Maman Poulet

The bishops hurled up their cassocks today to sit on the fence - meanwhile the ‘catholic groups’ are distributing rubbish in churches, the streets and at religious meetings on Lisbon. I was ‘lucky’ enough to pick up a copy today.

Entitled ‘9 reasons why a conscientious Catholic citizen should reject the Treaty of Lisbon‘, it includes such wonders as

- The amended Treaties impose a relativist, evolving vision of human rights, contrary to the Catholic understanding of them
- The amended Treaties considerably restrict the protection of human life and authorise abortion, embryo experimentation, non-reproductive human cloning and euthanasia
- The amended Treaties, for the first time in an international juridical document, recognise “sexual orientation” as a basis for non-discrimination
- The amended Treaties, for the first instance in an international juridical document, impose the parity between men and women in all areas
- The amended Treaties undermine the concept of family by dissociating it from the marriage between a man and a woman
- The amended Treaties impose excessive limits to the right of parents to educate their children according to their beliefs

And they’re obsessed by the gays….

As conscientious Irish Catholics, we cannot but say “No” to a Treaty that imposes on our country and on the whole of Europe, for the first instance in an international legally binding document, the prohibition of any discrimination based on sexual orientation, which will in its turn impose on us the placement of children for adoption or foster care in the hands of homosexual partners, the employment of teachers or athletic coaches with homosexual lifestyles, the obligation to grant accommodation to homosexual partners in B&B facilities, etc. and will restrict the freedom of the Church to preach the Gospel.

I haven’t seen that athletics coach thing since 1992 – I’d say there were copies of documents by Family Solidarity hanging round the place when this particular tome was written. Then I looked at the back for the references and noted that the above is based on the reading of Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons, Vatican, July 22, 1992. which was bad then and still reads rotten now. Rattzinger wrote it!

So while I worry about qualified majority voting and privatising healthcare, some people in Ireland are still worrying about back passages as Gay Byrne once said.

9 Comments »

Brid Murphy (or Lynn) depending where you read it, settled her case yesterday against ACC bank. If she is very lucky (and hey the dice are rolling her way so far!) she’ll end up with €450,000 if another bank don’t get there first. Even the judge yesterday seemed to step up to the gaming pit in her favour and urge Bank of Scotland Ireland) to settle with her also.

Her marriage remains intact she told the court, but she says she was duped by her former solicitor but very much current husband and the bank should have done his homework. And for her own preparatory exercises? What did Brid Murphy do when she was not signing the paperwork to buy Glenlion with Michael?

Martina Devlin has some tough words on the matter of the Lynn marriage and conjugal rights in today’s Independent.

Following the settlement of the case where to now for another solicitor who worked for Michael Lynn? Court proceedings against Fiona McAleenan continue but she made allegations of fraud in Brid Murphy’s case and they don’t just concern Michael Lynn but also others in Capel Law/Kendar etc.

In proceedings being taken against other clients of Michaell Lynn, Permanent TSB

‘claims that she, acting in her capacity as Mr Mulkearns’ solicitor, had failed to honour undertakings that she would not negotiate the loan cheque unless Mr Mulkearns had good marketable title to the property and had executed a charge over it in favour of the bank. It claims Mr Lynn is vicariously liable for the alleged acts and omissions of Ms McAleenan and it is seeking compensation and damages from both Ms McAleenan and Mr Lynn’

In the case against Brid Murphy the banks did not contest her evidence that her name was attached afterwards to documents and that she did not sign the loan applications and acceptances in the presence of a solicitor. Maybe Ms McAleenan is helped by this acceptance in her battle to clear her name. There are other names that could be thrown into the melting pot here in the operation of the deception that seems to have taken place – I’m not sure why we have not heard much about them yet.

While the soap opera in the High Court makes for good copy in the Indo it’s not getting any of the banks their €80 million or helping the home owners (or people who though they were home owners) that Michael Lynn duped. Sunny there in Portugal Michael? How are the sardines? Where is Brid meeting you this weekend?

5 Comments »

Uopdate – Brid Lynn has settled her case with ACC. I am awaiting news from the High Court on the damages.

Image via WikipediaDid you hear the one about the wife of the former solicitor (yeah that one) who claims that she didn’t know that her husband was getting lots of loans for their properties and is now looking for her half under marriage and property legislation. She told the court that she’s still married to him and indeed she saw him in an EU capital last week. That’s before he flew to an even closer EU capital. He’s not really missing or it seems ‘wanted’.

More wonderment in your newspapers today. Spottings of Michael Lynn and Michael Lynn related stories are of course always welcome. The collected works of the Brothers Grimm would of course not be much use but might be assisting someone at the moment!

No Comments »

Oh I’m one of the special ones to get spammed. I got an email today targeted at bloggers from ammado about themselves and World Refugee Day and the UNCHR and taking a picture of me or someone else with my hands over me head in a pose to protect refugees and posting it on their site – not even my own site!?

Now I have a thing (or twenty) about human rights so contacting me might have been a good idea – pitching to me about a forthcoming event or campaign and saying have a look at this and we’d welcome your comments. Starting the email with Dear Suzy/Maman Poulet would have been even better!!

Oxfam and others have asked bloggers before about different campaigns – they’ve done it with a bit of nouse and understanding about how to pitch to bloggers. Even the Green Party knows about bloggers and getting a list together and asking if you’d be interested and then not patronising the hell out of you when doing so with ‘charidee/marketing’ speak. I bet if I tried to join this outfit they’d have me inviting all my friends to join too and spamming them in a ‘poking facebook’ kind of way.

ammado (with a small a – groan) – I hadn’t heard about them until today’s email – so I headed off to the website to find out more – and here’s the spiel…

‘the global online community of people who care. Providing a free interactive and unique environment, ammado connects nonprofits and engaged individuals to achieve their vision.’

It stinks of Chuggers on the net. Not buzzing in the blogosphere. Well the Irish blogosphere is certainly buzzing about the spam and the way in which the pitch was made.

If the UNCHR had emailed me themselves and said have a look at this I might have been along for a gander – if it were a news story even better – if you had picked one Irish blogger and asked them to blog about it and spread the word ye might of even got somewhere. There are loads of people in the Irish online communities who have advice on approaching bloggers and creating communities. I doubt they’d give ammado a hand now and the hands over the head thing well that’s crap. And ammado don’t want us to blog about the issues – they want us to go to their site and join up and build their community (aka target audience to tap for a few quid every month)

Now on the asylum seekers and refugees thing – when are we going to get angry about the trafficking of young people into Ireland who go missing and are not protected by the Irish State? Putting my hands over my head and taking a photo of myself won’t get them out of prostitution or slave labour – asking questions and getting angry and asking the HSE and Irish government and UNHCR to do something about it might. You see ammado, (aka Amadán to me for ever more) that’s what bloggers do well.

10 Comments »

Tonight Enda Kenny called on the Catholic Church to clarify it’s position on the Lisbon Treaty.

This follows months of material being published in ALIVE! which is distributed in churches around the country and the appearance of posters and leaflets in church properties in recent weeks.

The Fine Gael leader was speaking following reports that literature had been distributed in Church’s saying voting for the treaty would result in abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage here.

Enda Kenny says Articles have also appeared in the religious “Alive” periodical calling for donations to campaign for a No vote.

These are the advertisements that Kenny was referring to. I’m happy to see him calling on the Church for clarification. A conversation today with someone in Kildare Street leads me to believe that there is a link between all things Lisbon and the lack of publication of the heads of bill on civil partnership. The posters and the ads are trying to stir homophobia and confusion about Lisbon, like we don’t have enough of both already?

It will be interesting to see if the Bishops respond to Enda’s calls! I think the answer will that they don’t have a position given the recent past and their lack of participation in public debate. But I’m sure they have a lot more to say on the issue that Louis Walsh did on Questions and Answers tonight! (What you mean you missed it!?)

However on a more general point the Church do need to clarify regarding it’s relationship with ALIVE and the contents of the paper and the hosting of it’s offices in Church property. Increasingly the utter rubbish published in this monthly title is (and should be) causing concern to those who are involved in promoting dialogue and participation and respect for religion and diversity in Ireland.

9 Comments »

Mark Tighe covered the Dermot Ahern speech in yesterday’s Sunday Times and followed up with queries to people involved in lesbian and gay activism and media and something from the Ministers Office.

I’m sure the phrase ‘prominent campaigner for Civil Partnerships’ had a few people choking over their bacon croissants

However the Ministers Spokesman said

….The Minister supported legislation for Civil Partnerships. “That speech was 15 years ago and the minister’s view was commonly held at the time. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then and anyone is entitled to change their mind. The minister’s view is that the family is fundamental to Irish life. He is fully behind the commitment made in the programme for government.

.

Well it won’t be long till the publication of the Heads of Bill then will it? Grand.

(I could highlight the lack of commonality of view in the speech, from the other ‘commonalities’ at the time – the Catholic Hierarchy’s silence during the campaign, expressions of concern from several bishops that there not be discrimination, the support from all the political parties, the Trade Union movement, most of the NGO movement including other social partners, the students movement the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe, etc. etc. Linking decriminalistion to the death of Jamie Bulger? But as I have said on more that a few occasions in the last week – this is about making sure the commitments made in the Programme for Government are delivered and I suppose you could say I’m campaigning for that!)

6 Comments »

Oops a sport’s post! I am a bit of a sports addict – as in the armchair variety. Later this year I hope to combine my interest in disability and society and sport in writing some posts on the Paralympics as I know some of the paralympians and know how little coverage they get, and I’m fed up of how a lot of that coverage will be about their bravery, their bodies and extremeness and and how they don’t work, how the athletes ‘overcome their disabilities’ and quirky posts about boccia.

Which brings me to the issue of Oscar Pistorius. Someone has called him ‘Blade Runner’ probably not Oscar but it’s stuck. Pistorius received a ruling from the Court of Arbitration yesterday which means that he can try to qualify for the Olympics and other athletics events- only right and proper.

However this comment from Tanni Grey Thompson had me thinking.

“For Oscar, it is huge and I can understand why he is doing it,” She said. “He will be the first Paralympian who is truly known worldwide and the movement will benefit from it. But the argument goes much deeper than Oscar.

If he runs at the Olympics, they have to take his event out of the Paralympics because I would not want the Paralympics race becoming the ‘B’ event . . .

If Oscar is seen to be making the jump from Paralympics to Olympics, then the Paralympics is immediately B finals . . . He has always said he wants to run both but there is something about that which does not feel quite right . . . It is the whole future of his event at the Paralympics Games which is under discussion.”

I had never seen Oscar’s quest to compete in the Olympics as dissing the Paralympics or damaging it in anyway. Tanni has always been for me a bit on the conservative side in her sports politics and her disability politics also. However I do wonder how the double amputees who run sprint events and are training for the Paralympics this year are feeling this morning. In the Paralympics they run against each other and don’t get the coverage. In the quest for competing in the Olmypics an athlete gets called Blade Runner with focus on the mechanics and lots of accusations of privilege – some made in the way drugs cheats get pointed to.

I see the Paralympics and wanting to run in the Olympics as both being about equality. Well I think I do? Are my glasses rose tinted?

2 Comments »

We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

‘Activist judges’ (all bar one appointed by Republican Governors) have overturned the ban on same sex marriage in California. Actually they didn’t allow same sex marriage they just said that same sex couples should not be treated differently to heterosexuals. Arnie has said Hasta La Vista and murmurings are coming from presidential camps.

McCain made me laugh…

He supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona.” his campaign said in response. “John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.”

McCain rejected the will of the state’s high court even as he tried to maintain his long-held stance that the issue should be left to the states. He suggested that he backs an effort by California’s religious conservatives to put a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman on the November ballot.

Now as the state legislature has previously supported full marriage then he’s let off there, and he’s giving the fundamentalists a nod of sorts too ‘cos that’ll mean that the Karl Rove effect could help him get to the White House. (The Karl Rove effect is one where you run as many referendums (called ballots in the US) on moral issues – primarily gay marriage – to get the religious voters out who’ll also vote for the candidate. )

Obama was wishy washy –

“Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage,”

And you can almost see Hilary’s gritted teeth moving as

Clinton’s campaign said she “believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As president, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure same-sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.”

The issue of gay marriage will now dominate the presidential elections and the candidates are definitely not loving it but the whole area is now also a huge mess, with different bans, ballot measures and court rulings. If you live in New York you can travel to Canada get married there and then come home and get your relationship recognised. In Massachusetts you can only get married if you are living in the State. Next month if the California ruling becomes law as is likely, you can fly there from New York and get married and then go back and get the benefits but you can’t get married in New York. Ed Stein explains all. (And you thought the EU was confusing!)

I’ve been tuned into SiriusOutQ all evening listening to callers planning their nuptials and commentators reflecting on what this really means. Lots of views and opinions and general happiness and a bit of ‘let’s not all rush to altar’ also. Best comment of the night was from a gay man rejoicing in the fact that he was getting the right to be as bitter and twisted as straight people. And the host Michaelangelo Signorile just kept talking about choice - that people in California may now have the choice to marry or to enter into domestic partnership. Here if some groups on either side got their way we’d have no choice – one size fits all fits no-one. (Or we may have nothing at all – Dermot oh Dermot give us the bill?) I wonder what the Irish reaction will be tomorrow – all about the ‘M word’ or anything about the right to a choice?

Pam Spaulding has a great round up of reactions from the republicans, fundamentalists and family values types.

Go read the straight man who doesn’t like the word marriage either and knows an awful lot more about how this will impinge on the presidential election. Better than calling you sweetie Richard?

2 Comments »

When one is organising a campaign there’s polite lateness and then there’s Rock the Vote downright tardiness. Yup less than a month to Lisbon Treaty D-Day and John tell’s us that Rock the Vote are relaunching for the referendum. And yes Cian was right, there was some rejoicing tonight, Lisbon was looking a little barren on the blogging the referendum front – but rejoice is right as you might remember RtV got it’s own category on Maman Poulet last year.

Cue more celebs not entitled to vote here making daft youtubes explaining absolutely nothing about the issues and treating the electorate like morons. While doing the customary ‘we’re on our way, just buttoning up our jeans’ holding post it might help lads if you took down the youtube of Katie French from last years campaign. But RtV and tact were never good company.

PS. The holding page says ‘Rock the Vote is back by popular demand and we want you to get up and vote in the The Lisbon Treaty Referendum.’ Did I miss the facebook group or bebo page calling for their reformation?

However now more than ever we’ll need to know where the money is coming from – this is a referendum and a bit of clarity, openness and transparency will be needed. Maybe the Referendum Commission were duped into thinking there was a popular demand for this sort of thing or is this a front for a section of the No campaign who also seemed to have more money than sense?

11 Comments »

Image via Wikipedia

Last week’s reshuffle has no doubt caused a headache for those campaigning on the matter of recognising same sex relationships. From initial research and remembering the announcement of a new Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform may well have given lesbians and gay men and their organisations a significant migraine.

I go back to June 1993 for my initial diagnosis – the Dáil debates on the decriminialisation of homosexuality (yes 15 years ago next month). Dermot Ahern TD. was a backbencher at the time and spoke at the second stage of the Sexual Offences Bill. I have republished his speech below – it to flog a phrase to death, makes for interesting reading.

Mr. D. Ahern: I do not often find myself in agreement with my constituency colleague, Deputy McGahon, [MP adds - FG TD for Louth and vociferous opponent of decriminialisation of homosexuality] but on this occasion I am. Perhaps it has something to do with the atmosphere in our constituency.

A Deputy: Sellafield.

Mr. D. Ahern: I have reservations about this legislation. I have already made these views known privately to the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party and the Minister.

Reference has been made to our international obligations. However, no reference seems to have been made to the Constitution of this Republic. I wish to give some Members of the House food for thought by quoting from the Constitution.

Article 40.1 states:

– All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

– This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

That question bears some thought. In regard to the family, Article 41.1.1º states:

‘- The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

Article 41.1.2º states:

The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority …

Article 45, which outlines the directive principles of social policy, states:

– The principles of social policy set forth in this Article are intended for the general guidance of the Oireachtas. The application of those principles in the making of laws shall be the care of the Oireachtas exclusively …

Article 45.1 states:

The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the whole people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice and charity shall inform all the institutions of the national life.

I am not being intolerant in my remarks. Anyone who knows me well knows that I am a very tolerant person. As legislators, we have a duty to legislate for the common good. We seem to have reached the stage where we are legislating for pressure and minority groups. We have a duty to consider what is in the common good of all the people and to legislate for that. We should not legislate for hard cases, I do not say this in any intolerant way but we should legislate for the common good.

Reference was made to our international obligations. We have a duty to legislate for the standards and norms which we regard as appropriate for the Irish people. This does not necessarily have to include all the people, but we should strive to achieve a certain standard and norm in our society. The Houses of the Oireachtas have the primary function of laying down rules for the people and the standards they should strive to achieve, and we should never forget that.

I quoted from Article 41 of the Constitution which deals with the position of the family in our society. Many countries, including Britain, are now looking at why families are breaking down. The tragic murder of the young Bolger child in England led to people questioning why society is breaking down in that country. One of the reasons given for the breakdown of society is that the family unit is breaking down. We should strive to protect the family unit as the primary unit in our society. That is not to say that families do not break up — of course they do — but we should aspire to attain that. I think most Deputies would agree with those sentiments.

It was stated that we would be in breach of the charter of the European Court of Human Rights if we did not introduce legislation to implement its decision. I do not for one minute accept that we have to implement this decision. Britain has decided to derogate from the Social Charter and, in effect, from European monetary union. Yet, business is still being conducted and no one seems to have taken the British Government to task for this.

Much play is made of the word “equality”, for example, equality in regard to the age limit. I wonder if this issue will end here. Will the pressure groups which have succeeded in having this legislation brought before the House stop here? I think not. Will we eventually see the day in this country when, as has happened in the USA, homosexuals will seek the right to adopt children? We should think seriously about this possibility.

I have a problem with the age limit of 17 years. I appreciate that the Minister is endeavouring to equalise the age limits for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. However, under the child care legislation passed by this House a child is defined as anyone under the age of 18 years. We should bear this in mind.

I have a problem with the provisions on prostitution. I understood that the norm in Europe was to liberalise the laws on prostitution but——’

And with that Deputy Ahern stopped speaking to share the time with another colleague. If you wish to see what he was agreeing with Deputy Brendan McGahon about well you can read it here. But here’s a punchline from Deputy McGahon’s speech so you get the gist…

‘Homosexuality is a departure from normality and while homosexuals deserve our compassion they do not deserve our tolerance. That is how the man in the street thinks. I know of no homosexual who has been discriminated against. Such people have a persecution complex because they know they are different from the masses or normal society. They endure inner torment and it is not a question of the way others view them.

The Lord provided us with sexual organs for a specific purpose. Homosexuals are like left hand drivers driving on the right hand side of the road. The Minister should seek a derogation from the ruling of the European Court to prevent this unacceptable legislation being foisted on the Irish people. I remind the Minister that the age of consent has been reduced to 12 years in Holland. Will we have to accept such an appalling move in years to come? Many Members of the Minister’s party are very unhappy about this legislation although some of them have expressed their support for it. The Minister should put the issue to the people in a referendum.’

Those were the days..

And what of the days to come? The Heads of Bill on the Civil Partnerships legislation is now delayed by over a month. Minister Ahern may not have it so high on his agenda (if it were ever that high on Brian Lenihan’s).

33 Comments »