Archive for October, 2011

“The Australian”

Posted: October 31, 2011 in Prose
Tags: , , , ,

What does it mean to be an Australian, how can I explain that I come from Down Under

Well it lies in my knowledge of mother being, both nurture and nature, of feeling the heartbeat as deep as thunder.

Perhaps it’s just lying lazily in the searing sun as skinks and geckos swift and flit upon lava stone

Or the appreciation of the cricket’s night time song, or the cicada’s evening drone

 Is it the giveaway sign of calmness that cloaks me when I smell the sweetness of the wattle

Or the friendly humour that emanates whence I consume burnt sausage and cold bottle

 

What does it mean to be an Australian, to come from this great vast land,

No black, nor white, or Asian man can ever refuse her hand,

Her tattoo is left indelible, and yet there is no visible sign,

Sometimes the only way you can ever know, is when I say, I’m proud to be Austral-i-yne

Is it my love for Patterson,  is it because I still wear a  Jackie Howe,

Maybe it’s a fact that after twenty long years from her shores, my matilda longs for her still somehow.

 

What does it mean to be an Australian, well let me try to give you some

Kind of example that lets you know what it’s like to feel as one

Of her children; one of her flowers, one of her seeds, that has survived desert rains and flooding drought

How sometimes her power can put you in that place where you have to stop and think it out

She is the Madonna, the Eden, the Dreaming, the promise that will never yield,

And for those that seek to find her, shall find her fruits, in every river, mountain, billabong and field

 

What does it mean to be an Australian, what does it really mean.

Is it ‘Fair dinkum’ , G’day, or ‘Have a go’ or does it carry a deeper seam

Is it the ‘Lest we forget’ when the sun rises in the east,  and remembering the Anzac brother

That gave me the freedom to see each Australian as an equal to each other

Is it the realisation that in her gain there is always a tandem loss,

Or that the heavens that we pray to are lit by her beautiful southern cross

 

What does it mean to be an Australian, maybe the meaning is the same for every earths son,

Is it the fact that were continental, and islanders, all in one,

Is it the blood on our hands, or the heriditry frown, or the twinkle of the loveable rogue,

As he sneaks a drink from the Melbourne Cup, or is it the twang of our convict brogue,

Perhaps Lawson defined us all, as bushmen that were great pioneers,

Or maybe it’s the story of Simpson and Donkey, that let’s us overcome our fears

 

What does it mean to be an Australian, well maybe mother nature speaks it best,

She allows you to succour like a new born child upon her native breast,

But she carries a fury, a devils curse, a retributive power, that daren’t not be foresaken,

The rules that which her land runs by, are not for the unawaken,

No…., Mother.. mother nature here, is the vessel of life, beauty and sin,

She’s the sound and colour and smell and touch that is every Australian

 

What does it mean to be an Australian, sometimes it’s rhythmic connection to season,

It’s the feeling of being Australian in the beat of every season,

It’s the knowing of the redback, the tiger snake and roo,

It’s the knowing  that no matter where you are there’s still an outdoor loo,

It’s cricket on a summer’s day, it’s rules if your born in Vic,

It’s Rugby, up in Sydney’s Harbour, It’s warm beer that makes you sick,

 

What does it mean to be an Australian, well far be it from me to cut a long story short,

So whilst I’m up on my high bloody horse, let me tell you about the sort,

Of things that I identify with, that makes me feel like I’m one of her sons,

It’s McDowell Stuart,it’s the blackfella, it’s the drovers on their runs,

It’s the spirit of Anneas Gunn, the lady of Never, never land,

It’s the dolphins at Monkey Mia, the cave art of Gagadju Bill’s hand

 

What does it mean to be an Australian, it’s about falling down and never losing face,

It’s about growing away from your family, and remembering your base,

The true Australian, the one that you know, possesses a heart as big as Uluru,

And arms that stretch to coasts east and west, as a welcome for just you,

She is a Sheila, and he is a Pome, and there’s many other names that sit therein

But you will know one when you meet one, for there’s one thing Australian

 

It’s the one thing that defines Australians, it’s unique to all her bairn,

All traits are carried by her nature’s gifts, by all her women and men,

From her deportees to her free settlers, there’s nothing to keep them apart,

It’s the place where tall poppies can grow and be cut down for a fresh new start

It’s the land of eternal hope, that offers to every child, woman, or man

It’s my red dust patch, my matilda’s song,

That’s what it means to be an Australian.

“The Desperate Client”

Posted: October 30, 2011 in Prose

THE DESPERATE CLIENT

 

Apparently I’ve got OCD, I’m manic and depressed,

All my problems, if you talk to Freud, are sexual and repressed.

Rogerswould stay there with me, exploring why I feel rejected,

And Perls would have me ‘talk to a chair’, and they say I’m the one affected!

 

With the therapist, I umm and aaah, my body language like a mime,

My attempts to transfer my problems are rebuffed each and every time,

I’m adult, I’m child, I’m parent, my past becomes the here and now,

I’m more confused than I ever was; I wasn’t looking for ‘why’ and ‘how’.

 

I dance around my issues like Travolta on Saturday night,

I fidget with my hair and hands, my eyes twitch left and right,

The counsellor looks straight through me, like a cat would stalking bird,

And I wonder if a condescending nod amounts to being heard.

 

I’m told that I can’t change the past, but that I can surely learn to cope,

So I begin to explain my predicament to this psychiatric Pope,

I try to discuss the issue, but my heart begins to sink,

I stress I’m looking for an answer and then I’m asked for ‘what I think’!

 

‘You’re making terrific progress’; as I wipe the tears I’ve cried,

I feel despair and disbelief; I’m being taken for a ride,

‘I wasn’t crying half as much until that door I came through,

If this is your idea of progress, then I’ve got news for you!’

 

‘You’ve told me my childhood was abusive, that my teacher was a bully,

My desire for nicotine and alcohol has been explained to me quite fully,

My head is spinning, I think I’m losing ‘it’, I don’t know where to turn,

I feel like running out the door, but you have the answer that I yearn.’

 

‘So, taking all this into account, with your highly tuned listening skills,

I remind you that you’re here for me, to facilitate my wills,

When I came in through your door today, I had just one question on my mind,

I’ll agree I’m lost, but I’m really o.k. Tis’ the toilet I wish to find to find!!!!!!

“I Speak Your Name”

Posted: October 29, 2011 in Prose
Tags: , , ,

I SPEAK YOUR NAME

I speak your name, softly;

Gently;

Almost breathlessly;

I caress your very sound as you quietly leave my lips

And climb upon the playful breeze

My kiss will hold your name; My desire will seek your kiss,

And you shall always live in my heart.

 

The breeze grows stronger, transforms in the wind, calmly,

Steadily;

Refreshingly;

You cleanse me through your breath, I close my eyes

And see you, experience you,

My hand will hold you near,

My touch will seek your hand,

And you shall always enlighten my heart.

 

The wind increases to gale, not fiercely, but stoicly,

Brazenly;

Assuredly;

I scream your name to fuel your existence

And dance wildly in you throes,

My passion will breathe you deeply,

My wont will seek your passion,

And you will always fire my heart.

The gale relieves in tempest and returns an air of calm, peacefully,

Tenderly;

Serenely;

I speak your name in silence and embrace you as you rest,

My joy will hold your laughter,

My soul will seek your joy,

And you shall always know my heart is loving you

 

Each time I speak your name.


On the 27th of October the Irish People will be asked to vote for two constitutional amendments, one on Judges Pay, which has been addressed here before (“You Be The Judge”), and two, on granting powers of investigation to the Oireachtas, the Parliamentary houses of the nation.

So let’s take a look at the second amendment.

On the surface the concept seems reasonable enough doesn’t it? The Government being able to investigate matters of public interest? On the surface, it may be reasonable to suggest, that a referendum, is not needed to do this, surely the numerous committees that have existed to date, have had similar powers of investigation. And if passed, any findings, so called ‘findings of fact’ will not be held as criminal convictions.

So what is the purpose of this amendment if all it can do is investigate a person in ‘the public interest’ and ultimately say ‘a la Monty Python….”You’ve been a naughty boy, now Go Away!!!”

Let’s assume that all this is well and good, then we have nothing to worry about surely, or do we?

A few questions have arisen for this voice in regards to this amendment.

Who defines the public interest?……Umm, that would be the Government.

Does this position the Government, in certain cases, above the courts of the land?

If a person has been brought forward before one of these inquiries, and a court process is to follow, how can they honestly expect to receive a fair hearing before their peers?

If the Government has the power to ‘seize’ papers, computers etc….. what happens to this information after such investigation has been held?

What happens, if as proposed by this present government, if the Seanad is abolished, does that mean all of the power of investigation is handed to the ruling party of the land?

Does this mean that someone who is critical of, and perhaps damaging to,  the Government, and speaks out via social media such as twitter, facebook, Blogs etc… can be investigated in the ‘public interest’?

 

There are more questions here, than answers, and it surely is in the ‘public interest’ to have this issue debated far more than it has been to date.

 

Alas, however you decide to vote, I hope you have made your inquiries into this amendment, in the ‘public interest’!

 

Voice.


They know me as Sean Gallagher, from the County Monaghan,

I’m seeking your vote for President, so give it if you can,

I’ve worked as an entrepreneur, a youth worker and a farmer,

I’ve been told I have charisma, akin to that of a snake charmer.

 

I’ve spent many of my days within Fianna Fail, alas, this song I sing less now,

I refuse to campaign negatively, to put down the little guy, or row,

You won’t be seeing air brushed posters of me, upon your street light pole,

No, my image belongs upon a pedestal, For that’s how I see my role.

 

I’ve learnt enough down through the years, I’ve been unemployed twice, did you know?

And I may fail again, I suspect someday, sure, it’s the only way to grow,

I am expert consultant in my field, and I know you may find that funny,

But as a Dragon in your TV’s Den, Did you see me throw away my money?

 

No, you see, as an entrepreneur, I respect the cost, the cash, the way business operates,

I’m more dedicated to this nation’s future, than I am to recollection of dates,

So, if you want to support me,in this campaign, I assure you, I’m no dope,

I’ll even call around to your house if you wish,

To collect the Envelope!

 

Voice.

 

 

Does Dana Know About This?

Posted: October 22, 2011 in Uncategorized

These letters, arrived in me email box……..I will let you decide……..

LETTER NO.1

 

 

Letterkenny,   21st October 2011

 

By e-mail

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reverend Father

 

I’m writing on behalf of a group of concerned citizens who have been campaigning tirelessly for Dana’s election to the presidency.  We belong to no specific party or organisation.  We are simply a group of lay Catholic faithful from throughout both the Dioceses of Raphoe and Derry who are especially concerned at the advances being made by the aggressive secularist agenda at the expense of our Church and our Christian values, as witness the un-opposed passage of the Civil Partnership Act last year.

 

We believe we are correct in saying that all of the candidates for the presidency, with one exception, have declared themselves to be in favour of so called ‘gay marriage’ (GM).  That exception is Dana Rosemary Scallon.

 

If such a concept were ever to get an equal footing in our law and in our constitution with marriage as now protected by Article 41 of the Constitution, not only will this lead to subversion of Marriage as we have always known it, but, as night follows day, will lead to homosexual adoption of innocent children.

 

Furthermore, we believe it to be a practical certainty that in the event of ‘GM’ ever acquiring the constitutional status of marriage, whether under the pending constitutional review process, or otherwise, it will not be possible for the adoption agencies to make any distinction between married couples and homosexual partners when it comes to considering adoption applications, and indeed, would probably leave the agencies open to legal action and prosecution if they were to attempt to do so.

 

The people need to go into the election booths on the 27th with their eyes open and in the full knowledge of what is at stake for society and for our children.

 

As it has proved impossible to get this message out through the media, which has been largely taken over by the liberal agenda, and with only days to go to polling day, we laity must now fall back upon our Bishops and Priests as previous generations so often have had to do, to give witness to Christ’s truth.

 

We would be grateful if you would read, or summarise, Fr. Desmond Sweeney’s enclosed statement to your congregations at all Masses this weekend, and impress upon them our above stated concern with regard to the threat posed by those advocating ‘GM’.

 

This is only one of the values that are under threat from the secularist agenda, as recent events have demonstrated, Catholic education and respect for the seal of confession to name but two.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Mr. Cathal Quinn

(on behalf of all of us concerned)

 

AND LETTER NO 2……………….

 

The Presidential Election

Thursday 27th October 2011

 

Many of you are wondering which of the candidates presenting themselves you should choose as your next President, and it may seem irrelevant to you who becomes President, that it’s not going to affect you in any way.

 

That however may not be so.

 

Consider what it was that got us into this economic mess we’re in.  It was caused by the replacement of values such as honesty, integrity, and justice with untruthfulness, greed, selfishness, and disregard for others and so on.

 

If the erosion of our values goes on, if everyone is out for himself and jungle values replace traditional values, things could get worse – much worse.  The countries around the globe, in which there is the greatest destitution and misery, are often those countries in which there is the most corruption and exploitation.  So the values we live by do have a lot to do with bread-and-butter issues in the long run.

 

In this election, you might avail of the opportunity to say, loud and clear, that you’ve had enough, and more than you can take – of the erosion of those values dear to your heart.  In this election, vote for the candidate whose values you consider sound, good, noble and true.  The candidate who would represent our people, our ethos, our values at home and abroad.

 

In electing a President, we show the world what our values are – what and who we ourselves are.

 

What would our kith and kin abroad think of us, eg were we to choose as President someone who is a heathen and pro-abortion (euphemistically referred to as “pro-choice”)?  What would our loved ones gone before us think – those loved ones who sacrificed so much to hold on to and pass on to us their cherished values – if now we were to turn our backs on them and reject their values?  What sort of payback would it be to grieve and wound so deeply the hearts of those who loved us so much?

 

What sort of people would they think we have become?

 

You will have noticed in the recent TV debates, that almost all of the candidates have been programmed to accept and normalise unnatural lifestyles and behaviour.  How would you feel if you were invited or constrained to engage in unnatural behaviour?

 

You do not have to change, to turn yourself inside-out to accommodate attitudes and values you find abhorrent.  Remain true to yourself, to the decency implanted in your heart and soul.  Remember, of course, that God loves and cherishes every human being that ever lived.  So we should love and respect the dignity of those who are different.

 

There are many in our society today who are so cravenly subservient that they are prepared to screw up their minds in order to be politically correct, to be accepted by their liberal peers, especially among our so-called ‘intelligentsia’.  Where were they when our economy was crashing to the ground?  They don’t seem to know all that much, even in their own sphere of “expertise”.

 

Politics is about a just society.  We all have a say in what constitutes a just society and Christians should not be excluded from the political arena.

 

Under NO circumstances, should you vote for any candidate who is pro-abortion (“pro-choice”).

 


Of all the candidates presenting themselves for election, there is only one you can rely on to represent and uphold those values you hold dear – and that is DANA.  Give DANA your number 1 vote.


 

Remember what Jesus said to St. Paul before his conversion, on the road to Damascus:  “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me ….. I am Jesus and you are persecuting me …”

 

Fr. Desmond Sweeney

Ramelton


On Thursday October the 27th of this year 2011, the Irish people are invited to go to the polling booth yet again. Aside from a by election, the majority of the nation will be asked to cast their voice for a new president, and to approve/reject two proposed constitutional amendments.

So let’s take a look at one of the proposed constitutional changes. Article 35.5 …judges pay.

As the majority of the electorate will be informed by the information booklet dropped through their letter boxes, I have decided to use this as my basis of discussion. The leaflet can be found online via http://www.referendum2011.ie/

On page 4 of the leaflet, a sub section of the proposed change to Article 35.5 reads as follows:

3° Where, before or after the enactment of this section, reductions have been or are made by law to the remuneration of persons belonging to classes of persons whose remuneration is paid out of public money and such law states that those reductions are in the public interest, provision may also be made by law to make proportionate reductions to the remuneration of judges.

Now, a question arises for this voice here.

Does this proposed amendment, through its wording, actually set a precedent for the ability of the Constitution to act retrospectively? Has it been done before? Can it be done in the future?

I am no legal expert, but I presume most laws are introduced as a way of recognising a failing from the past, and adjusted, for better practice into the future, not as this amendment is stating…..‘as this has happened, we can do now this’.

Is this the actual intent of this proposed amendment, to place the thin end of the wedge of retrospective law making into the constitution?

It is true, that the constitution states that judges pay cannot be reduced, whilst they are in office, and that they cannot be removed from office, except for certain criteria, so, would it not be better to have a referendum that allows for a ‘Judicial Term of Office’, where Judges will sit for an agreed term and salary, which can be renegotiated upon completion of tenure?

For example, a five year Term of Office at say 100k per annum, once that five year term has expired, a new contract is negotiated, it may be 150k per annum, or 75k per annum, etc, whatever the economic times will allow. And it is the economic times we are in which has supposedly initiated this referendum.

The concept that the Judiciary must be seen to be independent and separated from the government is a virtue well worth upholding, however, the Judiciary are also supposed to be servants of the people, not above, or exempt from the same laws that they uphold for us. Or have I misjudged that…..?

It would be far more constructive, if the Judiciary were brought into line with the majority of the Population, that is, that their positions are contracted with finite terms of salaries and tenure, the same as the very people they serve. Such a concept will not interfere with their ability to perform their duties independently, and if it is suggested that it will, then I suspect they are not independent at all.

Alas, no such proposal is being placed before the people. No, we are being asked to allow the government to reduce Judges pay because, Teachers, Gards, Nurses, and the many other civil servants have had their pay reduced. And it is being based upon, in part, retrospective happenings. And we save how much?

I could be wrong here as regards to the introduction of retrospection, I could be wrong in wanting a ‘Term of Office’ for the judiciary, I could be wrong on believing that as the judiciary serves the people, that they are therefore not exempt, or above the same law of the people, I could be wrong in thinking there is another agenda lying behind this proposed amendment,

Let’s face it, I could be wrong,

However,

“You Be The Judge”

Voice.


It never ceases to amaze me that when tough economic times visit upon national economies, that one of the most common areas of society that is targeted for ‘readjustment’ are the ordinary men and women in the street. They are often criticised as if ‘their sense of entitlement’ is to blame for the downturn.

Their demands for better wages, conditions, which in turn lead to better education and  lifestyles, and higher spending power and disposable income, all act as a benefit to society, and a lubricant to a vibrant economy. But alas, it is this aspiration, which is being blamed for our current woes, a kind of ‘How dare you strive to improve your lot, how dare you get above your station, how dare you dream to believe that passing on a better quality of life to the next generation is your right, your entitlement!!’

In the United Kingdom this week, former Tory Minister Edwina Curry in an interview on BBC 5 Live was adamant that ‘nobody in the UK was going hungry’ due to the austere times we live in. She then proceeded to validate her argument, which was quite stunning in its philosophy, and quite saddening in its lack of sympathy and understanding. You can hear a 90 second clip here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15336931

So, if a Sense of Entitlement is the problem, then lets take a look at what this means,

Entitlement:  A Right granted by law or contract (especially a right to benefits) (wordweb)

A Right? A Right that has been granted? A Right, granted by law or contract? Now, I may be wrong here, but isn’t that akin to an agreement? Is it not a negotiated deal arrived at by all parties involved?

Maybe, this might sum it up a little better, If an Entitlement is a Right, then what is a Right? Once more the Wordweb sums it up:

A Right: An abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature. e.g;

“they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”; “Certain rights can never be granted to the government but must be kept in the hands of the people”; “a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away”

Ok, so a Right is something that is not given, it is something that cant be taken away, and a Right is defined as a component of an Entitledment, ergo, a right enshrined by law and/or contract, vis a vis, a legal agreement.

So, based upon this logic, a right, is not ‘A’ sense of entitlement, but “The ‘Sense’ Of Entitlement”

Why should such a thing as “The ‘Sense’ of Entitlement” be given any credence at all? Well, in the Irish Constitution, Bunreacht Na HEireann, http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Youth_Zone/About_the_Constitution,_Flag,_Anthem_Harp/Constitution_of_Ireland_March_2010.pdf

there are many examples of ‘Rights’, however, Article 41.1 and 41.1.2 in particular, appear to enshrine the rights of the family,  as being inalienable and indispensable, that is, ‘not subject to forfeiture and vitally necessary’ to the welfare of the state.

Now if a right can be seen as an aspiration or dream, and is defined as an abstract idea, and those dreams can never be taken from you, then surely you are permitted to “The’Sense’ of Entitlement”?

Alas, in the oncoming winter of 2011/12 there will be many households in this land, that shall, possibly, for the first time since the Great Famine, be handing to the next generation, a lower standard of living, less spending power, less disposable income, a creaking economy in need of a severe oil change. There will be many homes, that shall experience this Christmas, a widely celebrated festival, without any heating, turkey, or ham, let alone presents for their kids, all because any income they have has been siphoned away, to pay for the negligent and criminal deeds of a select few that had “A Sense of Entitlement”, and neglected our constitutional rights of “The ‘Sense’ of Entitlement”

So, never forget that you have the right to aspire, the right to make your life better, the right to contribute and be valued, and the right to offer your skills, abilities, hopes and dreams to a nation that will value that right as equally precious as you do. Sitting back, and having all of that stripped from you, violates your rights, and therefore, your dreams.

With over 1500 citizens emigrating every week from Ireland, a question must be asked, Why would they do such a thing, when they obviously love their family, friends, their culture? Is it because they feel the contract has been broken and they feel alienated and dispensable? Or have they just preferred to take their skills, abilities, hopes and dreams to another nation that values them with the same passion and respect as the individual does? Or have they just seen sense?

That is; “The ‘Sense’ Of Entitlement”

Voice.

“May They Find You”

Posted: October 16, 2011 in Prose

There’s a child somewhere that cries out in pain, And there’s also the man with his life down the drain,There’s the daughter of a wife and they live on Hell’s train,

And one day they may find you,

There’s the most beautiful lady trying to hide a bruise, And there’s the teenager that comes to just chat and cruise, There’s the heartbroken man that is grieving his muse,

And one day they may find you,

There’s the one that may have ended it all, after they had spent time with you, And there’s also the ones that stop coming, no farewell, reason or adieu, Sometimes there will be the ones where the congruency is so true,

And one day they may find you

So remember this as you graduate with honours in your chosen field, There’s is no parchment, or advocate, or colleague that can ever shield, You, from the stories, the pain and the suffering they may yield,

And one day they may find you,

Yes one day they may find you,

and I hope they find you well,

I hope your smile is the welcome for them, as you answer their ringing bell, And as they guide you through their narrative, may you be able to soothe and quell For one day they may find you,

Yes one day they may find you, And on the day they find you,

may they find you well.

Voice


Ok, before you think I am nuts, (and I can assure you I am not), I will expect all shades of opinion on this piece here, for if I am the only person to question this topic, then I must surely be certifiable, and yet, I honestly have yet to find a concrete legal answer to my question: Is She Legal?

This question arose coincidentally through a reading of the Irish Constitution: Bunreacht Na hEireann. http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm

I was wanting to familiarise myself with the constitutional definition, duties, powers, and so on, of the Irish President. As we are in the throes of a Presidential campaign, I thought it would be prudent to actually understand the position better so as best to inform my voting intentions. Nothing strange there at all…

However, it was in the reading of Article 12 which pertains to the Irish Presidency, that I realised that this Article of the constitution, in several instances, refers to the position in the ‘male’ form, as in he, his, and so on…. and yet  the last three Presidential terms have been filled by two women. Mary Robinson for 7 years, and outgoing Mary McAleese for the past 14 years.

Now before you think this is going down a misogynistic road, let it be clear, these women have been widely regarded as being possibly the most successful Presidents of this nation to date.

The Issue here is not whether or not a woman should be permitted to occupy the office, but whether or not, they can, under the constitution as it is written. Thus the question: Is She Legal?

The Constitution is the basic law of the state, the canopy under which justice is administered and legal rights are enforced in courts established by law. according to the Supreme Court of Ireland website.

http://www.courts.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/0/D5F78352A387D74480257315005A419E?opendocument&l=en

Now various conversations have informed me, that the use of the male pronoun, is accepted as being inclusive of the female pronoun. As in, just because she isn’t used, it does not infer that she is not equal to the use of he. An example of this may be ‘mankind’ which is used to include all human beings regardless of gender.

Ok, in spirit, that is a ‘no brainer’, but we are not talking about spirit, we are talking about the Constitution, the primary document of a nation, that all law is derived from. If we accept the premise that he = she, then presumably she = he,

If as the constitution states in Article 40.1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. Then, technically speaking,in spirit, this statement, is assumed to also cover those who are resident within the state. But wait, perhaps not, for residents are not permitted to vote in anything but a local council election. And therefore are not equal unless a citizen. By further analysis, it is only a citizen, and not a resident  that is bound and protected by the constitution, surely? Also Article 40 pertains to Personal Rights, not Presidential Criteria. Or does citizen = resident? Does he= she? Does personal = presidential?

Is She Legal?

 

The Constitution surprisingly in Article 16 states quite clearly, the criteria needed to be eligible to run for a Dail seat. Article 16.1 in part reads as follows:  Every citizen without distinction of sex who has reached the age of twenty-one years,

Ok, so you can be a citizen, therefore, not a resident, you must be at least 21 years of age, not 20, 19, 18, clearly it states 21, and a Dail seat is clearly stated as being ‘none gender specific’, open to both male and female citizens. In this scenario he=she, no problem there at all.

No such clarification of ‘without distinction of sex’ is present in Article 12.

So, let’s track back to Article 12,and for an example section 12.4.1 which clearly states: Every citizen who has reached his thirty-fifth year of age is eligible for election to the office of President. 

Now if we accept he=she, then no problem, but 12.4.1 does not say ‘without distinction of sex’ as in 16.1, a clear and unambiguous statement, and furthermore 12.4.1 is quite unambiguous in all other areas of the clause. Citizen, not resident, 35 years of age, not 30, 25, etc….His, not her, not without distinction of sex.

The Seanad also appears to be open only to male members, but that is a digression I will choose to avoid at this juncture. See  Article 16.9

So, Is She legal?

I can accept that such a premise (he=she) appears to be accepted practice, but I have yet to see anywhere in law, or precedent, that establishes this as entirely legal practice. The Constitution is not an interpretive document surely? For any such premise surely implies as much. If we accept that any detail of the constitution is interpretative, and that ‘all citizens are equal’ then is it possible that the mother cannot be the ‘primary carer’,or that marriage applies to all, regardless of sexual orientation, or that a woman can travel abroad and access an abortion back in Ireland, as long as she has travel abroad first……….No of course not, that would be a nonsense surely, wouldn’t it?

The Constitution is a specific, rigid, document that binds all law of the nation, and it is in such specificity of its Articles and Amendments that it is presumed that an intention has existed. Not an interpretation, but a clear and unambiguous intention. So, Is She Legal?

Surely for a woman to be permitted to hold the office of the President, Article 12 should be amended to include the phrase ‘without distinction of sex’ as per Dail eligibility, and all references to he, his, etc…..replaced with The Citizen, Individual, Person, or the like.

Having established, at least in my view, a reasonable point of discussion, it is therefore put forward that Presidents Robinson and McAleese may have held office illegally, and thereby, any bill that carries their signature is also illegal. Such bills will include Lisbon, Nice, and the IMF/EU deal……….and under this premise, of he meaning he, and she meaning she, all such bills become null and void.

As stated in my opening paragraph, you may think I am nuts, but, I’ve yet to see the evidence to support the constitutional he=she argument. If you find it, let me know….

Until then I will continue to wonder ‘Is She Legal?’

Voice