• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

State papers: Legal concerns expressed over effects of Pro Life Amendment


borntorum

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
12,805
It's slightly ironic, given the current situation, that the new release of State papers illustrates concerns held by two Attorneys General in 1982 over the possible implications of the Pro Life Amendment.

This was despite the government being warned by attorney general Patrick Connolly SC that a “pro-life” amendment “might well have the effect of threatening the right of the mother” to have a life-saving operation.


Foreseeing some of the problems thrown up by the 1992 X case, Mr Connolly noted that, “whatever my personal views be”, a rape victim could not be exempted from any constitutional prohibition.


Nor, “in the current climate of what it is sought to achieve”, could the amendment exempt abortion where the mental health of a woman was at serious risk.
His successor, John Murray, did not think the proposed wording would diminish the rights of the mother - instead, he warned that making the right to life of the unborn subject to the right to life of the mother could "open the door" to abortion unless the courts interpreted the wording narrowly.
And it subsequently transpired that both of these predictions have been proven correct. It is surely obvious that the Pro Life Amendment was disastrous, from whichever way it is looked at. It's now clear that the Haughey government was aware of the risks, but pushed on regardless.

Abortion referendum wording was seen as 'time bomb' - The Irish Times - Fri, Dec 28, 2012

State papers reveal pro-life amendment concerns - RTÉ News
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
Irish Attorney Generals are timid beasts, are they not? They can be circumvented, hectored very easily into a pained silence, persuaded of political reasons to be circumspect with a legal analysis by the government of the given day... then again that is not a situation confined to Irish Attorney Generals.

I remember the hideousness of the furore over the UK Attorney General and whether the government there had a legal basis to attack Iraq.

One wonders whether Attorney General is more of a government PR position than any real effort at checks and balances in a democracy because as far as I can see they have a funny habit and not just in Ireland of muttering an analysis through their moustaches and spending the rest of their careers trying to avoid cogent questions about their mutterings.

Who was the Attorney General in '82 and is he safely ensconced like O'Leary in the grave now?
 

Andrew49

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
6,046
Twitter
AndrewSB49
Irish Attorney Generals are timid beasts, are they not? They can be circumvented, hectored very easily into a pained silence, persuaded of political reasons to be circumspect with a legal analysis by the government of the given day... then again that is not a situation confined to Irish Attorney Generals.

I remember the hideousness of the furore over the UK Attorney General and whether the government there had a legal basis to attack Iraq.

One wonders whether Attorney General is more of a government PR position than any real effort at checks and balances in a democracy because as far as I can see they have a funny habit and not just in Ireland of muttering an analysis through their moustaches and spending the rest of their careers trying to avoid cogent questions about their mutterings.

Who was the Attorney General in '82 and is he safely ensconced like O'Leary in the grave now?
Attorneys General 1982

Patrick Connolly 10 March 1982 - 16 August 1982
John L. Murray 17 August 1982 - 14 December 1982
Peter Sutherland 15 December 1982 - 12 December 1984
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
Thanks Andrew- the full horror of that fat court eunuch for the money interest Peter Sutherland has just returned. I may postpone breakfast for a while.

It is a weird position- apparently powerless as that church-owned humunculus Michael Woods proved when he dismissed any concerns the AG might have had in doing a bent deal with the Bishops on their clerical abuse bill... something which the AG of the time could, it appears, only flap his arms in alarm on Stephen's Green about like some kind of overly polite heron with its fish stolen.

One of those strange pointy jobs in a Republic where the wine is good and dinners plentiful and yet when called upon to perform any useful act in a democracy suddenly produces the most awful stage fright in the trussed up grandee who holds the position.

You can see how fake the supposed checks and balances are in a democracy by simply reading an account of the awkward gaps by what AGs rule to be the case in public at any breathless moment in the Republic and the amount of time later they spend studiously attempting to avoid explaining why they came to a decision- or why they didn't.

As a function of democracy it seems to be the Red Headed Child of the Republic, that particular station.
 

borntorum

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
12,805
Thanks Andrew- the full horror of that fat court eunuch for the money interest Peter Sutherland has just returned. I may postpone breakfast for a while.

It is a weird position- apparently powerless as that church-owned humunculus Michael Woods proved when he dismissed any concerns the AG might have had in doing a bent deal with the Bishops on their clerical abuse bill... something which the AG of the time could, it appears, only flap his arms in alarm on Stephen's Green about like some kind of overly polite heron with its fish stolen.

One of those strange pointy jobs in a Republic where the wine is good and dinners plentiful and yet when called upon to perform any useful act in a democracy suddenly produces the most awful stage fright in the trussed up grandee who holds the position.

You can see how fake the supposed checks and balances are in a democracy by simply reading an account of the awkward gaps by what AGs rule to be the case in public at any breathless moment in the Republic and the amount of time later they spend studiously attempting to avoid explaining why they came to a decision- or why they didn't.

As a function of democracy it seems to be the Red Headed Child of the Republic, that particular station.
You don't seem to understand the role of Attorney General. He/she is legal advisor to the government. S/he is not a 'check' on the rest of the cabinet. Like any other legal advisor, the client (I.e. government) is free to reject the AG's advice
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
I didn't suggest he or she should be a 'check on the cabinet'. Taoisigh never have any problem checking an Irish cabinet- that is a matter of pork barrelling some and threatening others so no Attorney General needed.

We must be in some state if the lawyers of the Irish Government (and they usually are where they aren't teachers) require lawyers to advise them.

I believe the AG has a role in informing the Govt whether what they are doing or their reaction to any situation is within the law under the constitution as far as I understand it and in Ireland as elsewhere that is likely to produce a troubled digestion in any such officeholder.
 

borntorum

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
12,805
There's lots more interesting details on the Irish Times website about this topic, but I don't want to risk infringing copyright by putting them all up here. However, the following is also somewhat ironic:

Enda Kenny made repeated representations on behalf of constituents in 1981 and 1982 seeking to expedite the introduction of the “pro-life” amendment to the Constitution.
Newly released correspondence shows Kenny was prominent among TDs in writing to the Department of the Taoiseach on the issue.
Kenny made repeated inquiries on referendum - The Irish Times - Fri, Dec 28, 2012
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
Hardly surprising in fairness. These people are basically ciphers for the mood of the day among their constituents so at the present day he'll be just as busy trying to expedite a way to legislate for the 'X' case.

The formula being to attempt to minimise any vote loss either back in 1982 or now.
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
26,196
As we still don't (thank God) have Abortion on demand in this Country

- then it must be said that from the perspective of the Pro Life campaigners

- the result of the Amendment was a success!:cool:
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
As we still don't (thank God) have Abortion on demand in this Country

- then it must be said that from the perspective of the Pro Life campaigners

- the result of the Amendment was a success!:cool:
Point of order- in fact we do. Only these days it involves airmiles to the UK rather than some down-at-heel medico in a grimy backstreet in Dublin. We always have had abortion on demand in Ireland whether that be the demand for the backstreet abortionist or the flight schedule to Manchester.

The decision is and always has been made in Ireland either way.
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
26,196
You don't seem to understand the role of Attorney General. He/she is legal advisor to the government. S/he is not a 'check' on the rest of the cabinet. Like any other legal advisor, the client (I.e. government) is free to reject the AG's advice
There is a lot about Ireland that Lamp does not understand!:p
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
There is a lot about Ireland that Lamp does not understand!:p
Happily that which I do not understand I am happy to research. Which beats waiting for an angel to blow 'knowledge' in my ear. I can also spot a charlatan a fair way off. On the subject of history or 'ethics'.
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
26,196
Point of order- in fact we do. Only these days it involves airmiles to the UK rather than some down-at-heel medico in a grimy backstreet in Dublin. We always have had abortion on demand in Ireland whether that be the demand for the backstreet abortionist or the flight schedule to Manchester.

The decision is and always has been made in Ireland either way.
Abortion involves the Destruction of a Human Life

Unless a woman has been raped or the foetus is severely malformed then I can see no real moral justification for it

As contraceptives are now freely available the length and breadth of the Country getting oneself pregnant can only be described as irresponsible stupidity

- if you are not in a position to give a child the care and attention it needs...
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
Abortion involves the Destruction of a Human Life

Unless a woman has been raped or the foetus is severely malformed then I can see no real moral justification for it

As contraceptives are now freely available the length and breadth of the Country getting oneself pregnant can only be described as irresponsible stupidity

- if you are not in a position to give a child the care and attention it needs...
... sell it to a nun who will mark it up and retail it elsewhere?
 

Andrew49

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
6,046
Twitter
AndrewSB49
A fetus is not a person.

And the taking of life in certain circumstances has been sanctioned by archbishop Diarmuid Martin when he said that if he found out his nieces or nephews were being abused he would kill the abuser.
 

Researchwill

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
4,779
Thanks Andrew- the full horror of that fat court eunuch for the money interest Peter Sutherland has just returned. I may postpone breakfast for a while.

It is a weird position- apparently powerless as that church-owned humunculus Michael Woods proved when he dismissed any concerns the AG might have had in doing a bent deal with the Bishops on their clerical abuse bill... something which the AG of the time could, it appears, only flap his arms in alarm on Stephen's Green about like some kind of overly polite heron with its fish stolen.

One of those strange pointy jobs in a Republic where the wine is good and dinners plentiful and yet when called upon to perform any useful act in a democracy suddenly produces the most awful stage fright in the trussed up grandee who holds the position.

You can see how fake the supposed checks and balances are in a democracy by simply reading an account of the awkward gaps by what AGs rule to be the case in public at any breathless moment in the Republic and the amount of time later they spend studiously attempting to avoid explaining why they came to a decision- or why they didn't.

As a function of democracy it seems to be the Red Headed Child of the Republic, that particular station.
The AG has many functions in Government, and in this case they did their jobs very well, they advised of the pitfalls in the wording. They proved to be right, the Cabinet of the day decided to ignore the AG as they may if they wish. If I remember correctly many lawyers at the time advised that the wording was going to cause problems.

The AG also sits in cabinet so is not as free as any ordinary citizen to speak his mind in public.
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
The AG has many functions in Government, and in this case they did their jobs very well, they advised of the pitfalls in the wording. They proved to be right, the Cabinet of the day decided to ignore the AG as they may if they wish. If I remember correctly many lawyers at the time advised that the wording was going to cause problems.

The AG also sits in cabinet so is not as free as any ordinary citizen to speak his mind in public.
Well if the AG's advice is so politically neutral why isn't it published in full? I am amused by the pointing out that the AG being in the cabinet 'is not free to speak his mind' and it brings to memory the reasoning for the proposed covered walkway at a cost of some millions so that Ireland's important officials didn't have to carry folders out in public and inavertantly give away details of our nuclear deterrent to a quickthinking photographer with an eye on the folders under their oxters.

Are we saying that the Attorney General of Ireland is not free in a Republic and supposed democracy to publish his advice to government?

Why? Do they regularly at cabinet discuss invading Canada or something? The pompousness of official Ireland has always amused me hugely. You'd think it was NATO they were administering rather than potholes and pork barrels.
 

bye bye mubarak

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
3,454
Abortion involves the Destruction of a Human Life

Unless a woman has been raped or the foetus is severely malformed then I can see no real moral justification for it

As contraceptives are now freely available the length and breadth of the Country getting oneself pregnant can only be described as irresponsible stupidity

- if you are not in a position to give a child the care and attention it needs...
 

bye bye mubarak

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
3,454
Abortion involves the Destruction of a Human Life

Unless a woman has been raped or the foetus is severely malformed then I can see no real moral justification for it

As contraceptives are now freely available the length and breadth of the Country getting oneself pregnant can only be described as irresponsible stupidity

- if you are not in a position to give a child the care and attention it needs...
Glad to see you agree with the right tp an abortion in certain circumstances, even outside the x case. But woulr you not extend your support to abortion where the woman's life is endangered
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
The implications of this Attorney General creature being trapped in a gilded cage at the end of the cabinet table is amusing me.

If the AG is a part of the cabinet then are the AGs changed when the government or constitution of the cabinet changes, for example at a General Election?

Or is the AG some kind of free floating nabob who sits at an ever changing cabinet table down the years dispensing legal advice to all comers and yet only announcing that advice on the release of state papers twenty years after they have gone to the Great Fourcourts in the Sky?

How would a member of the cabinet being inherited at the table by an incoming Taoiseach match up against the constitutional observation that no Taoiseach should be bound by the political decisions of a predecessor?
 
Top