NATION

PASSWORD

Ireland considers torture case against Britain

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Chucky Arla
Diplomat
 
Posts: 676
Founded: Jul 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Ireland considers torture case against Britain

Postby Chucky Arla » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:31 am

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/gove ... 52210.html

The Government is “very seriously” considering demands to reopen a landmark case against Britain over the alleged use of torture in the North during the Troubles.

On the back of new evidence, Amnesty International has urged Ireland to relaunch proceedings in the so-called 'Hooded Men' case.
They were 14 Catholic men interned – detained indefinitely without trial – in 1971 who claimed they were subjected to a number of torture methods.

These included five techniques, hooding, stress positions, white noise, sleep deprivation and deprivation of food and water, along with beatings and death threats.

The men were hooded and flown by helicopter to a secret location, later revealed as a British Army camp at Ballykelly, outside Derry. None were ever convicted.

A documentary on RTÉ in June disclosed fresh evidence that the British government authorised the “deep interrogation” tactics at the highest levels.

The evidence, uncovered from national archives in London by the human rights group Pat Finucane Centre, throws doubt over a finding by the European Court of Human Rights, according to campaigners.

The Irish Government, which took the case to Europe during the 1970s, alleging a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, said it was now considering whether to seek a fresh hearing.

“This matter is being taken very seriously by the Irish Government,” a spokeswoman at Dublin’s Department of Foreign Affairs said.
“We are still exhaustively reviewing the thousands of documents submitted by RTÉ and the Pat Finucane Centre in relation to the case.

“No decision has been taken on whether or not Ireland will request the European Court of Human Rights to revise its judgment in this case.

“It is expected that when a decision is reached by the Government, it will be made public.”

The recently unearthed files included a letter in 1977 from then British Home Secretary Merlyn Rees to then UK Prime Minister James Callaghan, in which he states his view that the decision to use “methods of torture in Northern Ireland in 1971/72 was taken by ministers – in particular Lord Carrington, then secretary of state for defence”.

Mr Rees added that “a political decision was taken”.

Amnesty International said the documents show the UK Government withheld crucial evidence from the European Court during the original hearing and that senior government ministers sanctioned the use of torture, which they had denied.
The evidence could have led to a different finding by the European Court, it said.

In the original case against Britain, the European Court of Human Rights found the Hooded Men were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment but ruled it was not torture.

Thomas Hammarberg, who led the human rights organisation’s 1971 mission to Northern Ireland to investigate internment, said the British government had a responsibility to establish the facts.

“The allegation that the UK government misled the Strasbourg Court in the Hooded Men case must be taken very seriously,” he said.
“If substantiated, this was a grave, additional injustice to the victims, and allowed impunity then and for those who have used such methods in other situations in the last four decades.”

Under European rules, Ireland can request the case be reopened within six months of new evidence emerging.
Last month, Amnesty International wrote to Taoiseach Enda Kenny, pressing him to ask for the case to be reopened.
The deadline for an application is December 4.

Colm O’Gorman, executive director of Amnesty International Ireland, said the clock is ticking. “These men and their families have a right to truth and justice,” he said. “We recognise the diplomatic challenges in Ireland’s seeking to have this case reopened. However, we hope the Irish Government today shows the same determination of its predecessors in 1971 who took a bold and unprecedented step to uphold the rule of law and expose human rights violations.”

Mr O’Gorman said the Irish Government argued at the time that the UK tactics amounted to torture, and urged it to do so again.
The organisation also wrote to British Prime Minister David Cameron urging an independent investigation into the allegations.
A number of the surviving Hooded Men, including Francie McGuigan, Kevin Hannaway, Michael Donnelly, Jim Auld and Joe Clarke, backed the call during a press conference organised by Amnesty International in Dublin.

Human rights groups The Committee On The Administration Of Justice and the Pat Finucane Centre have both backed Amnesty International’s challenge to the Irish Government to seek the reopening of the case. “These recently discovered documents suggest that the British Government withheld vital medical, legal and policy documents from the European Court of Human Rights and the Irish Government in respect of the case taken to Europe by the Irish state alleging torture,” they said in a joint statement.
“We have requested that the Irish Government seeks a reopening of the case of Ireland v UK given the discovery of these facts which may lead to the European Court of Human Rights revising its judgment.”


Good. I hope the political will follows through and brings this case to the courts. Not only do the individuals and the families directly affected deserve to hear the truth and obtain true justice but it serves as a wakeup call that the state authorities are not to be trusted. Their actions need to be closely monitored and open to inspection by the people.

Any thoughts?

User avatar
Occidentria
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Aug 26, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Occidentria » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:33 am

Chucky Arla wrote:Any thoughts?

Yeah, upon reading the thread title in "Latest Forum Topics" I was very nearly certain this would be a Mansidog thread. :lol:

User avatar
Harpers Ferry
Diplomat
 
Posts: 571
Founded: Nov 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Harpers Ferry » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:34 am

Occidentria wrote:
Chucky Arla wrote:Any thoughts?

Yeah, upon reading the thread title in "Latest Forum Topics" I was very nearly certain this would be a Mansidog thread. :lol:

So I wasn't the only one :p
Kingdom of Viana wrote:I don't need specific evidence to prove something that is obviously true.
NSG's Bloody Sunday, a date which shall live in infamy.

The Doors

User avatar
Chucky Arla
Diplomat
 
Posts: 676
Founded: Jul 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Chucky Arla » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:35 am

Occidentria wrote:
Chucky Arla wrote:Any thoughts?

Yeah, upon reading the thread title in "Latest Forum Topics" I was very nearly certain this would be a Mansidog thread. :lol:


I'm sure he'll appear eventually but this isn't about him and i'd prefer if such threadjacks from a very serious topic were avoided. Thanks.

User avatar
L Ron Cupboard
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9054
Founded: Mar 30, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby L Ron Cupboard » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:43 am

I am very anti-torture and it saddens me that my country seems to resort to it. If there is enough evidence there should be prosecutions, though I suspect tracks will have been covered to avoid that eventuality.
A leopard in every home, you know it makes sense.

User avatar
Skinia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1545
Founded: Nov 23, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Skinia » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:45 am

Serve the fucking justice already.
Synthesis anarchist, eco-socialist, queer feminist and your friendly neighborhood violent drugged-out potty-mouth with a gun boner. I am a gynephilic bisexual.
Anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, anti-discrimination, anti-fascist, anti-genderist, anti-leninist, anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-sexualist, anti-statist and anti-theist.
Straight marriage should be illegal. My holy book told me so. According to Levitacos, the punishment for heterosexuality is tickling the bottoms of their feet.
There are no other gods than Young Urban Perverts and Jarkko Martikainen is their prophet. Peace be upon Him. (I am not a skinhead in real life. This is just a skinhead-themed nation. Now get off me.)

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55272
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Risottia » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:46 am

Considering the ECHR jurisprudence, the Irish government has no legal standpoint there. The victims or their relatives, on the other hand, do. Then again the ECHR isn't very likely to allow a case about an unfaithful report by the British government until remedies to that have been sought and denied by British courts.
So I consider this to be a blatant case of Irish parties pandering about for some propaganda.
.

User avatar
Patriarch
Envoy
 
Posts: 243
Founded: Sep 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Patriarch » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:50 am

Risottia wrote:Considering the ECHR jurisprudence, the Irish government has no legal standpoint there. The victims or their relatives, on the other hand, do. Then again the ECHR isn't very likely to allow a case about an unfaithful report by the British government until remedies to that have been sought and denied by British courts.
So I consider this to be a blatant case of Irish parties pandering about for some propaganda.


You seem to know more about the legal ins and outs than Amnesty international. Can you explain further your understanding of the relevant laws which result in an Irish lack of legal standing?

And really what motive would the Irish parties have for this? They need us a hell of a lot more than we need them.
Last edited by Patriarch on Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Shove Piggy Shove
Diplomat
 
Posts: 757
Founded: Oct 17, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Shove Piggy Shove » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:53 am

Risottia wrote:Considering the ECHR jurisprudence, the Irish government has no legal standpoint there. The victims or their relatives, on the other hand, do. Then again the ECHR isn't very likely to allow a case about an unfaithful report by the British government until remedies to that have been sought and denied by British courts.
So I consider this to be a blatant case of Irish parties pandering about for some propaganda.


Reading the story in the OP, I can't see that any Irish political parties have taken a stance on this - all the requests to re-open are coming from Amnesty International, whilst the government hasn't committed to anything.

I'm not sure that if the case is re-opened that they would get the desired outcome though.

In the original case against Britain, the European Court of Human Rights found the Hooded Men were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment but ruled it was not torture.


The new evidence would appear to suggest that their treatment was known of at a higher level than the UK had previously let on, but I don't really see how this is going to change the fact that the ECHR ruled that their treatment was not torture.
Save the Creme Egg!

Tim Minchin wrote:I'm not pessimistic about the supernatural, but rather I'm optimistic about the natural
Jasper Fforde wrote:If the real world were a book, it would never find a publisher. Overlong, detailed to the point of distraction - and ultimately, without a major resolution.
Dennis the peasant wrote:Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

User avatar
Chucky Arla
Diplomat
 
Posts: 676
Founded: Jul 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Chucky Arla » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:55 am

Shove Piggy Shove wrote:
Risottia wrote:Considering the ECHR jurisprudence, the Irish government has no legal standpoint there. The victims or their relatives, on the other hand, do. Then again the ECHR isn't very likely to allow a case about an unfaithful report by the British government until remedies to that have been sought and denied by British courts.
So I consider this to be a blatant case of Irish parties pandering about for some propaganda.


Reading the story in the OP, I can't see that any Irish political parties have taken a stance on this - all the requests to re-open are coming from Amnesty International, whilst the government hasn't committed to anything.

I'm not sure that if the case is re-opened that they would get the desired outcome though.

In the original case against Britain, the European Court of Human Rights found the Hooded Men were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment but ruled it was not torture.


The new evidence would appear to suggest that their treatment was known of at a higher level than the UK had previously let on, but I don't really see how this is going to change the fact that the ECHR ruled that their treatment was not torture.


I imagine the withholding of vital medical documents would potentially have a significant effect on that

"the British Government withheld vital medical, legal and policy documents from the European Court of Human Rights and the Irish Government in respect of the case taken to Europe by the Irish state alleging torture,”

User avatar
Occidentria
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Aug 26, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Occidentria » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:59 am

Chucky Arla wrote:
Occidentria wrote:Yeah, upon reading the thread title in "Latest Forum Topics" I was very nearly certain this would be a Mansidog thread. :lol:


I'm sure he'll appear eventually but this isn't about him and i'd prefer if such threadjacks from a very serious topic were avoided. Thanks.

Don't worry. I'm certain someone will regurgitate the talking points I agree with eventually.
Oh wait, looks like someone already has.
Risottia wrote:Considering the ECHR jurisprudence, the Irish government has no legal standpoint there. The victims or their relatives, on the other hand, do. Then again the ECHR isn't very likely to allow a case about an unfaithful report by the British government until remedies to that have been sought and denied by British courts.
So I consider this to be a blatant case of Irish parties pandering about for some propaganda.

Following up on this case in the ECHR contradicts Fine Gael's preference toward European integration (and by extension Europe's coffers) and President Higgins's personal efforts to continue building a productive relationship with Britain.
O'Gorman's a political has-been who's looking for a new fifteen minutes of fame amidst the setting sun of Hiberno-nationalism. The victims of these crimes would be better served through individual cases against the British government. Ireland itself won't pick it up because it'd amount to shooting itself in the foot it's using to walk across the Irish Sea and the English Channel.
Last edited by Occidentria on Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Shove Piggy Shove
Diplomat
 
Posts: 757
Founded: Oct 17, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Shove Piggy Shove » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:05 am

Chucky Arla wrote:
Shove Piggy Shove wrote:
Reading the story in the OP, I can't see that any Irish political parties have taken a stance on this - all the requests to re-open are coming from Amnesty International, whilst the government hasn't committed to anything.

I'm not sure that if the case is re-opened that they would get the desired outcome though.



The new evidence would appear to suggest that their treatment was known of at a higher level than the UK had previously let on, but I don't really see how this is going to change the fact that the ECHR ruled that their treatment was not torture.


I imagine the withholding of vital medical documents would potentially have a significant effect on that

"the British Government withheld vital medical, legal and policy documents from the European Court of Human Rights and the Irish Government in respect of the case taken to Europe by the Irish state alleging torture,”


That's a statement from The Committee On The Administration Of Justice and the Pat Finucane Centre, but there's no mention of this anywhere else in the article, nor any quotes attributed to documents purporting to show this, so I'll take it with a pinch of salt for the time being.

Also, even if there were proof that medical documentation was withheld from the ECHR, it still doesn't change the fact that the original ruling was that their treatment was not torture. Unless there are documents showing that the treatment of the prisoners was different, then I can't see how re-opening the case is going to change the ruling.
Save the Creme Egg!

Tim Minchin wrote:I'm not pessimistic about the supernatural, but rather I'm optimistic about the natural
Jasper Fforde wrote:If the real world were a book, it would never find a publisher. Overlong, detailed to the point of distraction - and ultimately, without a major resolution.
Dennis the peasant wrote:Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

User avatar
Chucky Arla
Diplomat
 
Posts: 676
Founded: Jul 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Chucky Arla » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:06 am

Occidentria wrote:
Chucky Arla wrote:
I'm sure he'll appear eventually but this isn't about him and i'd prefer if such threadjacks from a very serious topic were avoided. Thanks.

Don't worry. I'm certain someone will regurgitate the talking points I agree with eventually.
Oh wait, looks like someone already has.
Risottia wrote:Considering the ECHR jurisprudence, the Irish government has no legal standpoint there. The victims or their relatives, on the other hand, do. Then again the ECHR isn't very likely to allow a case about an unfaithful report by the British government until remedies to that have been sought and denied by British courts.
So I consider this to be a blatant case of Irish parties pandering about for some propaganda.

Following up on this case in the ECHR contradicts Fine Gael's preference toward European integration (and by extension Europe's coffers) and President Higgins's personal efforts to continue building a productive relationship with Britain.
O'Gorman's a political has-been who's looking for a new fifteen minutes of fame amidst the setting sun of Hiberno-nationalism. The victims of these crimes would be better served through individual cases against the British government. Ireland itself won't pick it up because it'd amount to shooting itself in the foot it's using to walk across the Irish Sea and the English Channel.


Higgins (May 2014) :

Denouncing as morally unacceptable attempts to encourage victims to forget the past, Michael D Higgins said more needed to be done in dealing with the fall-out of some horrific massacres.

The president said the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974 was one such case.

"A strategy of amnesia is simply not an option," he said.

President Higgins also said he hoped that the British Government could "find a way to respond positively" to a "measured and constructive proposal" to allow an international judge unfettered access to all of the official documents on the atrocity.


None of this would have impact on greater European integration. To those in power it's a minor blip in the grand scheme of things (and sadly we're stuck in that mindset with them).

Go on though, what is the basis for your assertions on O'Gorman.

User avatar
Chucky Arla
Diplomat
 
Posts: 676
Founded: Jul 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Chucky Arla » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:08 am

Shove Piggy Shove wrote:
Chucky Arla wrote:
I imagine the withholding of vital medical documents would potentially have a significant effect on that

"the British Government withheld vital medical, legal and policy documents from the European Court of Human Rights and the Irish Government in respect of the case taken to Europe by the Irish state alleging torture,”


That's a statement from The Committee On The Administration Of Justice and the Pat Finucane Centre, but there's no mention of this anywhere else in the article, nor any quotes attributed to documents purporting to show this, so I'll take it with a pinch of salt for the time being.


Last paragraph of the article. You can't take some sections of the article in your favour and ignore others.

Also, even if there were proof that medical documentation was withheld from the ECHR, it still doesn't change the fact that the original ruling was that their treatment was not torture. Unless there are documents showing that the treatment of the prisoners was different, then I can't see how re-opening the case is going to change the ruling.


And differing medical reports would have an impact on determination of torture. That's the point.

User avatar
Chucky Arla
Diplomat
 
Posts: 676
Founded: Jul 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Chucky Arla » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:16 am

L Ron Cupboard wrote:I am very anti-torture and it saddens me that my country seems to resort to it. If there is enough evidence there should be prosecutions, though I suspect tracks will have been covered to avoid that eventuality.


That's my concern too. Even incredibly expensive reports such as with Bloody Sunday didn't lead to prosecutions. Fortunately it did reveal the truth which seems, to me at least, to have been worth it.

User avatar
Chestaan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6977
Founded: Sep 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Chestaan » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:16 am

Risottia wrote:Considering the ECHR jurisprudence, the Irish government has no legal standpoint there. The victims or their relatives, on the other hand, do. Then again the ECHR isn't very likely to allow a case about an unfaithful report by the British government until remedies to that have been sought and denied by British courts.
So I consider this to be a blatant case of Irish parties pandering about for some propaganda.


What parties have taken up this cause? As far as I can see, so far only Amnesty International have pushed for this case to be made to Europe.
Council Communist
TG me if you want to chat, especially about economics, you can never have enough discussions on economics.Especially game theory :)
Economic Left/Right: -9.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.62

Getting the Guillotine

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55272
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Risottia » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:24 am

Patriarch wrote:
Risottia wrote:Considering the ECHR jurisprudence, the Irish government has no legal standpoint there. The victims or their relatives, on the other hand, do. Then again the ECHR isn't very likely to allow a case about an unfaithful report by the British government until remedies to that have been sought and denied by British courts.
So I consider this to be a blatant case of Irish parties pandering about for some propaganda.


You seem to know more about the legal ins and outs than Amnesty international. Can you explain further your understanding of the relevant laws which result in an Irish lack of legal standing?

Simple.

From the OP:
"The recently unearthed files included a letter in 1977 from then British Home Secretary Merlyn Rees to then UK Prime Minister James Callaghan, in which he states his view that the decision to use “methods of torture in Northern Ireland in 1971/72 was taken by ministers – in particular Lord Carrington, then secretary of state for defence”. "Amnesty International said the documents show the UK Government withheld crucial evidence from the European Court during the original hearing and that senior government ministers sanctioned the use of torture, which they had denied."

The Irish government isn't involved directly (incidentally, see Protocol 14). The acts were committed within British borders and at the hand of personnel of the British government. As can be see by the original ruling of the ECHR (from OP again):

"In the original case against Britain, the European Court of Human Rights found the Hooded Men were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment but ruled it was not torture. Thomas Hammarberg, who led the human rights organisation’s 1971 mission to Northern Ireland to investigate internment, said the British government had a responsibility to establish the facts."

The Irish government addressed the ECHR as an Inter-state case (which is anyway a rare procedure).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_C ... tate_cases

But that issue has been already ruled over: the British gov't has been found guilty of subjecting people to inhuman and degrading treatment - which is a violation of the Convention already.

Now we're seeing the British government allegedly hiding facts from an inquiry. That would be a breach of the duties of the British government according to British laws (because the Convention has become British law upon ratification by the British Parliament). The ECHR is quite clear in stating that, before applying to the Court, all domestic remedies must have been sought by the applicants (which, again, according to Protocol 14, must have "suffered a significant disadvantage": this is the case for the victims but not for the Irish government) and rejected by the domestic (hence, in this case, British) courts.
.

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55272
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Risottia » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:26 am

Occidentria wrote:Following up on this case in the ECHR contradicts Fine Gael's preference toward European integration

ECHR = Council of Europe.
Council of Europe =/= EU.
.

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55272
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Risottia » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:26 am

Chestaan wrote:
Risottia wrote:Considering the ECHR jurisprudence, the Irish government has no legal standpoint there. The victims or their relatives, on the other hand, do. Then again the ECHR isn't very likely to allow a case about an unfaithful report by the British government until remedies to that have been sought and denied by British courts.
So I consider this to be a blatant case of Irish parties pandering about for some propaganda.


What parties have taken up this cause? As far as I can see, so far only Amnesty International have pushed for this case to be made to Europe.


From the OP:
"The Government is “very seriously” considering demands to reopen a landmark case against Britain over the alleged use of torture in the North during the Troubles."
.

User avatar
Shove Piggy Shove
Diplomat
 
Posts: 757
Founded: Oct 17, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Shove Piggy Shove » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:36 am

Chucky Arla wrote:
Shove Piggy Shove wrote:
That's a statement from The Committee On The Administration Of Justice and the Pat Finucane Centre, but there's no mention of this anywhere else in the article, nor any quotes attributed to documents purporting to show this, so I'll take it with a pinch of salt for the time being.


Last paragraph of the article. You can't take some sections of the article in your favour and ignore others.

Also, even if there were proof that medical documentation was withheld from the ECHR, it still doesn't change the fact that the original ruling was that their treatment was not torture. Unless there are documents showing that the treatment of the prisoners was different, then I can't see how re-opening the case is going to change the ruling.


And differing medical reports would have an impact on determination of torture. That's the point.


I'm not ignoring sections of the article, I'm saying that until the evidence has been released I will view unsubstantiated statements as unsubstantiated.

This is from the Guide to the Implementation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

The Court found that as the five techniques were applied in combination, with premeditation and for hours at a stretch, they caused at least intense physical and mental suffering to the persons subjected to them and also led to acute psychiatric disturbances during interrogation. They therefore fell into the category of inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3. The techniques were also degrading since they were such as to arouse in their victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance. However, they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture.


Whilst it is theoretically possible that the medical reports would show that the suffering was "of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture," I'm not convinced that this would be the case when it has already been acknowledged that "the five techniques were applied in combination, with premeditation and for hours at a stretch" and "caused at least intense physical and mental suffering to the persons subjected to them"

Risottia wrote:
Chestaan wrote:
What parties have taken up this cause? As far as I can see, so far only Amnesty International have pushed for this case to be made to Europe.


From the OP:
"The Government is “very seriously” considering demands to reopen a landmark case against Britain over the alleged use of torture in the North during the Troubles."


“This matter is being taken very seriously by the Irish Government,” a spokeswoman at Dublin’s Department of Foreign Affairs said. “We are still exhaustively reviewing the thousands of documents submitted by RTÉ and the Pat Finucane Centre in relation to the case.

“No decision has been taken on whether or not Ireland will request the European Court of Human Rights to revise its judgment in this case.

“It is expected that when a decision is reached by the Government, it will be made public.”


The 'very seriously' is taken from the above quote from a spokeswoman for Department of Foreign Affairs, it hasn't even come from a minister - let alone a party leader.
Save the Creme Egg!

Tim Minchin wrote:I'm not pessimistic about the supernatural, but rather I'm optimistic about the natural
Jasper Fforde wrote:If the real world were a book, it would never find a publisher. Overlong, detailed to the point of distraction - and ultimately, without a major resolution.
Dennis the peasant wrote:Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

User avatar
Fionnuala_Saoirse
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5242
Founded: Nov 17, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Fionnuala_Saoirse » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:45 am

There's no way this case will be brought forward. The Irish government has thrown those of us in the North under the bus more times than I can count when it serves their interests and, unless the wronged parties can bring enough media attention to this, it is more beneficial to them to ignore the torture that occurred than to pursue justice. It was torture in either case and the British overturning previous judgements on appeal will never change my view on that. They kidnapped hundreds of catholics from their homes and locked them up without charge on sectarian grounds and then psychologically and physically tortured them while thousands more were displaced from their homes. Fuck every single individual involved in or supportive of those actions.
Stupid Telegrams Received :

- "Isn't your name the name of the female Branch of the IRA" -- Benian Republic

User avatar
The Nihilistic view
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11424
Founded: May 14, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Nihilistic view » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:45 am

Harpers Ferry wrote:
Occidentria wrote:Yeah, upon reading the thread title in "Latest Forum Topics" I was very nearly certain this would be a Mansidog thread. :lol:

So I wasn't the only one :p


Me three.
Slava Ukraini

User avatar
Occidentria
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: Aug 26, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Occidentria » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:47 am

Chucky Arla wrote:Higgins (May 2014) :

Denouncing as morally unacceptable attempts to encourage victims to forget the past, Michael D Higgins said more needed to be done in dealing with the fall-out of some horrific massacres.

The president said the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974 was one such case.

"A strategy of amnesia is simply not an option," he said.

President Higgins also said he hoped that the British Government could "find a way to respond positively" to a "measured and constructive proposal" to allow an international judge unfettered access to all of the official documents on the atrocity.


None of this would have impact on greater European integration. To those in power it's a minor blip in the grand scheme of things (and sadly we're stuck in that mindset with them).

Pay attention to what they do, not what they say. President Higgins's substantive action on this has been limited. It may well be that the cabinet has been cooperating with Amnesty International Ireland on this, hoping the organization would be the principal mouthpiece of the government's interests so that commentary and calls for action can be disassociated with the government, but I'll still be shocked if a trans-governmental case is ever heard.
Risottia wrote:
Occidentria wrote:Following up on this case in the ECHR contradicts Fine Gael's preference toward European integration

ECHR = Council of Europe.
Council of Europe =/= EU.

TIL a state's involvement in and relationship with the European Union the sole factor of consideration in continental integration and Europeanism.
Even still, I brought that up as a periphery point; Ireland's relationship with Britain is really the point of contention here. And if it comes to a game of chicken between Britain and Ireland, the latter'll be the first to back down.
Last edited by Occidentria on Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
The Nihilistic view
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11424
Founded: May 14, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Nihilistic view » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:50 am

I can't see what it will change, it's not new methods and actions being uncovered. If they ruled that those actions did not stretch as far as torture before they won't do it this time.

Though I would very much like to know why it's not as it looks like psychological torture to me.
Slava Ukraini

User avatar
Chucky Arla
Diplomat
 
Posts: 676
Founded: Jul 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Chucky Arla » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:53 am

The Nihilistic view wrote:I can't see what it will change, it's not new methods and actions being uncovered. If they ruled that those actions did not stretch as far as torture before they won't do it this time.

Though I would very much like to know why it's not as it looks like psychological torture to me.


They ruled it not torture on appeal and torture on the original hearing.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Jetan, Singaporen Empire, The Scandoslavic Empire

Advertisement

Remove ads