Cork Blasphemy Case: Gardai Confirm File to be sent to Director of Public Prosecutions.
Director of Public Prosecutions to decide on blasphemy case.
A senior Garda in Cork has confirmed in writing to the ACLI that a file will be sent to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the exhibition of material which is insulting and offensive to Catholics hosted by University College Cork.
Both the Constitution and the statute law prohibit “publication and utterance” of material which outrages members of a religious organisation.
Following the police investigation the DPP will decide whether or not the case should be prosecuted in the criminal courts.
Gardai Investigate Cork University Over Blasphemous Image of Our Lady as Bishop Speaks Out in defence of Mary.
“Respect for Mary, the Mother of God, is bred in the bones of Irish people and entwined in their lives”
Bishop Buckley
The Chief Superintendent of the Gardai in Cork has confirmed to the ACLI that there is an ongoing investigation into allegations that a proposed art exhibition at University College Cork will contain a blasphemous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and that a book will be promoted which also contains blasphemous matter. The artist will also give a talk which is likely to contravene the law given it will be about her work and book.
Under the Defamation Act 2009 section 36 (2) “publication or utterence of blasphemous matter” is a criminal offence. Numerous complaints have been made to the police following the announcement by UCC that a controversial lesbian artist, Lopez, has been invited to display her work and her book.
Bishop Buckley has spoken out in protest at the proposed exhibition saying:
“Respect for Mary, the Mother of God, is bred in the bones of Irish people and entwined in their lives. Irish Poets and culture held Mary in the highest esteem. It is regretable and unacceptable that this exhibition seeks to portray the Mother of God in such an offensive way.”
This exhibition was closed down in Santa Fe due to public outrage. Catholics are aware of the gravity of blasphemies against Our Lady, which, as Our Lord revealed to Sister Lucy, fall into five kinds:
There are five types of offences and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary :
1 – Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception;
2 – Blasphemies against Her Virginity;
3 – Blasphemies against Her Divine Maternity, in refusing at the same time to recognise Her as the Mother of men;
4 – The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children, indifference or scorn or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother;
5 – The offences of those who outrage Her directly in Her holy images. Here, my daughter, is the reason why the Immaculate Heart of Mary inspired Me to ask for this little act of reparation . . (May 29,1930)
Lopez also promotes a blasphemous book entitled, “Our Lady of Controversy .”Irreverent” Apparitions”, making her intentions clear.
The ACLI is awaiting the decision of the Garda regarding pursuing the University and the artist in question for breaching the blasphemy laws. Given the outrage caused, evidenced by the number of complaints and protests made, and the intention of the artist and the University in promoting this work, it is unlikely that the exhibition will go ahead.
On the other hand it will make an ideal case for a prosecution, private or public, if it does.
ABC Case Judgement: ECrtHR Redefines Irish Constitutional Pro Life Clause in Legal First. (Its Now a Pro Abortion Clause…..)
What no one has really reckoned on yet is the reaction of the Irish people who will resist this insult to their integrity and who, as a nation, surely have a love of their children born and unborn, sometimes equalled but never surpassed.
Grand Chamber Judgment A. B. and C. v. Ireland 16.12.10
The ECrtHR announced its decision on the ABC abortion case earlier today. Click above for the full press release from the court office.
The court rejected two of the appelant cases and accepted the third case , C, on one ground only. Bizarely the court found that Ireland had a “constitutional” right to abortion. And that C had had her Article 8 convention rights violated by the Irish Government’s failure to provide her with a pathway to effecting that alleged constitutional right.
The ECrtHR was acting well beyond its remit in interpreting the Irish Constitution. Further the ECrtHR has actualy interpreted the pro life clause in the Irish Constitution as a “right for women to access abortion”. This is due to the unecessary addition of the “equal rights of the mother” phrase which was inserted into the pro life clause against the wishes of Dr Eamon O’Dwyer and other leading promoters of the original pro life constitutional clause. Unfortunately the Pro Life Campaign at the time agreed with the clause being added to the basic acknowledgement of the right to life of the unborn child.
Article 40.3.3 reads:
” The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right. (BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN)
The article 8 right in the European Human Rights Convention, on which the ECrtHR ruled in favour of the applelant C, is the right to “Family and Private Life” provision. Read carefully the judgement reveals that the ECrtHR actually did not find that Article 8 gave a right to abortion. It found for C on the spurious ascertion that the State had not provided her with the means to obtain her alledged “constitutional rights” to an abortion.
Uncannily this is akin to the basis for the Roe v Wade decision all those years ago in America.
Also of note is the involvement of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. The Irish Family Planning Association took the case on behalf of the three women, they in turn are full members of the IPPF. The IPPF recieves funding from, amongst others, the British Government for SAAF (safe abortion activism fund). A truly international effort for sure.
Clearly there was no chance of actually changing the law in Ireland by democratic means and therefore a more cunning plan had to be arranged.
The Judgement is ambiguous and it is hard to call the next move. There is no appeal from the Grand Chamber (the rather ostentatious name the ECrtHR higher court gives itself).
The Judgement, contrary to some reports such as the Washington Post, does not attack the Irish Constitution, but rather more suscinctly misinterprets the pro life clause. Therefore effectively insisting on the Constitution. (No wonder the pro abortionists didn’t flinch at the so called “abortion guarantees” attached to the Lisbon Treaty).
It seems that the ECrtHR is too smart to tackle the Irish Constitution head on, this would create a backlash, so it has insisted upon a perverse interpretation.
The 1992 X case has also been commented upon, and the alleged failure of the Irish Governement to legislate to allow for abortion in the circustances outlined by the X case. This was a perverse decision by the Irish Supreme court which effectively flew in the face of the Criminal Statute law and the Constitutional Pro Life provision.
What the ECcrtHR has not commented on is how exactly the Irish Government can allow abortions without changing the Criminal Law. Of course it has to change the Criminal Statute in someway if the demands of the court are to be met.
Pre Lisbon Treaty there would have been no power of either the ECrtHR or the EU to effect this, post Lisbon Treaty the mechanism is provided, should it become necessary and the Irish refuse to play ball. (see previous discussions here and here).
The present guess of this writer is that the weak Irish Government will plum for Abortion Guidelines which “clarify” and misinterpret the Criminal Law on abortion to the taste of the pro abortion lobby. This will proclude the necessity to put a referendum to the Irish people on new legislation affecting the Statute Law, a referendum the Government would surely lose. The Irish Family Planning Association will be hovering in the background, like the spectre at the feast, “assisting” the Department of Health in drafting the guidance. The IPPF will feel like the cat that got the cream, after all it’s a dab hand at “guidance” on abortion. This would also prevent the EU from flexing its Lisbon Treaty muscles too soon.
What the Irish Government should really do is snub this ruling and treat it with the disdain it deserves. It should call the bluff of the ECrtHR and see what the Paper Tiger does next.
What no one has really reckoned on yet is the reaction of the Irish people who will resist this insult to their integrity and who, as a nation, surely have a love of their children born and unborn, sometimes equalled but never surpassed.
Please see also Religion Law Blog by Neil Addison Barrister for more comment on this case.
Irelands ABC Case Judgement Expected Today.
“What the ABC abortion case really amounts to is a power grab be the EU over the legal systems of member states.” (ACLI)
During the season of advent, whislt we await the birth of our Divine Infant, Jesus Christ, the anti Christian forces of the pro abortion lobby attempt to inflict Ireland with its child destruction agenda by attacking the laws which protect our unborn.
Judgement in the case of three women backed by the Irish Family planning Association (a member of the International Planned Parenthood Association, partly funded by the British Government) is due at about 11am today.
The case is based on alleged contraventions of the womens’ human rights under the EU Convention, and was heard last year by the ECrtHR.
It is being widely touted that this court case could make Ireland “change its laws on abortion”.
How so?
The law prohibiting abortion in Ireland is a Criminal Statute, therefore if the ECrtHR can enforce the “right ” to abortion in Ireland it can effectively attack the domestic criminla law of EU state members.
The ECrtHR is not actualy a part of the EU, and before the Lisbon Treaty, this outrageous claim would not be in anyway substantiated as the court itself cannot force Ireland to allow abortion, it can only find Ireland in breach of Convention rights.
There are many cases in which the ECrtHR has found against member states, including the UK on many occassions, but there has been no way for the court to insist on changes in Criminal Law in any member state.
How does the Lisbon Treaty change this?
The Lisbon Treaty contains the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 52 and 53 of the Charter states that where the Charter is equivalent to ECrtHR decisions, then the Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with such decisions. Thus such ECrtHR decisions become EU law, despite the fact that the ECrtHR is not an organ of the EU.
The ABC case concerns human rights from the Convention of Human Rights which have equivalent provisions in the Charter contained in the Lisbon Treaty. Articles 2, 3, 7 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights are engaged.
Therefore, by stealth, the Lisbon Treaty allows the court at Strasbourg to make rulings which challenge the domestic criminal laws in member states.
The decision in the ABC case will not jus affect Ireland, but all member states. Not just in the area of abortion, but in any area which the ECrtHR feels it may involve itself.
Lisbon Treaty and the Criminal Law in member states.
Compounding the above the Lisbon Treaty also contains a provision at article 67.3 which reqires “…the aproximation of criminal laws”.
The machinery for supranationalising the criminal legal systems of Europe is contained within the Lisbon Treaty. All Europeans should be very concerned if a precedent is set by the ABC case which results in the capitulation of the Irish Government on abortion.
The Irish state could still call the bluff of the European Paper Tiger, if it were a strong country it would do just that. However given Ireland’s weakened ecconomic position and the recent bail out by the EU and IMF, will Ireland really stand up to its European masters on anything? The Irish government is floundering in a moral abys. It pushed through the Lisbon Treaty last year by corralling its citizens into voting YES by promising jobs and money, all of which promises have proved false to date.
Power Grab By EU: Beware all member states.
What the ABC case really amounts to is a power grab be the EU over the legal systems of member states. Using the idiologicaly driven agenda of pro abortionists and feminists (plentiful in the EU and global structures and NGOs) the EU will attempt effect a precedent via the ABC abortion case, to allow it to interfere with member states criminal legislation. This is a power far above any powers originaly envisaged by EU members, and something over which the EU citizans as a whole have has no control.
But what of the guarantees given to the Irish State regarding abortion during the Lisbon Treaty negotiation?
Unfortunately these guarantees are now shown to be worthless. The Association of Catholic Lawyers of Ireland warned in 2009 that the guarantees did not protect the Criminal Laws prohibiting abortion. Every TD was contacted regarding this and the legal minefield explained.
Ireland and abortion. The future?
In natural terms the pro abortionists may have effected a coup, in supernatiural terms however they are dead in the water.
Be reminded of the preamble to the Irish Constitution which puts the Irish State under the Holy Trinity and states
“….we humbly acknowledge all our obligations to our Divine Lord Jesus Christ” and we need have little fear as to the final outcome of this struggle.
Legal Considerations for Pregnant Women and Swine Flu Vaccination.
In N. Ireland the Department of Health is still advising pregnant women to get the Swine Flu vaccination, despite the fact that the pandemic has now been declared over.
The reasoning for this coming from the DHSSPSNI is that there is still some risk of Swine Flu infection and pregnant women are more at risk of any infection than most of the population.
However the actual vaccine being offered to pregnant women is the same as that offered for last years Swine Flu outbreak. Surely if there is a new outbreak, the strain of Swine Flu will be different this year, and therefore the present vaccine will not be effective in any case?
There seems to be plenty of conflicting medical advice on the issue and pregnant women are understandably confused. For instance 20 % of pregnant women in Australia have been advised by their doctors NOT to take the vaccine due to safety concerns, and the latest statistics show a take up rate of only 6 %.
The clearest way to make sure you are getting the BEST advice for you and your baby is to ask your own obstetrician what he thinks you should do. Ask him or her what are the safety concerns and whether this vaccine will be effective for a new strain of Swine Flu this year. Ask for the advice to be in writing. This way if anything happens to you or your baby as an adverse side effect of taking the vaccine you will have a clearer course of legal action against your obstetrician than you would against the Department of Health. Dont just get the vaccine because the Department of Health send you a leaflet saying you should!
Suggested questions you could ask:
1) The risk of miscarriage. Have any mothers who have had the Swine Flu vaccination miscarried? Can you be certain that you will not miscarry as a result of this vaccine?
2) The risk to the baby. How can it be safe for the unborn child to have a full dose of vaccine and not for children under five?
3) Is this vaccine going to protect me against a new outbreak of Swine Flu this year?
4) Are there any known neurological disorder side effects to this vaccine? Have there been any cases of Guillain–Barré syndrome or Narcolepsy from this vaccine?
Research the topic yourself and get the medical advice from the person who is overseeing your pregnancy and has your health and your childs health interests at heart. This is the person with knowledge of your personal requirements as a patient and who has responsiblilty for you and your baby.
(This comment is a general view. Each medical case is differenct and advice on a particular case should be sought from a solicitor.)
Minister for Health in North of Ireland Finally Withdraws Interim Abortion Guidance.
In a letter to Mr Jim Wells, the Chair of the Health Board , Michael McBride, the Chief Medical Officer, stated that the Minister for Health had decided to withdraw the interim guidance on abortion in N Ireland.
The letter, dated the 9th July, briefly explains that the decision was made following an approach by the Attorney General for N Ireland.
It seems that the consultation process will now begin anew.
The matter has not been covered by any mainstream media.
Doe v Holy See – Not as Important as it appears
We are delighted to publish the following article sent by Mr Neil Addison Barrister from Religion Law.
By Neil Addison Barrister at Law, Liverpool, England
For Religion Law Blog Click Here
Many media outlets have been announcing that the Vatican has been stripped of its Diplomatic Immunity by the US Supreme Court of which this Article in the Guardian Newspaper “Without its immunity, can the Vatican survive ?” is fairly typical. Unlike just about everyone else who seems to have commented on the subject I decided to find the facts first and comment afterwards and the actual legal facts are quite different from what is being reported.
Firstly the US Supreme Court has not made any decision for or against the Vatican, or The Holy See as it is more properly termed, what is has done is to refuse to review a decision made by a lower Court namely the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and this is simply reported on the Supreme Court website as “Certiorari Denied” along with a large number of other refusals of “cert”. I will deal with the implications of the Supreme Court refusing cert later but for the moment will look at the 9th Circuit decision itself Doe v Holy See No 06-35563
I am, of course, not an American Lawyer but the US and England share a common legal heritage and approach as is well demonstrated in this case which followed exactly the same legal principles applied in an English “strike out” application. A strike out application occurs before a trial and requires the Court to assume, FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT, that everything alleged by the plaintiff is true which is exactly the assumption the 9th Circuit was required to make when it was considering this appeal. It is important to be clear on this point, there has been no trial regarding Does allegations or assertions and all the legal proceedings so far have been entirely questions of law.
In the case Doe ( a pseudonym) is alleging that he was abused around about 1965 by a Priest Father Ronan (who is now dead); it is difficult to see how there can be a fair trial on something alleged to have been done 45 years ago but that was not the issue before the 9th Circuit. In his claim Doe sued two US Diocese and Ronans Religious Order which would be fairly normal in this type of case. What made the case unique was that Doe also sued the Holy See on two basis namely that the Holy See was vicariously liable for the (alleged) acts of the 2 Diocese and the Order which he claimed to be the “agents or instrumentalities” of the Holy See, it was also alleged that Father Ronan was an “employee” of the Holy See and as such the Holy See was vicariously Liable for Ronans (alleged) acts.
Now it is important to understand that the 9th Circuit accepted completely that the Holy See was a Sovereign State under International and US law and as such was entitled to exactly the same diplomatic and legal immunity enjoyed by every other Sovereign State, no more and no less. Under US law no sovereign state enjoys blanket immunity from suit and every sovereign state can be sued under the provisions of the “Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act” (Wikipedia summary here) for Torts (Civil Wrongs) committed by its employees unless they are engaged in acts “peculiar to sovereigns” eg acting as an Ambassador or Consul.
To make a comparison, and without getting too technical, if an employee of the UK Government in the USA sexually assaulted a minor whilst visiting an American School in the course of his or her duties then the UK Government could be sued in the American Courts for damages arising from that Tort however that would not affect the status of the UK as a Sovereign independent state nor would it affect the general legal principle that UK Embassy staff cannot be sued for acts committed in carrying out their official duties. Similarly a British Trade mission could be sued for Torts committed by its staff in the course of their duties because the work of a Trade mission is not work “peculiar to sovereigns” [NB 'Sovereigns' in this context means any foreign ruler or Government whether republican or monarchical]
The 9th Circuit made no decision as to whether Father Ronan had or had not done anything wrong nor did they decide whether he was or was not an Employee of the Holy See. As I have already mentioned, there has not yet been a trial and no examination of any evidence and for the purposes of deciding whether the Holy See COULD be liable the 9th Circuit had to accept the bare assertion by Doe that Father Ronan was an employee of the Holy See. On that basis they decided that if (and it is a very big IF) Ronan was an employee of the Holy See then the Holy See would be vicariously liable for his actions. Whilst the question of whether Fr Ronan was an Employee of the Holy See will depend on the exact definition of “employee” in Oregon law it is up to Doe to prove that Fr Ronan was an Employee and I doubt if he will be able to do that especially if Fr Ronan was paid by the Diocese and/or his Order
More significantly the 9th Circuit decided that the American Diocese and the Order were not “agents or instrumentalities” of the Holy See and therefore the Holy See is not vicariously liable for any actions of the Diocese or their employees. That I think is the real core decision in this case and I suspect the lawyers for the Holy See are happy about it because it clearly distinguishes between the status of the Holy See as an Internationally recognised state under International Law and the status of the Diocese etc of the Catholic Church as nationally recognised Religious Organisations under US law. The Court noted for example that the Holy See can only be sued in the US Federal Courts under the defined terms of the “Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act” whilst Catholic Diocese etc can be sued in both State and Federal Courts under ordinary Tort liability, conversely American Catholic Diocese etc enjoy the protection of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution whilst the Holy See does not.
In Summary therefore the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (NOT the United States Supreme Court) has decided
- The Holy See is a Sovereign State under US Law
- The Holy See can only be sued in the US on the same basis as any Sovereign State and enjoys exactly the same immunity from suit as any other Sovereign State
- Catholic Diocese and Organisations in the US are not “Agents or Instrumentalities” of the Holy See and the Holy See cannot be held liable for their actions
- The Holy See can only be sued with respect to the Acts of its “employees” and not for the acts of Catholic Priests etc generally
Finally on the issue of the Supreme Court refusing to review the 9th Circuits decision (refusing ‘cert’ ) this is not unusual in the circumstances of this case where as yet there has been no trial and no findings of fact. No Appellate Court likes to deal with cases, such as this, where there have no been any findings of fact and where the decision of the 9th Circuit is not (so far as I can see) in conflict with any decision by any other Circuit. Refusing cert in these circumstances does not mean that the Supreme Court necessarily agrees or disagrees with the 9th Circuit merely that the case has not yet reached a stage which is appropriate for adjudication by the Supreme Court.
PS For my American Legal Readers (if any). If I have misunderstood or misrepresented American Law or procedure please let me know and I will correct the Blog. As an aside I do find the fact that American court Judgments contain “footnotes” very peculiar and unique to US Judgments. Yes I know I’m a Limey and you have just celebrated 4th July but honestly lads it does look weird !
SPUC Given Leave To Proceed With Further Judicial Review Of Abortion Guidelines
Yesterday, May 27th, a High Court judge granted leave to SPUC allowing a challenge to the way in which the Department of Health has responded to the judgement handed down last year by Lord Justice Girvan. Girvan LJ had ordered that the Abortion Guidelines be withdrawn in full and reiterated this decision in a further hearing last December when the Department of Health tried to appeal the withdrawal.
However the Department never withdrew the guidance, and only removed two parts of the document considered erroneous and misleading by Girvan LJ. The Guidence was described by the Judge at the time as a “trap for the unwary”.
SPUC have been forced to bring a fresh Judicial Review to the High Court to examine the Departments actions. Given that SPUC have been sucessful in the three hearings on the matter so far, and have been awarded costs, it seems incredible that the Minister for Health should persue further this “scorched earth” policy upon which he seems to have embarked.
In the present climate, where the Department of Health are making severe cuts to the Health service, it should be for the Stormont Exceutive to revisit this matter and put a stop to the reckless attitude which the Minister for Health has shown.
Catholic Economist Warns of Global Financial Devastation
Catholic economist, Maurizio Orlando, contributer to Asia News and sought after financial commentator, warned of the devestation which is about to hit the world through the dire ecomomic meltdown we are now witnessing. In his view, there is no way out of the present situation in natural terms.
Maurizio Orlando speaking at the Fatima Challenge conference in Rome.
Mr Orlando joined other speakers in Rome for a conference on the question of the third secret of Fatima, which many believe has not yet been fully revealed by the Vatican.
Mr Orlando has written candidly for sometime of the truth of the world financial situation for Asia News. He has also written insightfully of the present attacks on the Papacy by the mainstream media, in paricualr the New York Times.
Also speaking at the Fatima Challenge coference in Rome were Lawyers Christopher Ferrara, John Salza and Kevin Dias. Also His Lordship Dom Manoel Pestana Filho and Father Gruner and Father Kramer and the Editor of Catholic Family News Mr John Venarri.
Click Here for a full list of the talks, which you can download, including that of Maurizo Orlando.
No Medical Necessity Conference – Stormont
On the 18th April 2010 Mrs Higgins of the ACLI was delighted, at the invitation of the All Party Pro Life Group, to share a platform with Dr Eamon O’Dwyer and Professor Patricia Casey to explain that abortion was never medically necessary, and therefore never legally defensible.
Mr Pat Ramsey Vice Chair of the All Party Pro Life Group and Mrs Higgins BL
The conference was attended by about 40 delegates and was aimed at exposing the myth behind the concept “the mothers life versus the babies life”.
Dr O’Dwyer confirmed that in all his 40 years of practice he has never encountered a situation where it was necessary to abort (ie directly kill) the baby to save the life of the mother.
The pro abortion lobby frequently ask the misleading question, “Do you not agree with abortion to save the life of the mother?”. This question is based on a false premise as there is never any ocassion when the death of a child in utero is required to save the mothers life.
The answer to such a question should be “In what circumstances is the abortion of the child required to save the life of the mother?”
It is clear that there are circumstances which require the early delivery of the child, for the sake of the mother and or the child, but how does it assist the mother to kill the child?
It was put thus to a Senior Medical Officer in N Ireland, Mrs Margaret Boyle:
(Mrs Higgins addressing the Health Committee, Stormont, 2007 Hansard reports)
This blog will be updated with the legal arguments which were presented to the conference in the near future.
leave a comment