention on that day when lawyers for Wicklow County Council said that it had agreed to undertake the remediation of the site with funding provided by the Department, meant that the court never heard even more serious allegations of corruption which the owner of Brownfield Restoration had made to the Garda during its lengthy investigation into the illegal dumping and which were to be introduced by his senior counsel, Ian Finlay, during the proceedings. In her complaint to the EU Commission, Nessa Childers stated that “a major contributor to the inordinate delay enforcing remedial action from the landowner and illegal dumpers was the behaviour of the County Council’s authorised officer appointed in 2001 who was responsible for the investigation of this site; in that the authorised officer sought to profit personally from the remediation by setting up his own remediation company and sought to have the site leased from the owner who he was responsible for investigating, to this company”. ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— The illegal dumping was first disclosed by independent Baltinglass Councillor, Tommy Cullen, in the chamber of

    Loading

    Read more