reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @IrishInquiry
reSee.it AI Summary
A judge in Ireland reduced the sentence of a migrant rapist due to "additional hardship" caused by being away from family. This leniency towards foreign rapists is a recurring issue, which could be solved by deporting them. In contrast, a citizen journalist, Philip Dwyer, is facing consequences for his peaceful activities and was unlawfully arrested. The state's heavy-handed approach towards citizen journalists raises questions about their intentions. Meanwhile, sexual assault cases involving migrants continue to rise, with perpetrators often unknown to the victims. The government's actions and silencing tactics are seen as hostile and authoritarian.
@IrishInquiry - TheIrishInquiry
CITIZEN JOURNALIST MUST "LIVE WITH CONSEQUENCES"...BUT MIGRANT RAPIST GETS TWO YEAR REDUCTION IN SENTENCING DUE TO "ADDITIONAL HARDSHIP" By Susanne Delaney Five days ago, Geoffrey Kumah, 27 from Ghana (described as "a Clare resident") was sentenced for the rape of a 17-year-old at an Irish accommodation centre. When the victim texted him afterwards, he replied he "wouldn't do it next time." Judge Justice McGrath stated there were aggravating factors including Kumah failing to heed several vocalisations of "no". Despite this, the judge removed 18 months from the sentence and suspended the final six months. He did so because it would be harder for Kumah, in the judge's view, to serve a sentence without family present in the country, and this would cause him "additional hardship." When he says "additional" it is unclear what is meant. Quite frankly who cares about the "hardship" a rapist caused to themselves? Shouldn't hardship be a consequence of rape? This is one Judge in a long list who has given undue leniency to foreign rapists who should be deported... which would also solve the problem of not having family here. It was also reported in court that Kumah is with a woman who claims he is a good father figure to her child (which is supposed to point to his good character, as do his "church activities"). This rapist should be nowhere near children, and yet in this case his proximity to a child was used to curry favour. Elsewhere this week, Judge Dermot Dempsey said of Philip Dwyer's peaceful, lawful activities, "He can live with the consequences" of his journalism. It appears from footage that @PhilipDwyer_MOI was unlawfully arrested by Garda inspector Alan McDevitt who told him “You’re a prisoner now" (this Guard also unjustifiably battered Dwyer's legs with a baton in November 2023). Judge Dempsey stated in court that if Dwyer contravenes his bail conditions, he will face custody. Presumably part of those bail conditions involves not attending and filming any protest at Coolock. But if the riot police are acting within the law, then why would they not want to be filmed and reported upon? Why is the state seeking to heavy handedly prevent citizen journalists from reporting? Meanwhile they're giving male migrants the message that sexual offences will be dealt with leniently. Why? And all the while more and more of these sexual assault cases are coming before the courts. Victims are invariably young women or young teens and are often unknown to the perpetrators. Yesterday a man was before the court for sexually assaulting a young woman despite having arrived in Ireland 5 days previously. The Algerian man had already committed a string of offences in the 12 months he lived in the UK. Under the Dublin regulation he shouldn't even be here so why wasn't he sent home? Instead, he will be let out within 2 years, free to offend again. Nonetheless, we're told repeatedly that we are racist, and our concerns are unfounded, as the government continues to forcibly put these large groupings of illegal males into our working-class communities while silencing the locals with brutal force. Force that they're endeavouring to hide by using the courts and the threat of jail to silence those who are brave enough to report upon it. The actions of the state are increasingly undeniably hostile and authoritarian. They're using our own police force in a sinister, calculated and strategic manner against natives, in order to facilitate an agenda which appears to WANT to put our communities in clear and present danger. If anyone else can offer me a believable, cogent, innocent alternative explanation for what's happening (other than the "humanitarian duty" larping) then please do. The peace of mind would be most welcome in the increasingly nightmarish reality that's unfolding before our eyes.
@IrishInquiry - TheIrishInquiry
THREE MORE REASONS TO #VoteNoNo EUTHANASIA, FEMALE MILITARY CONSCRIPTION, & CHILD MARRIAGE https://t.co/c6DfnddsIq
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker presents three reasons to vote "no" in the family and care referendum. They argue against euthanasia, claiming that it may be used by the state as a cost-saving measure. They also express concerns about the potential for female military conscription if Ireland's neutrality is forsaken. Additionally, they discuss the issue of child marriage, stating that a "yes" vote could increase its prevalence and acceptability. The speaker urges voters to reject the proposed amendments, highlighting the potential negative consequences and hidden agendas associated with them.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: By now we know many of the implications of a yes yes result in Friday's family and care referendum but here are 3 more reasons to vote no no and they pertain to euthanasia, female military conscription, and child marriage. There is a viral clip of Leo Varadkar going around in which he says that in his opinion, it is not the state's responsibility to look after those who need extra care, such as the elderly and the disabled. Rather, it's the responsibility of families. One would wonder why people should pay taxes all their lives just to hear the so called leader of our country say this. Also, he has a salary bigger than the president of the United States, and so it's easy for him to say that he will look after his family members should they need that.
Furthermore, his generous salary is paid by the taxpayer. Nonetheless, we should be glad of what he said because if we didn't know before, we certainly know now that this load of nonsense about looking after the rights of everyone with these constitutional amendments is exactly that, a load of nonsense. I would be saying always believe people when they tell you who they are, and this man has told us who he is now several times. The state does not want to look after you, end of story, not when you are sick, old, disabled, etcetera. And although we have all heard the expression that life is cheap, the truth is life is actually financially costly, and the state knows it.
What is actually cheap is debt, and soon euthanasia will be available within Ireland. It will be noted that the availability of it is for the benefit of the people, but this availability may also be very beneficial to the state. And for this reason, we should vote no to the care and family amendments. The reason I include the family aspect as well is because, theoretically, there is nothing stopping the state from arguing in particular instances that people are in durable relationships with one another and therefore are responsible for providing care for one another should either party need it. Euthanasia is presented as another progressive neoliberal empowering choice, but what it would also likely be at some point in the future is something people may feel pressurized or coerced into choosing, which is what Canada is currently doing to its citizens.
In 2022, euthanasia was the 6th leading cause of death in Canada. It has gone from a country in which euthanasia was banned just a few years ago to one which allows euthanasia to be suggested as an option to very vulnerable people as opposed to other countries where it is forbidden for healthcare staff to offer euthanasia. Rather, in other countries, it has to be a consideration only brought forth by the person who then may be euthanized. So anyway, when I heard the Taoiseach say what he did, I immediately thought about assisted suicide. If it can even be called that in the case of people who are being made to feel like it's their only solution because the state doesn't want to or won't help them.
In Ireland, the dying with dignity bill has been the subject of debate and discussion in the Shannard for some time now. A select number of people known as the committee on assisted dying have been debating and discussing euthanasia. The public will not have a say. According to one committee member of People For Profit TD, Gina Kenny, there doesn't need to be a public referendum on euthanasia, and the committee has stated they have no plans to carry out an open call for submissions from the public. In other words, the opinion of the public is surplus to requirements.
Anyone who will be familiar with Gene O'Kenny will shutter at the thoughts of this woefully inept individual deciding the ins and outs of euthanasia legislation. Similarly, with senator Lin Ruwan, who is also on the committee and has advocated during debates for people with mental health issues to be allowed access to assisted suicide services when they materialize. It is horrifying beyond belief to think that she thinks a solution to depression is suicide, especially when you consider she has spoken in the past about how depression related suicide is more prevalent in the working class communities she claims to represent. I am currently writing extensively for a video about euthanasia that will be finished in the coming days. The contents of it and what potentially awaits us when they introduce assisted suicide to Ireland are truly horrifying, And you have to ask yourself why they would have a referendum, which as they claim is just to give people some token constitutional recognition yet won't give people a referendum on euthanasia, which is, on balance, a much more serious matter for the people.
Likewise, with the dubious soft tissue bill, we did not have a referendum for that either despite similar issues as we have with the dying with dignity bill regarding ethics and safeguarding. I am also planning a video about the soft tissue bill, and I'm currently awaiting answers from the department of health bioethics department regarding questions I raised. When I have a reply from them, I will make the video, and I would urge people to listen to both the videos as these will explain how these bills will impact us all in the future in some way. And for some, the impact may be profound. But to go back to the t shock now when he told us that it is not the state's responsibility to look after your family members, we could see that the state's agenda is ultimately to remove rather than add more supports for those who are elderly or disabled.
So we could see a situation in time with a yes yes result where the state pushes all responsibility on to families. We have already seen them close 50 nursing homes in 4 years, which is yet more evidence that they are trying to wash their hands of the responsibility for vulnerable people. I foresee a situation where due to feeling like or being made to feel like they're a burden to their families, elderly and disabled people may feel like they have no option but to choose assisted suicide and in some extreme circumstances may even be coerced or encouraged to take this path. Euthanasia may start out as something that will only be available to those with a terminal illness. But as we have already discussed, Lynrohan has put forward that it should be available to people with depression before the bill is even passed And euthanasia and Canada in particular, but also in the Netherlands and other countries is not what it originally started out as.
That is ostensibly for those who are suffering immensely from an incurable terminal illness. It has strayed into truly nightmarish dystopian reality in Canada, and people are being coerced into euthanasia if they are seen as a burden. For example, homeless people and those with even mild disabilities such as partial hearing loss have been targeted. Canada is essentially using euthanasia to dispatch of their vulnerable people. Furthermore, it is due to be extended to those with depression or other mental health difficulties this March despite the fact that one would imagine your ability to think clearly and therefore consent to euthanasia might be impaired if you have depression or some other mental health difficulty.
It has also been officially proposed within the Canadian Senate that the euthanasia be extended to 12 year olds or mature minors as they refer to the maths, and it is proposed they should be able to make this decision without parental consent. In the Netherlands, 16 year olds can access assisted suicide services without parental consent if they suffer from depression, anxiety, or some other mental health condition, and you can see how dangerous this could potentially be. At a young age, even a broken heart can seem like the end of the world. There will be more on all of that in the coming days, but as you can see from what I've outlined here, another reason to vote no no is to ensure the state cannot remove financial or other support from elderly or disabled people and their families and to ensure they cannot remove their obligation to look after vulnerable people and their families. I know they don't do a good job of providing that kind of care anyway, but we don't wanna create a situation whereby they have no obligation whatsoever.
And we could be creating a situation where euthanasia may become, as I said, a consideration for those who feel as though they are a burden or are being made to feel as though they are. Also, we can already see how the Canadian government is coercing vulnerable people into euthanasia in order that they do not have to fulfill their responsibility. And as we know, Veradkar is cut from the same callus cloth as his friend Justin Trudeau, and we'll be very happy to follow the same path as the Canadian prime minister in regards to euthanasia. So let's not water down the state's constitutional obligations towards elderly people, disabled people, or their families when we go to the polling stations tomorrow. In regards to conscription, a couple of people raised concerns around the outcome of the yes vote in the care amendment part of the referendum in regard to how that may leave women vulnerable to conscription in the future in the instance that our neutrality is forsaken.
I have asked the barrister if female military conscription could be an issue in the future as a result of removing from women the right to stay in the home and not be forced out to work due to economic necessity. And this barrister told me it could conceivably be an issue and that it's certainly something we should be asking questions about. I'm afraid I have more questions than I do answers because I'm not of a legal background, but any agenda is possible with this government and their master's hidden agendas. President of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has made no attempt to hide her contempt for Ireland's neutrality. And in her presidential address to the union in 2021, she spoke of her desire to have an EU army and said, there's no point in having one if we don't use it.
Sounds like if she can manifest this army, it will be used on the offense rather than in defense. Currently, the Emerald Isle stands in the way of this witch's goals to establish what she wants, and her flying monkeys in the Irish government will help her get what she wants. Most people probably do not know that those at the top in the EU refer to Ireland and our people as Irish snorers. This is a Yiddish word meaning scrounger or beggar. In this sense here, it asserts that we piggyback off of other nations, not pulling our weight when it comes to issues of conflict.
The people's desire and sensibility as a small nation to remain peaceful is a massive problem for van der Lijn who has thought that quote political will be overcome in Ireland to eradicate air neutrality and also that of Malta and Austria who are also neutral. How very irritating it must be for this wannabe Hitler in heels that in her geopolitical playground, one of the smaller kids like Ireland is quashing her fantasy of picking fights with some of the world's biggest players. She simply cannot establish her army unless all of the countries give up their neutrality, and there's only 3 who haven't. We need to hang on to this neutrality. Sweden is a cautionary tale for us Irish.
They gave up theirs, and then in January, Swedish people were panicked after they were told by their government that war was going to come to Sweden and that each and every Swede should prepare. Fast forward to today, 7th March 2024, and Sweden have officially become a member of NATO, just a day shy of our referendum. Ireland's membership in the EU has long since been a problem for the EU because of our neutrality, as I said, and how this affects common foreign and security policy. And if we wish to remain a member state, then sooner or later, we will be forced to give this up. We have certainly seen moves being made towards this and Orsula soldiers on the ground here as in Vradkar and Co, would have us in NATO tomorrow if they could make it happen.
In the meantime, it is possible that this referendum would weaken women's rights enough for them to be vulnerable to military conscription in the future. We can't be sure of that, but why take the chance? Conscription, which I believe will come to all EU countries in due course. And for this reason, I suggest you add protecting your daughters from future conscription as another reason to vote no to the care amendment. Yet another reason to vote no relates to child marriage.
Child marriage is already happening in Ireland, but a yes vote would, in my view, not only see the prevalence increase, but also the neoliberal acceptability of it. It is important to bear in mind that where there is child marriage, there is also child rape. Nikas or marriage blessings occur regularly, like the one Umar al Qadri claims he's providing a marriage search for, and Nicas are used as a loophole through which child marriage can be facilitated, which is just one reason why Al Qadri's hate crime claim deserves scrutiny because he was signing a marriage cert for a couple he had never met, and this is partly what I mean when I say there is an acceptance of child marriage. He didn't even check to see if the bride was underage or not. The media and the far left fall over themselves to stand in solidarity with this imam and never once questioned if he could be facilitating underage marriage blessings.
As far back as 2012, I can find court cases relating to child marriage. In that year, a case reached the high court in which an annulment was sought by a 16 year old who had been forced into a marriage with a 29 year old man. The ceremony took place at the Islamic Foundation on the North Circular Road, Dublin. And as far as I'm aware, those who facilitate the marriage were not criminally punished. And this was because even though marriages in which either spouse is under 18 are not legally recognized, The marriage was nonetheless deemed legally valid at at the time as a result of a successful pre marriage application by the girl and the man to a circuit court for relevant exemption under section 33 of the act.
However, the girl had been coerced, and she disappeared afterwards when she was returned to her parents by Tusa and the courts. She had said she wanted to go home and did not want her parents to get into trouble, but it did not occur to Tusa or the courts that the child could have been saying this under duress. In my view, there is already tacit approval from TUSA as well as the government, NGOs, and media in relation to child marriage because they don't do anything to prevent it or highlight it. Entering the term durable relationships into our constitution would, as we know and has been confirmed by government minister Neil Richmond, widen the parameters of family reunification rules. In short, this means more immigration.
On The Tonight Show on Thursday, March 6th, Helen McEntee said, at the moment, family reunification rules only allow parents to be reunited with minor children. I think she neglected to mention family reunification rules also apply to legal spouses, which seems like a significant omission. Currently, under those rules, polygamy is not legally recognized. However, by adding durable relationships, such unions will not necessarily need to be recognized. And while the government has insisted polygamy won't be recognized if the family amendment is passed, McEntee said last night that the reason why they did not define durable relationships is because people would then be picking on what they did not include as a durable relationship.
So she is essentially saying then that no relationship is excluded under this ill defined term, and that, of course, also means polygamy. So this leads, of course, to polygamy potentially being recognized as a durable relationship, some of which will be child marriages. In Islam, child marriage is very common. Once a female enters puberty, she is seen as mature enough to marry, and the age at which females go through puberty is lowering by the year. It is not unheard of to begin puberty at 8, and more and more girls are now beginning at 10.
Some of the marriages that may in the future qualify for family reunification also may consist of a female party who, while they may now be a young adult in the eyes of the law, may nonetheless have been forced into such a union when they were underage and are now being coerced to stay within that marriage. We should endeavor to never support forced marriage either directly or indirectly. Any s vote would amount to indirect if nonetheless, unwitting consent of the people. There are polygamous unions within the country whereby the marriages may not be legally recognized, but a man with 2 or more wives may be able to attain social welfare and housing from one wife and family, and then the subsequent wives and children make claims separate to the husband. But there are also men whose subsequent wives are in another country as they haven't qualified for reunification.
My Muslim neighbor told me he has a second wife, unbeknownst to his first, and this wife lives in Pakistan. Under new family reunification rules, he could potentially bring this wife here. His beleaguered wife who is here in this country has 6 children, 4 of whom are are boys. Naturally, they will be encouraged by their father to feel it is their right to have more than one wife when they are older, and the daughters may possibly be forced into marriage. The establishment will tell you child marriage isn't acceptable or legal here, although, curiously, they never actually make mention of it, although it's occurring, which they are fully aware of as there have been legal cases as I have mentioned.
And girlsnotbrize.org has criticized Ireland for not living up to their promises to end this practice within this country. Under a freedom of information request in May 2023, I asked Tufla to provide statistics on the prevalence of child marriage within Ireland, and their reply was, I am the decision maker assigned to your request, and the purpose of this letter is to convey my decision in the matter, which is unfortunately to refuse your request. I will now explain my decision. A search was carried out by Tusla's chief social worker. They have advised that this data is not collected by Tusla.
We do not hold this data. The question is, why don't they hold this information? Why aren't they compiling information from cases they come across? Doesn't this amount to allowing this practice to proliferate in our Western society? And, of course, because of that then, we don't wanna have even more child marriages that are coming into country.
Of course, before Muslims ever came to Ireland, forced marriage in some communities was an issue, which is all the more reason why TUSLA should be compiling data on it. I've spoken in the past to Muslim ladies who say they were removed from school at a preteen age in order that their parents could marry them off. I've been informed that does not always intervene in these cases where girls just disappear from school. And why is that? What all this shows is that they cannot be trusted to stamp out this practice, and therefore, we should vote no to the family amendment so as we do not further encourage circumstances by where child marriage will increase in Ireland.
Germany is a good country to look at to examine statistics on the permissive attitudes that have developed there as a result of the same liberal attitudes that are pervasive within this country. This may then give us an idea of what the problem may look like here. Child marriage first became an issue in Germany in 2015, the year when mass immigration started to get out of control there. By July 2016, 1500 minuteors were registered as married and 341 were under the age of 14. By 2017, German parliament had passed laws ending child marriage, but only a handful of marriages were enrolled and young girls are still married off every week.
Worse than that, the rural government funded agencies and NGOs have started arguing that annulling child marriages is not always in the best interest of the affected child. The Max Planck Institute, which receives government funding but also funding from Bill and Melinda Gates, has argued this exact point, and the leftist publication said the ban on child marriage is racist, small minded, and targets vulnerable people. The last thing we need in this country is for child marriages to increase as a result of this durable relationships aspect of the referendum, which may allow for already married child brides to come here because you just know the likes of people before profit will then start arguing in favor of allowing such unions to continue or to be allowed in. It may even be the case that people will not declare that they are married to a child, but will be able to be reunited with their child bride nonetheless by claiming that the child is their stepdaughter as such a relationship may qualify as a durable relationship. So for this and for other reasons mentioned, it is important to vote no to the family amendment so that we avoid loopholes in which forced child marriage can flourish within Ireland.
So to conclude, we all know we are being lied to left, right, and center in relation to this referendum. The assertion is that it's simply to remove archaic language and give recognition to all types of families. They could have, for example, added the word father into article 41.2 rather than remove the word mother. These amendments are a Trojan horse for so many agendas and voting yes yes could have far reaching consequences resulting in many undesirable outcomes that could affect their society into perpetuity. Our government works for the EU, UN, and others, and it was the UN who first criticized article 41.2 and recommended it be amended.
This alone is a reason to reject the proposed changes. The EU, UN, and others have a vested interest in interfering with our domestic affairs, but that is a video for another day, although most of you are probably aware of this interference. For now, let's focus on tomorrow when for the first time in a few years, we are getting the chance to assert our boundaries as a people with this apparent and a moral government. The other day, I was asked to speak at a protest at the Garden of Remembrance, and I used a famous quote to make a point. That quote was from Ronald Reagan who said, the 9 most terrifying words are, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.
And it always makes me think of those in the dole. They've sold this referendum as an attempt on their part to help everyone, be they carers, disabled, single mothers, etcetera. And I would say, if you are still in any doubt, let that quote ring in your head as you cast your vote tomorrow. Please vote no no.
@IrishInquiry - TheIrishInquiry
Part 2 - Care Referendum https://t.co/txzMZknNEU
reSee.it AI Summary
Tracey O'Mahony presents the Family Referendum, highlighting the complexity deliberately created by the government. She simplifies the proposed changes and provides clear information. Thanks to Tracey for her research and factual presentation. If unsure about the motives, vote no.
@IrishInquiry - TheIrishInquiry
Presentation by Tracey O’Mahony on the Family Referendum (more appropriately known as the "DURABLE RELATIONSHIPS" / OPEN BORDERS referendum). The Government have tried to make this as complicated as possible so that the average person cannot fully understand the change they wish to make. If they wanted people to understand the upcoming changes that they are proposing to the Constitution, they would set the changes out as simply and clearly as @TraceyOMahony81 has done in this presentation. A big thank you to Tracey for taking the time to research and present the facts around the upcoming Family Referendum. If you are in ANY doubt about the real motives behind this referendum, VOTE NO
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two referendums are being held on March 8th: the family referendum and the care referendum. The family referendum aims to amend the constitution to include other durable relationships in addition to marriage. The proposed changes have raised concerns about the definition of durable relationships and potential consequences, such as polygamous marriages and immigration rights. Some argue that the constitution already protects families beyond marriage, while others believe the changes are necessary to offer equal rights and protections to those who are not married. The government's motivations for the amendment are questioned, with some suggesting a Marxist agenda to dismantle the family structure. The impact on taxation, social welfare, and family law is also a concern.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So there are 2 referendums obviously being held on the 8th March. 1 is they're referring to it as the family referendum, and the second one, they're referring to it as the care referendum. So the first one they're going to look at is the, the family referendum. So can everybody see that? Yeah?
Yeah. So, the areas of discussion will be a brief overview of the family referendum, the current wording of the constitution, proposed amendments to the constitution, why the government say the constitution needs to be amended, what type of relationships could other durable relationships include, Are the proposed changes to the constitution necessary to enable the government to offer the same rights and protections to those who are not married and potential consequences of a yes vote? So just to say that in terms of, areas 1 to 6, all of that information will be factual. It'll be taken from all debates. It'll be information that's been given out by TDs and senators.
It'll be taken from the constitution. It'll be taken from case law. And the only part that is conjecture or my opinion is, part 7. So a brief overview. So on the 5th December 2023, the general scheme of the proposed 39th Amendment of the Constitution was published.
So a general scheme is a draft bill. So before something becomes a bill, the government published what's called a general scheme. So it's just the heads of the bill really. That was on the 5th December. On the 6th December, Robert P.
Gormen, TD, SALT and was granted a waiver from pre legislative scrutiny. So we'll talk about what that is in a minute, pre legislative scrutiny. On 7th December, the government approved the publication of the, the proposed amendment to the constitution. On 8th December, it was actually published. So that happened literally in the space of 3 days without any scrutiny from TDs or senators before it was published.
And as of the 20th February today, the 39th Amendment of the Constitution is currently at the 3rd stage in the shamans, having completed 8 out of 11 stages in a matter of weeks and having completely bypassed the prelegislative scrutiny stage. And it's all in a bid in a bid to make sure that the vote takes place on International Women's Day. So you can see on the screen here, I've just set out so this is an extract from the bills and acts section of arakdis. Ie website, which is the government website. And you can see here that it started in the first stage in the DAW on 8th December.
And by 17th January, it had gone through all the stages in the Dail, but that's taking into account the fact that they were shut down for a month. And then it went from the shanid first stage to the 3rd stage between 17th 23rd January. So that's how quickly an amendment proposed to add text to article 41.11 of the constitution, which acknowledges that the family may be founded on marriage or other durable relationships. The bill also proposes the deletion of the words on which the family is founded. So we'll look at a minute at the exact wording in the constitution and how they're proposing to amend it.
And Roger MacGorman, TD, who is the minister that's proposing these amendments, has said that the present wording of Article 41.11 does not reflect the values of the country and means the exclusion of thousands of family from the recognition and the protection of the constitution solely because those families aren't based on marriage. So it's really important to recognize what he's saying. He's saying 2 things. First of all, thousands of family are not families are not recognized or protected by the constitution because they're not families that are based on marriage. So in short, the purpose of the proposed amendment to the constitution is to extend the definition of family, which is currently based on marriage and the wording in the constitution, to also include other durable relationships.
So I just want to speak just for a couple of minutes on just pre legislative scrutiny because it's really important to realize that they bypassed this. It's really important to realize why this was brought in. So pre legislative scrutiny is a process by which the Dail and the Shanid scrutinize draft bills, in this case, meaning the general scheme of the bill, and report back with observations or recommendations to the minister sponsoring the bill. Predegislative scrutiny was first introduced into the houses of the Oireachtas following the 2011 general election as part of negotiations between the then coalition partners following calls for parliamentary reform in light of the economic and banking crisis. So what they were saying was all of this stuff was happening in the country, I suppose, 2008, 2009, 2010, and they were saying that there wasn't enough parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of legislation by TDs and senators before it became a bill.
And they said, these people are elected into these positions. We have 160 TDs in the dole. All 160 TDs should have some involvement in the legislative process, before, before a piece of legislation becomes a bill. So the requirement for pre legislative scrutiny was formally adopted into Dahl and Shannon's standing orders as as a requirement for the government bills save in exceptional circumstances. So what they were saying was that in 2013, as part of the coalition between different government parties come together to form a government, they said that we want to be sure that all TDs are involved in the legislative process.
So they actually put it into the standing orders. So that's the rules that govern the, the doll and the shannen. They put it into the standing orders, and they said that every bill has to go through pre legislative scrutiny except in exceptional circumstances. So that was in 2013, and that reform was carried through to the 2016 and 32nd doll in 2016. And this reform is considered necessary due to the perceived weakness of the houses of the ouroctus in terms of executive oversight and political and institutional capacity, to influence the government's legislative agenda.
So when we talk about the government, a lot of the time people think when we're talking about the government, we're talking about all of the TDs. That's not actually what it means. That's not what the constitution tells you the government means. So when we talk about the government, we mean the cabinet, which is made up of senior ministers responsible for the executive power of the state. And it's article 28 of the constitution that tells you exactly who the cabinet is, and that means who the government is.
So the constitution tells you that cabinet is made up of, no less than 7 and no more than 15 members. So it's the Tishuk, the Tanishq, and up to 13 other ministers. So when they refer to the government, that's who they're referring to. So the fear was that the government, meaning a maximum of 15 people, were effectively running the country. That was the fear, and that's why they brought in pre legislative scrutiny.
As a means of responding to this lack of oversight, it was agreed to introduce pre legislative scrutiny as a mechanism by which the Dail, meaning all TDs put a meaningful involvement in the drafting proposed legislation before it became a bill, thereby giving them real and substantive influence in the lawmaking process. And the 2016 program for government stated, we will support mandatory pre legislative scrutiny for all new bills, and post enactment review of legislation. And so you can see the the standing orders there where they're actually included in the standing orders, and it's saving exceptional circumstances, pre legislation scrutiny would happen. When the 32nd government of Ireland took office in June 2020, so we're obviously talking COVID has happened, there's a lot of laws being passed very, very quickly. There's a lot of regulations being passed.
And the one thing that I would say about COVID is a number of TDs actually brought a regulation or actually brought, sorry, a bill before the government around around this area of pre legislative scrutiny, around regulations. So what they were saying was the government were bringing in so many regulations around COVID at such a rapid speed without any oversight from any of the TDs apart from the government, who are the cabinet, these up to 15 people. And they were saying they weren't happy with the way that it was being done, and they tried to bring in a piece of law to make sure that the government would have to discuss any of those regulations with them. It never went anywhere, but it just shows you there was a reason behind why they didn't follow through with the pre legislative scrutiny in 2020. So in 2016 so 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, they had pre legislative scrutiny.
They couldn't waive it except in exceptional circumstances, but they changed it in 2020. So they said, permit a waiver in accordance with any guidelines agreed by the committee. So what they said was, we don't really wanna do this pre legislative scrutiny thing. You know, we we basically want to be able to run the country as 15 people. And it and it wasn't possible.
You know, they're the government. They obviously, they were able to bring in whatever standing orders they deemed necessary. As stated earlier, in the case of the proposed 39th Amendment, Roger McCormick's office was granted a waiver from pre legislative scrutiny. Several TDs and senators raised this as a major area of concern, when the bill was going through both the Dail and the Shannons. And this is a quote from senator Ronan Mullen where he said, the lack of respect for Auroch this process on show here with it going through 3 stages in Daul in one day and 4 stages to be got through this week is an absolute disgrace.
When one considers the way the constitution is amended, it is a compact between the people who have the final say and the legislators who decide what has to be put in front of them. What is going on with many issues these days is massive insiderism. It is not the entire government, but a cohort team within the government, certain NGOs and certain people on the inside who get to decide what the people must think, and there is to be minimum discussion, analysis, scrutiny, criticism, and amendment of that by the directly or indirectly elected representatives of the people. Here, the government shows an absolute disrespect for the people of Ireland in going about these referendums in the way that it is. So it's not just that they don't want the people to be involved in in legislation before it becomes a bill.
They don't actually want TDs or senators to be involved in it either. And this is another quote then from, Michael MacDougall. So senator Michael MacDougall, who was a former Thanhformer attorney general. So he said, firstly, I have to totally endorse what senator Mullen has said about the guillotine of this bill. It is disgraceful that it's being shoehorned through in the manner that it is.
What was the hurry? I will tell the house what the hurry was. Some Egypt in government buildings said there will be a better chance of getting this through if we say it's going to be held on International Women's Day at 8th March. That is what happened. We got stuck stuck with the ridiculous notion this will help the bill to go through, and we will be seen to be pro woman and doing something on International Women's Day if we select that day for the vote on a referendum.
As I said yesterday, this is a gimmick, but it is a crude little gimmick. It is not the way a constitution should be changed. It is a shame it is a shameful that that stone was allowed to be a stop in terms of time for considering change to our constitution. So that's just a taste for, you know, a couple of senators who have raised this as an issue. Numerous TD's raised it as an issue.
And it is a gimmick. It is a gimmick that the government said, we're going to give very, very minimum discussion and debate in both the doll and the shannad because we've decided that we want this to go through on International Women's Day. So section 2. So the current wording of the constitution. So article 41 is the the article that deals with the family.
What it says is the state recognizes the family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society and as a moral institution, possessing inalienable and prescriptive rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law. So we just touch on in a minute what what we mean when we talk about positive law. So positive law is man made law. So what they're saying is that the family is superior to any man made law. So the rights that people have or the sorry, the protections that people have under the constitution.
There isn't a government alive. There isn't a person alive that can write something down on a piece of paper and say, I grant you this right. You have the rights by virtue of being alive, so there needs to be some serious justification for somebody taking away any of those rights. It says, the state, therefore, guarantees to protect the family and its constitution and authority as a necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the nation and the state. The state pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage on which the family is founded and to protect it against attack.
So on the next slide here oh, this is actually sorry. Yep. So this is, an extract from, this document that was published by the Institute of Public Administration. So it's a review of the constitution between 1937 87. And this is a quote or an extract from a supreme court judge, Brian Walsh, in relation to some of the articles in the constitution.
So he said, the right set out in article 41 to 44 inclusive of the constitution of Ireland are the ones that are most noticeably influenced by natural law considerations. The constitution does not claim to confer or bestow any of the rights set out there, but rather expressly acknowledges them as having existence outside the law and beyond the law. So it's really important to note that when the government is talking about bringing in laws or restricting freedoms, the they they like you to think that they've granted you these rights, that they've granted you these freedoms. You have these freedoms and these rights by virtue of being alive, so there needs to be some serious justification anytime they try to restrict them. So the next section here is, you can see on the top of the screen there where it says, whether found in a marriage or other durable relationships.
So that's the part that they want to add in. And you can see down here where it says on which the family is founded, that's what they want to delete. So that's the entirety of the amendments that they want to make for this, amendment or this referendum on the family. So the state recognizes the family, and what they want to add in is whether founded on marriage or other adorable relationships. And then down here, the state places itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage and to protect it against attack.
So it did say on which the family is founded. So what they really want to do is they want to add in the concept of other durable relationships so that marriage wouldn't be or the family wouldn't be just founded on marriage, it would be founded on marriage and other durable relationships. So it's really important to know to understand what other durable relationships are then. So why the government say the constitution needs to be amended? They're saying there's 3 reasons.
1, due to societal changes to the meaning of family. 2, to introduce the recommendations from the citizens' assembly on gender equality. And 3, to extend the protections offered to the family under the constitution, which they say are limited to families based on marriage to include other durable relationships. This is my opinion here now. But in reality, in my opinion, the government is seeking to sever the special ties that exist between marriage and the family under the So we're just gonna go through a few of the reasons.
So, obviously, I said there that, the three reasons societal changes, the meaning of family, the citizens assembly, and other durable relationships. So we're just gonna touch on each of those 3 just to see why the government has said or what the government has said, these are these are necessary for. So due to the site, societal changes to the meaning of family. So when the government publish, an amendment the constitution, they also publish this, a bill digest. This is a document that's prepared by the houses of the Oireachtas, the library and research services of the houses of the Oireachtas.
So this is the actual government document setting out, why they want the constitution to be amended amended, why they feel it needs to be amended. So you can see on the right hand side of the screen where they're talking about background, societal changes, and the family. And they say a number of issues continue to generate debate. In particular, the constitutional emphasis on the position of the married family is somewhat at odds with the growing number of non marital families in the country. And then they provide some key statistics from 2,000 the census in 2022, in respect of households and families.
So they say the number of families with no children saw an increase of 11%. The number of same sex couples increased by 157%. And since 2016, the number of cohabiting couples without children living in private households went up 17%. That's part of the justification. And they also and this is a further part of the the bill digest.
So, table 1 here is percentage change in family units in private, private households. So you can see that they're saying that, one parent, father with children, but the numbers have increased. I think one parent, mother with children is slightly down a bit. Cohabiting couples, that might actually be slightly down. But what they're showing you is that the numbers are quite high in those, what they would call alternative family arrangements.
You can also see here table 2 then, births outside of marriage. Between 2010 and 2022, they're saying it went from 33% to 43%. So what they're saying is that because there are, so many people cohabiting and not marrying because there are so many people that are having children outside of marriage, and they're saying that those families are not protected or recognized by the constitution. And they're saying that's the reason that we need to bring in this term, other Jorvik relationships. So the second reason, you can see on the top of the screen, to introduce the recommendations from the citizens' assembly.
So the first thing to note is that it's a citizens' assembly on gender equality. So you might forget then that we're talking about including an amendment to the constitution where marriage or where the family isn't just based on marriage. It's also based on other durable relationships. So I don't really understand why the Citizens Assembly on gender equality would actually be involved in that because we're talking about what we have in this country now, marriage between men and women, marriage between men and men, and marriages between women and women. So I don't see where the gender inequality is in that that this actually came within their remit at all.
So there's probably another agenda behind why they actually brought this into the Citizens' Assembly. So there are a number of things that the Citizens' Assembly were actually asked to look at, and this one area that we're talking about now wasn't actually included in it. The Citizens' Assembly also, I think they made something like, I'm not sure, was it 25 recommendations sorry, 45 recommendations were made by the Citizens' Assembly. And it was agreed by the committee to prioritize considerations of proposed changes to Article 40.1 and 41. So they made 45 recommendations on what they said were gender inequality in the country.
But what they actually brought forward to, what they actually brought forward to the joint director's committee on gender equality, what what they actually brought forward and what they wanted to implement were these changes that didn't even seem to be part of their remit to begin with. So you'd have to ask, I suppose, what what, the the basis behind that is. So this gender, or the Citizens Assembly on Gender Equality was set up in 2019, and They obviously made recommendations, in relation to this wording that we're looking at now. And then the joint eruptive committee was set up thereafter, in order to to decide what recommendations from the citizens' assembly should be implemented. So these are some of the actual recommendations that the citizens' assembly made.
So recommendation 2 was article 41 of the constitution should be amended so that it would protect private and family life with the protection afforded to the family, not limited to the marital family. And then on the right hand side, it says there have been calls for many years for the reference the family in the Irish constitution to be expanded. It's important to note, though, when when these citizens assembly happen, so what normally it's normally a 100 people. There's normally 1 chairperson and 99 citizens that are chosen at random from the electoral register. And they obviously they their remit is set out by the government and they and they go through a a number of different meetings in order to decide whether or not recommendations will be put through, and they do different ballot questions on the the members of the citizens' assembly to decide whether or not something should be proposed to the government or not.
So these are some of the questions that were part of the ballot. So on the left here, we have draft questions, and these were the final questions. So you can you can always see the way that these things are worded, that very few people would actually say no with the way that they're worded. But they don't seem to talk about the potential consequences of, if you vote yes to this, what's the next obvious step? So the questions were, do you think the family, however it might be understood, is something that should, in principle, be recognized in the constitution and given special constitutional status and protection.
Who's gonna say no to that? Then should the assembly recommend that the constitutional understanding of the marriage be expanded, marriage of the family be expanded to include forms other than the marital family? Again, probably very few people would say no to that. And we look at it shortly whether or not families other than families based on marriage are actually recognized and protected by the constitution as it stands. Then the final questions were, should the constitution continue to provide recognition for the family?
He's going to say no for that. Then should the constitution protect private and family life, including forms of family life beyond the marital family? So when it came to those questions, 98% of people voted in favor. So the final reason then, that they want to bring forward this amendment is to extend the constitutional protection to other durable relationships. So again, on the screen, this is the bill digest.
And what this says is that according to article 41.31, the guarantees and protections afforded by the provisions are limited in scope to the family based on marriage on which the family is funded. So that's what the bill digest is telling you. That's what the government are telling you, that the only family that's protected and recognized by the constitution is the family based on marriage. And then over on the right hand side of the screen, the meaning of marriage in a constitutional context was originally informed by a Christian ethos, so it's all church bad as well. And on the right hand side of the screen here, they're saying, as is illustrated from the case law above, the constitutional concept of the marital family is relevant to several areas of law and statute, including but not limited to, taxation, social welfare succession, guardianship, and family law.
And then down below, they've said they're saying that they've had to introduce legislation at different points to provide some of the the privileges that are granted to married families to non married non married, families. So So there was a piece of legislation introduced in 2010, the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitant Act 2010. So what they were saying was because there's a difference in treatment between married families and unmarried families, they had to introduce certain legislation. So what they're telling you here is that by virtue of being a married family and the protections that you're granted under the constitution, there are certain implications for taxation, social welfare, succession, and all of that. So this is what Roderick O'Gorman said in the Dail debate, around, the need to extend the constitutional protection to all the durable relationships.
He said, today, I am bringing before the houses 2 bills, the aim of which is They have real legal meaning. They speak to our values as a country, and right now, the words of Article 41 of the constitution do not match our values. Those words mean the exclusion of thousands of family from the recognition and protection of the constitution solely because those families are not based on marriage. And down below then, he said, the proposed amendment reaffirms the family as the unit as the fundamental, unit of society. It does this in a way that recognizes families beyond those based on marriage, including lone parent families and couples who choose not to marry whether or not they have children.
So what he's saying is, what he is saying is that what he wants to recognize through the term other durable relationships are lone parents and people who are cohabiting whether or not they have children or not. That's what he's telling you he wants recognized by that term. What other TDs and senators have said, though, in relation to the term other durable relationships. So these are TDs and senators that are going to vote yes, but this is what they're saying about other durable relationships. So, Deputy Sorker Clark, I'm concerned by some of the language proposed in the amendment as the minister stated words matter.
My concern includes the reference to durable relationships. Why was that language chosen? Deputy Rita Cronin, the word durable is strange and weak in this context. It is more suitable to describing a battery. Deputy Rory Ormerka, while we welcome the fact that we are heading in the right direction, my colleagues have identified specific issues, particularly in respect of the word durable.
We need to ensure the government, the minister and the opposition get around to dealing with some of the questions. Ivana Bakshi, she said, second, why use this more complex text referring to durable relationships? Why introduce that new phrase when a more straightforward approach, in our view, could have been chosen? Jennifer Carol MacNeil said, On the other constitutional concepts, the first word that jumped out at me was durability, as I suspected did, Deputy Batchuk. It is not a constitutional concept that I've ever seen.
I questioned what it meant. It is really important that we tease this through now because it naturally is going to be a question later. What is durability? Is it about commitment or enduring? What's the difference between a durable relationship between adults and an enduring relationship?
I could be in a durable, intimate, personal relationship with somebody that lasts 10 or 20 years, and I could have an enduring friendship with somebody that lasts 40 to 50 years. Holly Kerns said, however, to be certain, can the minister confirm on the record that the definition of family proposed to be inserted and and on with different TDs and senators. There's more on that page, but there's there's just it's it's the same thing over again with TDs and senators saying, what does this term actually mean? So Roger MacGorman's response to these concerns was, I do not believe we are including the living scenario which deputy Clark set out, where 3 people are living together as friends. That is certainly not the policy intention, and I do not think that would be the interpretation.
So first of all, I do not believe. I do not think. Then he said, what we are talking about with the term is the relationship between cohabitants and parent child relationships. The intention is to capture those committed relationships that exist over a period of time between couples and between a parent and children. It is not intended to capture shorter term fleeting relationships.
I think that is right. That's his that's his response to it. I think this is what we're doing. I think that's right. So deputy clerks and Cronin raised the issue of the term durable in EU law.
They are correct. It is used in in the EU citizenship directive. It has a meaning. It's used in connection with relationships. It's important to say that many words used in EU law have a different meaning.
And then, deputy Sorka Clark said, it is a durable relationship with respect to the library and research service highlighted that it was mentioned by the Eratost or that it was not mentioned by the Oireachtas committee or the citizen's assembly. So what she's saying there is that neither the citizen's assembly on gender equality or the Oireachtas committee that followed that developed this term durable relationship. So everybody is saying, where did this actually come from? And a couple of the TDs said, well, we know the term durable relationships from EU citizens law, so from immigration law, from reunification rights. So a number of the TDs actually raised that.
And what Roger O'Gorman said was, don't worry about that, guys. He said, there is that term durable in European law, but Irish constitutional law can have a different meaning. So it's curious then, this document here in relation to so this is the bill digest again. The bill digest section that deals with the term durable relationships, 3 pages long, all of it referring to EU law, EU immigration law. That's the bill digest that was produced by the houses of the Oireachtas.
So they're saying the legal concept durable relationships is to be found in European Union law regarding the rights of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the EU. So they're telling you, this is where we got the term durable relationships from or this is where we know this term from. And what Roderick Gorman is saying is, listen, don't look over there, guys. Look over here. Roderick Gorgon has repeated time and again that the term other enjoyable relationships will mean that there will be recognition of families beyond those based on marriages, including lone parent families and couples who choose not to marry whether or not they have children.
So he has insisted time and again that it will include and only include lone parents, cohabiting couples with children, and cohabiting couples without children. But he can't keep this commitment because the term other durable relationships is not defined within the constitution, so it's going to be left up for the courts to decide what it actually means. So this is an extract from the Dahl debate where, deputy Michael McNamara raises the issue of whether or not polygamous marriages could actually be considered other durable relationships. And what he says here is that, as he understands it, in EU law at present, when somebody comes into the country and they're granted asylum here, they're entitled to reunification rights to bring their wife and the and the children of that marriage into the country. But what he's saying is if that person in their country of origin has 5 wives and 40 children, if a durable relationship is actually recognized here, will they not be able to bring all of those people over?
And what Roderick O'Gorman says is, don't worry about that, guys. There's nothing to do with that. There's no way in the world that polygamous marriages are going to be recognized here. But, again, polygamists are durable relationships are not defined under the constitution, so he can't give that guarantee. So then when when Roderick Gorman is telling you that I'm telling you what a durable relationship extending the recognition and protection to lone parents and couples with or without children.
That's what he's telling you. The electoral commission, though, are telling you that if you if you send a Christmas card together or receive a wedding invite together in joint names, there's a possibility that could be considered a durable relationship. That's that's how far fetched this is. That's how undefined it is. So that's the the electoral commission are actually saying that.
And then here, as I said, the the bill digest sets out, you know, they're they're telling you here what durable relationships mean in EU law, and the only reference to durable relationships in the bill digest is around this citizen immigration reunification rights. I'm not sure if I'll be able to play this. I'll just check. So this is Neil Richmond TD, government TD?
Speaker 1: Well, I think for us, it's it's a constitutional change that is long long overdue, and it is a recognition that care comes from many different people and it comes in many different forms. And, yes, that care and taking on that care is extremely onerous for the person who provides that care or that family unit, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a biological family member. And This is when I want to get to the key point of changing what the definition of family is. This is moving to not just modern time vernacular, but it has serious consequences, particularly when we think of immigration law and proving that someone is family member or family reunification. This will allow that to be accommodated as well.
So we're keeping up the space with other communities.
Speaker 0: Talking about durable relationships. Absolutely. Yeah. So that's, Neil Richmond, and he's actually saying that he says that this will have an impact on reunification rights. That's actually what he says.
And I think that's on The Tonight Show or something that he said that there about a month ago or so. So you have the bill digest telling you that durable relationships, the term, comes from EU immigration. You have the electoral commission telling you this term is not defined and it could literally mean people getting a Christmas card in joint names. You have Neil Richmond, the TD, telling you that, durable relationships could have impacts or that term being put into the constitution could have impacts on immigration law. So as I said again, Roger MacGorman said that it will only include lone parents cohabiting couples with or without children.
However, TDs and senators and the electoral commission have raised concerns that other durable relationships may include friends living together who are not in an intimate relationship. That was Jennifer Carroll McNeal's TD that said that. Couples, which is not necessarily people in an intimate relationship who are invited to weddings together or send Christmas cards together. That That was the electoral commission. Polygamous marriages, that was Michael McNamara, TD.
Foster children in relation to contesting a foster parents' will, that was Senator Sharon Keoughan. She asked the question. She said that she had fostered about 100 children. She said at some point in the future, could one of those children come back and contest the will for children that I've given birth to? It's a valid question to ask.
She also said, could people engaged extramarital affairs contest the will of married people? And then, finally, then family and friends and extended family and friends of asylum seekers. So these are the TDs and senators that raised that as a concern. Michael Collins' TD, Neil Richmond' TD, Senator Sharon Quiogin, Senator Michael MacDowell, and Senator Ronan Mullen. They all raised it as a potential issue around immigration.
So the next section is, are the proposed changes to the constitution necessary to enable the government to offer the same rights and protections to those who are not married? That was one of the claims that were made that the recognition and the protection of the constitution is limited to those families based on marriage. This, again, is the, the constitution of Ireland, a review of it by the Institute of Public Administration, and this is the section, again, from Brian Walsh, the supreme court judge. So he stated that that families, other than those based on marriages, are recognized and protected by the constitution as it stands. So he said, it is true that the family envisaged in this article is a family based on marriage as is made quite clear from the provisions of the article itself.
However, it is not correct to say, as it has been frequently stated, that the effect of judicial decisions has been declared that the only family recognized by the constitution or protected by the constitution is the family based on marriage. What the decisions have said is that the family referred to in Article 41 or 42 is the one based on marriage. The courts have said that other articles in the constitution may be availed of and invoked, by what has been called natural families. So that's the supreme court judge is telling you that. Second of all, the quest the same question again.
Are the proposed changes in the constitution necessary to enable the government to offer the same rights and protections to those who are not married? So do do they need to amend the constitution to make sure that other people can have those rights and protections? So, no, we know that it's open to the government to propose any law it wishes close any difference in treatment that might exist between married and unmarried people. So they even tell you that here in the bill digest, that in the past, they have introduced legislation to close gaps, for cohabiting couples. So they have the executive power as the government to introduce any law they wish, and obviously, if they can get it through the doll and the shannen, it becomes law.
So if there are is a difference in treatment between married people and unmarried people, the government has the executive power to change that. So they don't need to amend the constitution in order to do that. And thirdly, again, same question again. Do they need to bring this amendment into the constitution to offer the same rights and protections to those who are not married? So, again, no.
A third no. So the recent Supreme Court judgment in John O'Meara, versus Minister for Social Protection and the Attorney General. So on the 22nd January, literally in the last 3 weeks, a court case went before the Supreme Court where a widower with 3 children had been looking for a widower's pension, and he was denied it through social welfare. And he challenged it to the high court saying that it was unconstitutional, The Supreme Court said that he couldn't be denied the pension, a widower's pension, simply by virtue of not being married. Okay?
So the the claims that have been made, number 1, is that the constitution needs to be amended due to societal changes to the meaning of family, because the constitution only protects and recognizes the marital family. We've already said that the Supreme Court Judge, Brian Walsh, has stated that families, other than those based on marriage, are recognized and protected by the constitution, so that claim is not correct. Number 2, they say the constitution needs to be amended to enable the government to offer the same rights and protections to those who are not married compared to those who are married. We know that that's not correct either because the government has the executive power to introduce any law of wishes. So if there is a gap between married people and unmarried people, they can introduce a law to to change that legislation.
And we also know that in the Supreme Court case, on the 22nd January, the John O'Meara case, that it was deemed unconstitutional to deny him a widower's pension simply on the basis that he was not married. The third thing to say is that the constitution needs to be amended to introduce recommendations from the citizens' assembly on gender equality. That's not correct either. The citizens' assembly didn't come up with this term durable relationships. You did see the questions that the citizens' assembly were asked, and I would think many people in the room would probably have said yes to a lot of those questions too.
But there was no follow on in terms of what is the consequence if you do this. So they didn't come up with that term durable relationships and neither did the, the joint the rock dust committee, that followed that citizens' assembly. They didn't come up with that term either. And the final thing that they stated is that the constitution needs to be amended and to offer the or so that the protections offered to the family under the constitution, which they say, are based on marriage and to include other durable relationships to ensure that those other relationships like lone parents and, people who are cohabitees, who have children or who don't have children, and that they would actually be protected by the constitution. But the problem is that the term durable relationships, they haven't defined it.
It's not, it's not limited in scope. Nobody actually knows what the term will include. So what it will actually mean is that the people that they say they're trying to protect and recognize lone parents and cohabitees, they will more than likely have to go to the courts and argue before the courts that they are a durable relationship. So what they're saying they're trying to achieve won't even be achieved through what they're introducing because the term is undefined. And as we said together, a number of TDs and senators have raised very, very serious concerns that the term could have serious consequences, particularly around immigration.
So the question that arises is, if if it has already been determined that the family, other than those based on marriage, are recognized and protected by the constitution. So when I talked about that supreme court judge, so Brian Walsh was a judge of the high court from 59 to 61, supreme court from 61 to 90, and the European Court of Human Rights from 80 to 90 8. He's not a you know what I mean? I was in the Supreme Court there for a couple of years. This is a really well established, well respected judge who was saying this.
Second point is that the government already has the ability to introduce laws which would enable it to offer the same rights and protections to married couples as, to unmarried couples as married couples currently enjoy, where protections differ. And considering the supreme court judgment as recently as the 22nd January in the O'Meara case, where it was held that to provide a social welfare benefit for surviving spouse of a marriage and not to a sir or not to a surviving cohabitie that it was unconstitutional. You would have to ask what the real agenda is behind, the the the push to introduce this referendum. So this is my my take on why they're trying to introduce it. So I have 3 potential, reasons that I think.
Number 1 is to sever the special relationship that exists between marriage and family. And many of you probably know I'm in a durable relationship with that guy down the back there. So I have nothing I have nothing to gain. Like, as far as they're concerned, what they're saying is they want to protect the likes of me. I've chosen not to be married.
If I wanted to be married, what I know is that there's a very clear line in the sand. I've created, you know, a contractual and depending on, you know, what your views are, other types of commitments, and then it's from this date forward, this means x. And people like me have chosen for a particular reason not to enter into that type of commitment, like in fairness. Do you know what I mean? Would you like?
But anyways but but what they're saying is that this is all designed to protect people like me. I don't know for the likes of all what the tax consequences, what the social welfare consequences, all of those things. But there's like, there are potential unintended or maybe intended consequences that they're saying this is all designed to protect people like us. People know when they get married the legal consequences of that, and you're entitled to know the legal consequences that from this date forward, this is how we're going to be treated in law. But they're creating a serious amount of uncertainty, and I believe the reason for that is they want to sever the special relationship that exists between marriage and the family.
And the reason for that is, in my view, in our view, it all goes back to Marxism. So I just wanted just 1 or 2 really quick slides just on Marxism to understand that what we believe the basis behind it is. So a 176 years ago, Karl Marx drafted an infamous document called the Communist Manifesto, which was an attempt to solve the problem of oppression in society. That's what Marxists believe, that there's oppression everywhere, that a man oppresses his, his wife or his girlfriend or whatever, that parents oppress their children, that work or that, employers oppress their workers, that there is oppression everywhere, that white people oppress black people, that We get it. Yeah.
So what they try to do is they're saying that they want to solve the the the idea of oppression in society. But the way that they attempt to solve it is by creating more oppression. So Marx developed a theory that divided society into classes with those who owned property being the oppressors and those without property being the oppressed. As far as Marx was concerned, wealth was accumulated through the exploitation of the working class, and his theory, therefore, sought to dismantle the class structure through the abolition of property. So an awful lot of this comes back to abolishing the family, abolishing private property rights.
Marx believed that if a benevolent dictating authority, because we know how they're everywhere, forcibly took ownership of all the wealth, property and resources, that it could be redistributed in a more equitable manner. That's why you always hear that term equity. And this would be for the common good and bring about utopia. That's why you're also hearing for the common good as well. In order to bring about utopia, the Marxists believe that society needs to completely change.
And to achieve this, you first need to destroy the 5 key pillars of society, which are religion, family, education, media, and law and order. So this is an extract actually from the Communist Manifesto where it talks about the need to abolish the family. They talk about and what they actually believe is that the family structure was created, by the really wealthy people back in the day in order to be able to pass property down. That's what they thought the nuclear family was created for, and they think that if you destroy the family, people won't have a need to have property because you have nobody to pass it to. And that everybody can own everything communally, it'll be all so, so fair, and we'd all live in utopia.
That's actually what they believe. That's one of the reasons they want to destroy the family, the nuclear family, and they also want to destroy, private property rights. So Marxists believe that the nuclear family is the ultimate symbol of oppression with husbands oppressing their wives, parents oppressing their children, and that the nuclear family serves the interest of capitalism as they produce the next generation of workers to be exploited. Marxists believe that the nuclear family rose to prominence because of capitalism and that we moved from primitive communism to capitalism through the establishment of family norms, such as private ownership, property, and inheritance. And this was done primarily through the oppression of women and children.
I'm so impressed, I am. During primitive communism, there was no private property and, thus, no social classes or private family units. Property and resources were owned collectively, and this is the ultimate goal of Marxism to revert back to this way of life. So they think that if they can abolish the family, abolish the nuclear family, you have nobody to hand property down to, and then there's no reason to have property, then we all own the property communally, and then we all live in utopia. That's literally it.
You will own nothing and you will be happy. And if you're not happy, we really don't care. That's the first potential consequence. The second one is taxation, social welfare, succession, guardianship, and family law. So you can see this extract below from the bill digest where it's talking about, if you're part of a marital family, that there are certain areas of law that that that affect you, and they're saying it's taxation, social welfare, guardianship, succession, and family law.
So because the government refused to define what other durable relationship means, an ex partner that you had an obscure relationship with sometime in the past may very well have a legal claim over your property, both in life and in death, in the same way that a husband or a wife would. So, senator Michael MacDowell actually raised this recently, and and he was saying it in relation particularly to, like, farms and that too, that people who you think, you know, you had an obscure relationship with, that you didn't think of any legal rights over your property, may actually have rights over your property if this is passed through. And then, finally, immigration. So serious concerns have been raised by numerous TDs and senators regarding the very real impact the yes vote could have on immigration rights and, specifically, reunification rights. And the most recent poll on Irish attitudes towards immigration found that 59, percent favored a more closed policy in immigration, while only 16 favored a more open policy.
And in light of that and similar results, if this legislation is having would have any potential impact on immigration or unification rights, that really should be put to the people so they know what they're voting for. So because the government refused to define what other durable relationship means, the term would certainly be exploited to facilitate all number or unlimited numbers of economic migrants entering the country under family reunification programs at the expense of the Irish people.
reSee.it AI Summary
Dozens of children were left motherless due to the cervical check scandal. The Chief Medical Officer at the time, Dr. Tony Holohan, advised against disclosing the missed cancer diagnoses to the affected women. Many believe that mistakes were made, leading to late diagnoses and certain death. Dr. Holohan now earns €257,000 as a Cancer consultant. Additionally, he faced criticism for his handling of lockdown measures during the non-pandemic, causing harm to children's education and mental health. The lockdowns also had negative effects on working-class individuals and resulted in increased domestic violence. Many elderly people died alone in nursing homes. The CSO admitted that only 149 people died solely from the virus, raising questions about the necessity of the public health measures. The Irish people demand accountability from Dr. Holohan.
@IrishInquiry - TheIrishInquiry
Can we take a moment to remember how dozens of young children have been left motherless and traumatised with grief because of the cervical check scandal. As Chief Medical Officer at that time, @DrTonyHolohan advised the then Minister for Health @SimonHarrisTD to not disclose to the women affected that their cancer diagnosis was missed by the American laboratory that was outsourced by #CervicalCheck. Many of those women would still be here today if mistakes were not made. A late diagnosis meant certain death in many cases. Dr. Death (as he became known during the bad cold non pandemic) wanted to save the State the trouble of dealing with law suits. Yes, that's right. He was happy for young children to be denied compensation that was due to their terminally ill mothers. Now he will "earn" €257,000 a year as a Cancer consultant. What a joke. And let's not even start on how this man treated the Irish Public during the non pandemic, pushing seemingly endless lockdown measures and strict public "safety" measures that were not based on scientific evidence. When challenged, he said to @mattiemcgrathtd that they would implement the lockdowns first and worry about the science later. He caused untold damage to children all over the country who were denied an education and normal interactions with friends. Younger children who learn empathy and language through mirroring and mimicking facial expressions were unable to see human faces for a lengthy and sustained period (other than that of their immediate family). More people were harmed and died through the lockdowns and subsequent dangerous prophylactic than were ever harmed from the cold. The harm ranged from physical to psychological and permeated every level of society, but in particular affected working class people with lower incomes. Domestic violence reached unprecedented levels, and many other devastating outcomes resulted from his strategy. Many elderly people spent their final months and years alone. Some who had dementia and other prion diseases spent those days in total confusion, not understanding why they were abandoned and why everyone wore masks. Thousands were sent from hospitals into nursing homes (labelled bed blockers) where they received no treatment and were instead pumped full of drugs like Midazolam until they succumbed to a lonely death. Latex gloves were filled with warm water and placed in their hands, in place of a real hand to hold. Following the lockdowns it became clear there was no pandemic. The CSO admitted to The Irish Inquiry that a total pf 149 people died solely of the virus between 2020 and the end of 2021. There was no overall increase in national mortality during the time when we all were forced into complying with public "health" measures. #TonyHolohan must be held to account by the Irish people.
reSee.it AI Summary
Get ready for an unsettling journey into pure terror this Halloween. An invasion and plantation await, with glimpses of horror and uncertain endings. Produced with SuzieD, the article features music and audio clips from iconic movies like War of the Worlds, Watership Down, World War Z, They Live, Halloween, Independence Day, I Got Five On It, 30 Days Of Night, and Alien Invasion.
@IrishInquiry - TheIrishInquiry
An INVASION & PLANTATION is for life, not just for #Halloween... But this Oct 31st let us take you on an unsettling journey into a vision of pure terror. Do you want to catch a glimpse of the horror that awaits you? And will there be a happy ending? Produced with SuzieD Music and audio clips: War of the Worlds Watership Down World War Z They Live Halloween Independence Day I Got Five On It 30 Days Of Night Alien Invasion
Video Transcript AI Summary
They're coming. Something bad is going to happen. Evil is behind it all. It seems like an effort to destroy certain countries. More extremists and terrorists will emerge. People are questioning the future of Germany and France.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And slowly and surely, They drew their plans against us. Borne the windows. Try to hide. They're coming. Are you scared?
How do we know they're coming? Wake up. They're all about you. All around you. Look at him, everyone.
What are these things, Wanda? Why are they here? I don't like this wand. Something very bad is going to happen. I know now.
A terrible thing is coming. This is where it comes from. What was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply evil. It's like chess. 1st, their position, their pieces, and then I mean, I'm not a conspiracy nut, but it does seem like this is an effort to destroy certain kinds of countries, and it of course, it's There will come a day That we will see far more radical extremists and terrorists coming out of Europe.
There are increasing groups of people who are essentially asking the question, if the political establishment continues to get its way in 5, in 10, In 20 years' time, how many Germans are gonna be left in Germany? How many French people are gonna be left in France?