European Elections 2014

 European Elections 2014

In January, Minister for the Environment and local Government Phil Hogan confirmed that the local and European elections would be held on the 23^rd of May.  Voting is set to take place between 7am and 10pm on the day. As yet, not all Irish candidates have been confirmed but this will happen in the coming weeks.

What is the European Parliament?

The European Parliament is made of MEP’s elected by each member state to promote the interests of the citizens of the European Union. Through its legislative and budgetary and supervisory powers it is vital in directing the annual EU budget and in the supervision of the economy as well as areas of the broader EU legislative process.

Direct elections to the European Parliament are held every five years within a four day period, usually in June, but in May of this year, throughout the European Union. The polling period must be a least 12 hours
between 7:00am and 10:30pm. There are 766 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). These are elected by voters in 28 EU member states (Including Croatia, which joined the EU in July 2013.)
The European Council Decision of 28 June 2013 (2013/312/EU) will see 11 representatives elected in Ireland for the 2014-2019 parliamentary term to the European Parliament. This is a reduction of one representative which is as a result of EU expansion to make way for representatives from new member states.

The European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Act 2014 (pdf, 239kb) implements the recommendations that have come from the Report on European Parliament Constituencies 2013. That is to change our current seats and constituencies to 11 seats across three constituencies.

European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Act 2014 http://www.environ.ie/en/Legislation/LocalGovernment/Voting/FileDownLoad,36781,en.pdf

Changes to Irish Constituencies:

Ireland previously had 12 MEP’s but this has been reduced to eleven since the adjustment of constituencies. The Dublin constituency will remain the same, however others will see substantial changes.

These changes will mean that the North-West and East constituencies will be abolished and a new constituency, the Midlands-North-West constituency will be created comprising of four seats.  This new constituency will include the North-west constituency (excluding Co. Clare – now part of the south constituency) and the part of north Leinster that currently makes up part of the East constituency.

The south constituency will now include Carlow, Clare, Kilkenny, Wexford and Wicklow increasing its size and the number of seats to four. The changes will be made in the coming weeks under the new Local Government Bill. 

In summary:  Ireland is reducing the number of constituencies from 4 to 3: Dublin, which elects 3 MEPs, Midlands-North-West and South which will each elect 4 MEPs.

Who is eligible to vote?

Only Irish and European citizens can vote in European elections. Those that wish to vote must be registered on the register of electors. The register of electors that will be in force was published on 1 February 2014.

Anyone who is not yet on the register of electors and is eligible to vote in the European elections still has time to apply for the supplementary register of electors. Application forms for this must be received by the registration authority before the 6 May 2014. 

To check if you are registered follow the link http://www.checktheregister.ie/PublicPages/Default.aspx?uiLang=

For those who wish to be included in the supplement to the postal and special voters lists, the application forms have to be received by the registration authority before the 26 April 2014.

The following people may vote by post in a European Parliament election:

• Members of An Garda Siochana.
• Members of the Defence Forces.
• Civil servants and their spouses attached to Irish missions abroad.
• Electors living at home who are unable to vote at the polling station due to a physical illness or disability.
• Full-time students registered at home who are living elsewhere while attending an educational institution in the State.
• Prisoners detained as a result of an order of a court.

For more information on postal voting check out Citizens Information: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/european_elections/european_elections.html




James Dooley
GCD FLAC

Gross Human Rights Violations in North Korea

Gross Human Rights Violations in North Korea

The United Nations has recently released a report on the gross human rights violations in North Korea. For many years the world has suspected these gross human rights violations, but until recently there has not been a comprehensive report into such violations. North Korea has made headlines over the last few years regarding issues such as propaganda, Human Rights Violations, Political corruption and many other issues. This Article will briefly discuss Gross Human Rights Violations.

Political Genocide

The United Nations reports that “hundreds of thousands” of prisoners in North Korea prison camps have been killed. Many of these mass killings are due to racial, ethnic or religious backgrounds. Many Korean activists have been killed in the fight for equality, freedom and justice. It was reported that anyone who spoke out about inhumane nature of the prison camps were tortured, punished and some were taken away and never again seen. It is estimated that there are thousands of political prisoners in North Korean prison camps today.

Starvation

In 1999 a report was released that estimated approximately 3.5 million North Koreans died of starvation between the years of 1995 and 1999. The commission has found evidence that starvation was used and is still used as a form of torture in the prison camps. And it has been said that it is a way of reducing the amount of prisoners in the camps.

Kang Choi-Hwan who was a political prisoner in a North Korean Prison camp in the 1980’s described the kinds of torture methods that were used. Mr Hwan said that in order to survive him and many others had to cut grass to cook porridge in order to survive. The political prisoners in his group were only given a fistful of Kernels once a month. Mr Hwan said that he once had to bury 300 people who had died as a result of starvation in the Prison Camp.

Forced Abortions

The commission found that women who fled to china and were captured were forced to have abortions as there was a risk the father of the unborn child was a Chinese man. The abortions were carried out in order to maintain the purity of the Koreans. Some of the women were allowed to give birth and once the child was born it would be terminated. Women who were raped in the prison camps by military men had to give birth and once the child was born it would be taken off the mother and terminated.

Conclusion

These Human Rights Violations are only a handful of such violations that occur in North Korea and they should be stopped. A United Nations Panel has warned that Kim Jong Un may be held accountable for such human rights abuses. To this day he has not been held accountable.

Jack Murphy

GCD FLAC

For more on this follow the link to the Office of the High Commissioners website here: http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc/coidprk/pages/commissioninquiryonhrindprk.aspx

The report from the Commission Of INquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea can be found here: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIDPRK/Pages/ReportoftheCommissionofInquiryDPRK.aspx.

International Day of Forests

The 21^st of March was proclaimed the International Day of the Forests by the United Nations General Assembly just last year. The reason for the day is to celebrate and raise awareness and the hope is that efforts will be taken to plant trees on this day and others. Forests and trees provide us with clean air and water, safeguard biodiversity and help prevent climate change, not to mention the food, shelter and employment it offers. Each year more than 32 million acres of forest are lost, this is equivalent to the size of England. It not only kills off plants and animals but harms he over 1 billion people who depend on the forests.

Brazil has introduced a new forestry code which was approved in 2012. It faced a constitutional challenge in January of 2013 as many are afraid that it threatens the Amazon rainforest. The previous code, which was from 1965, protected much more land from deforestation according to the federal prosecutors. One of the most controversial parts of the new code is that it protects those who illegally cleared forest land prior to 2008. 

Over 60% of Brazil is made up of jungles and forests, most of it being privately owned. The 1965 code protected the forests by limiting the lands use to farming and mandating that 80% of the privately owned rainforest had to remain intact. The new code has eased the restrictions on private landowners. Brazil has managed however to slow the rate of deforestation, dropping it by 27% between 2011 and 2012. Recent reports have indicated a different story and there are concerns that as the new rules under the 2012 code have not been properly implemented, that there has since been an increase in the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. The slowing rate reported in 2012 seems to have been reversed. Luckily the new code calls for a large amount of land to be reforested, although that all depends on whether the code will be properly implemented or not. Deforestation is still creeping into new areas daily, not only in the Amazon rainforest, and the rate of newly planted trees cannot keep up. 

Follow the link for the full text of the UN Resolution http://www.fao.org/forestry/35970-02022d20f3c3e226276b36d32b2bc811a.pdf 

Sinead McGinley

GCD FLAC

Our Next Clinic - March 24th

Our next clinic will take place on March 24th from 6.30pm. Our clinics have been exceptionally busy this semester so we advise anyone interested in making an appointment to do so early. Clinic times are 15-20 minutes maximun.

Thank you to our volunteer barristers who have helped us out in all our clinics so far in semester two by giving up their time and expertise. Thank you also to the students who have been involved in running the clinics.

A special thank you to those in the Law faculty office who have been so helpful so far this semester.

Northern Ireland ruling on blood donation policy.

Court rules againist Northern Irelands Health Minister.

A lifelong prohibition on blood donations from gay men was introduced in the UK in the 1980s from fears arising out of the AIDS epidemic.  The ban was lifted in England, Scotland and Wales in 2011, and was replaced with a requirement that men wait 12 months after engaging in sex with other men before donating blood. However Northern Ireland’s Health Minister Edwin Poots refused to enact the policy change in Northern Ireland. This he claimed was on public health grounds despite the fact that blood from elsewhere in the UK where gay men can donate if they have not engaged in sexual activity with another male for over 12 months was imported to Northern Ireland.

A High Court judge in Northern Ireland has ruled that a ban on gay men giving blood is "irrational." Justice Treacy held that Health Minister Edwin Poots breached the ministerial code by failing to take the matter before the Stormont Executive.

The new rules allow blood from men whose last sexual encounter with another male has been over 12 months prior to donation. This 12 month period itself has been controversial as a Government Advisory Committee report identified a considerably shorter time scale during which infection with blood-borne viruses could not be detected. Despite this however the 12-month deferral was left in place. Poots, the Northern Ireland Health Minister maintained the lifetime ban in his jurisdiction on supposed grounds of public safety.
An anonymous applicant took judicial review proceedings against the decision. His legal counsel revealed that the man is now a Christian who is opposed to homosexual activity but was previously a homosexual.
The Belfast Telegraph quoted David Scoffield QC as saying in the case that "Although the applicant, perhaps curiously in these circumstances, shares the view that homosexual practice is wrong, he simply takes the view that homosexuals should not be banned from giving blood... The applicant's case is that the approach displayed by the Minister on this issue goes beyond the expression of orthodox religious views and amounts to prejudice."

On 11 October Justice Treacy ruled that Poots decision to continue the prohibition was made contrary to the recommendation by the Secretary of State that the report from the advisory committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs should be followed.

Justine Treacy stated that “The Minister has decided that MSM behaviour creates such a high risk of infection to the donor that such donors must be permanently deferred with the result that such blood cannot enter the Northern Ireland Blood Stock.  Importing blood from other places which do accept MSM donors, even in limited quantities, leaves the door open for MSM blood to do just that.  There is clearly a defect in reason here.  If there is a genuine concern about the safety of MSM donated blood such that the blood stock must be protected absolutely from such blood then the security of that blood must actually be maintained absolutely.  Applying a different standard to imported blood defeats the whole purpose of permanent deferral of MSM donors”.

He is also reported to have stated that the prohibition was "controversial and cross-cutting, taking in equality issues" and "As such, the Minister had no authority to act without bringing them to the attention of the Executive Committee - which he failed to do... In doing so the Minister breached the Ministerial Code and had no legal authority to take a decision."

However the ban remains in place despite the judicial review finding.

Minister Poots said in reaction to the decision that "The judge believes it is a decision for Jeremy Hunt. Jeremy Hunt didn't believe it was, but obviously the judge is contradicting the Department of Health in England and it's a matter for the Department of Health to take whatever action it believes it should."
However Minister Poots and Jeremy Hunt have decided in the past number of weeks to appeal against the legal ruling. Minister Poots is to appeal against the entirety of Justice Treacy’s ruling, which is known as JR 65. Secretary of state for health Hunt is to only appeal against the finding that responsibility for blood donation policy was a reserved matter.

A spokeswoman from Mr Poots’s Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety stated. “Secretary of state for health, Jeremy Hunt, and the local DHSSPS have each lodged appeals to JR 65 on blood donor deferral... The decision in JR 65 potentially has wide-reaching consequences beyond the immediate subject matter of the case, and DHSSPS has strong legal advice recommending an appeal, and accordingly it is appropriate that those arguments should be presented to the Court of Appeal... It would not be appropriate for the department to comment further when an appeal to the court is pending.”

The Ulster Unionist health spokesman Beggs said: "UK scientists and statisticians have deemed that it is safe to accept blood donations from gay men who have abstained for a period of 12 months or more... There are risks in receiving blood donations from anyone; there are also considerable risks in having a shortage of blood available for donations to those who need it... I am concerned that a high court judge has deemed that the minister of health has breached the ministerial code. Clearly he has questions to answer on this matter. In the interest of the public I would call on Edwin Poots to release the legal advice he received from the attorney general on this matter."

However despite such calls, The Democratic Unionist minister Edwin Poots and Northern Ireland's attorney general, John Larkin, have won an information rights tribunal that allows them to withhold the legal reasons why Minister Poots continues to ban gay men from donating blood in the province. Equality campaigners have condemned the secrecy regarding legal advice the minister has received on the issue. Matthew McDermott, the policy manager at the Belfast-based Rainbow Project, was reported to have said the tribunal's decision was "hugely disappointing" given that the high court in Northern Ireland ruling relating to the ban. He said this prevents sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of the decision, "If the assembly is to hold the minister to account, part of that process will be to know upon what legal advice the minister made his decision,"

Here in Ireland health authorities have said there is no plan to update legislation regarding the ban enforced against men gay men from giving blood despite the changes in the U.K.
Similarly in Ireland, organ transplantation services ask the next of kin several questions which can automatically eliminate a potential donor. One of these questions is if the potential donor is man and has ever had sex with another man.

Many countries such as Italy, Spain and New Zealand, have removed the prohibition on men who have sex with men. Rather than elimination they set out a basis under which donors are considered, one aspect of which is, gay or straight, it is risky sexual practices that give rise to a risk of infection regardless of the sexual orientation of a potential donor.

The Irish Blood Transfusion Service, which oversees blood donations in the Republic of Ireland, stated in 2011 that it has no intention to follow the U.K’s lead. “We currently ask those who may have a particularly high risk of carrying blood-borne viruses not to give blood,” a spokesperson stated. “This includes men who have ever had sex with another man or men.”

An IBTS spokeswoman said Ireland would not be following the U.K. on this issue for a number of reasons. "While safer sex, through the use of condoms, does reduce the transmission of infections, it cannot eliminate the risk altogether... The issue of monogamous partners is difficult. Evidence from heterosexual partnerships suggests that 'innocent' partners are very often entirely unaware that their partner is unfaithful.” She stated that “IBTS considers therefore that individuals can only attest to their own behaviour when donating and not speak for their partner."

The European health commission John Dalli commented reportedly commented on the issue saying that while countries should not discriminate against potential blood donors on the basis of their sexuality, they are allowed to prohibit donations from people on the basis of sexual activity itself.

Click here to read the full judgement from Northern Ireland

http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2013/%5B2013%5D%20NIQB%20101/j_j_TRE9009Final.htm

James Dooley

 GCD FLAC