Register to Comment
Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 160
Like Tree51Likes
  1. #91
    brughahaha brughahaha is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    15,907

    Quote Originally Posted by statsman1 View Post
    You have a legal judgement saying that the BAI's advice to broadcasters, including non-state funded broadcasters, is in breach of that specific article?
    Suffering Jesus :Roll: No the BAi are reinterpreting , by themselves, without legal testing, the interpretation of the McKenna judgement , which held

    Article 40.1 (the equality provision) to hold that the Constitution required equal treatment of each side in a referendum. Thus it was held that “such expenditure also had the effect of putting the voting rights of those citizens in favour of the amendment above the voting rights of those citizens opposed to it” and that “as well as representing a breach of the constitutional right to equality [it] also represented an infringement of the constitutional right to freedom of expression and the constitutional right to a democratic process in referenda.”

    Every referendum , the Government of the day tries to water down McKenna becasue it hates it ...this time its hoping to sneak it in by the back door via the BAI
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #92
    Emily Davison Emily Davison is offline
    Emily Davison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    27,860

    Quote Originally Posted by ger12 View Post
    Fair enough.

    See how sweet you can be. Well seeing as you're so nice today I'll give you some good news. Listen to SOR last Friday with the lovely Mullen's. It's mentioned there that RTE are already applying a stop clock to everything to do with the 8th. So you've nothing to worry about. Can't wait to hear the delectable Patricia Casey, and Maria Stein, she's just lovely.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #93
    brughahaha brughahaha is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    15,907

    Quote Originally Posted by The_SR View Post
    Oh dear.

    This is like Red Dwarf. Rimmer quoting a rule by number and Kryton quoting it.

    'I fail to see what this has to do with the Chinese delegations parking rights'
    Have you produced a single credible link , or do you think every one thinks like your mammy , that your every scuttery utterance is polished gold .....?

    Come back to me when you have the first notion about what you're talking about
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #94
    statsman1 statsman1 is offline
    statsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    595

    Quote Originally Posted by brughahaha View Post
    Suffering Jesus :Roll: No the BAi are reinterpreting , by themselves, without legal testing, the interpretation of the McKenna judgement , which held

    Article 40.1 (the equality provision) to hold that the Constitution required equal treatment of each side in a referendum. Thus it was held that “such expenditure also had the effect of putting the voting rights of those citizens in favour of the amendment above the voting rights of those citizens opposed to it” and that “as well as representing a breach of the constitutional right to equality [it] also represented an infringement of the constitutional right to freedom of expression and the constitutional right to a democratic process in referenda.”

    Every referendum , the Government of the day tries to water down McKenna becasue it hates it ...this time its hoping to sneak it in by the back door via the BAI
    You imagine they did this without legal advice?

    And they are advising all broadcasters, including those with no state funding.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #95
    brughahaha brughahaha is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    15,907

    Quote Originally Posted by statsman1 View Post
    It's ironic.
    You asked a question , you got an answer ....you dont like the answer but as usual have no credible response .......... so time for you and your adolescent circle jerk to start the ad hominem .....just another day with an epic display of stupidity on your part , cheered on by your moronic entourage ...... ho hum
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #96
    Toland Toland is offline
    Toland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    75,840

    Is the basis for the McKenna and Coughlan judgments really just Article 40.1?

    Seriously?

    40.1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
    This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

    If that's the case, it seems an awful strong conclusion from a very thin bit of text. It effectively appears to be saying that everyone is equal until we can find a reason to consider them less or more than equal -- i.e. nothing really.

    Edit: apparently Article 47.1 was also involved.

    47.1 Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall, for the purpose of Article 46 of this Constitution, be held to have been approved by the people, if, upon having been so submitted, a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum shall have been cast in favour of its enactment into law.

    Still no better off, though.
    Last edited by Toland; 13th March 2018 at 03:25 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #97
    brughahaha brughahaha is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    15,907

    Quote Originally Posted by Toland View Post
    Is the basis for the McKenna and Coughlan judgments really just Article 40.1?

    Seriously?

    40.1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
    This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

    If that's the case, it seems an awful strong conclusion from a very thin bit of text. It effectively appears to be saying that everyone is equal until we can find a reason to consider them less or more than equal -- i.e. nothing really.
    When combined with 47.1
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #98
    The_SR The_SR is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    20,389

    Quote Originally Posted by brughahaha View Post
    Have you produced a single credible link , or do you think every one thinks like your mammy , that your every scuttery utterance is polished gold .....?

    Come back to me when you have the first notion about what you're talking about
    You have made three efforts now to answer the question
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #99
    Finbar10 Finbar10 is offline
    Finbar10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,402

    Quote Originally Posted by Toland View Post
    Is the basis for the McKenna and Coughlan judgments really just Article 40.1?

    Seriously?

    40.1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
    This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

    If that's the case, it seems an awful strong conclusion from a very thin bit of text. It effectively appears to be saying that everyone is equal until we can find a reason to consider them less or more than equal -- i.e. nothing really.

    Edit: apparently Article 47.1 was also involved.

    47.1 Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall, for the purpose of Article 46 of this Constitution, be held to have been approved by the people, if, upon having been so submitted, a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum shall have been cast in favour of its enactment into law.

    Still no better off, though.
    Sure, the constitution doesn't make a lot of relevant statements either way. It's not an unreasonable approach though given the elements of popular sovereignty in the constitution (and that it appealed to popular sovereignty for its own initial legitimacy via referendum; I guess the 1937 constitution would have been invalid in the context of the Free State one). Combine the notion that the people are the sovereign decision makers in referendums and appeal to fair procedure. From there, it's not an unreasonable approach to take. It wouldn't be exactly a level playing field if a government could back one side with effectively unlimited state money. However, it was far from an inevitable decision and a set of different judges may well have produced a different majority on a different day. I guess the government was hoping for some weakening of this general approach in 2012 for the McCrystal case in the aftermath of the Children's Referendum (lots of media mood music and mutterings about the unsuitability of this approach). However, the Supreme Court unanimously and strongly backed McCrystal. A future court could I guess change its mind on all this. However, there is a strong string of consistent precedents at this stage.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #100
    Finbar10 Finbar10 is offline
    Finbar10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,402

    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Davison View Post
    Firstly I didn't bother reading your OP as I couldn't care less, but this is about airtime. My view is akin to yours. Yes siree. Can you believe this. I want Ronan Mullins and Breda and David and Katie and the lovely John morning noon and night.

    And then I hope never again in my life to ever have to listen to them ever again.
    I can understand the conflicted feelings! It is indeed a pretty sh1t setup if one is strongly in favour of an amendment and wants it to pass (one'll probably have to listen, depending on one's point of view, to a lot of chancers and muppets and "flakes" on the other side with half the time). Maybe there could be a better way, but a bit like the Leaving Cert points system, which has its own crap aspects, departures from this, e.g. entrance interviews, start getting into more subjective and slippery territory (the replacement system might possibly be fair but just as likely not, given this is Ireland). And if balance in coverage is ever undermined, then that'll be for all future referendums. There's the saying about democracy being the worst system except all the others. I have similar feelings towards this current referendum balance approach.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment