Gov. Nominates Anti Abortion lawyer to European Court

[corelli]

It has come to my notice, though it has not been released publicly, that amongst the 3 persons nominated by the Irish Government for appointment to the European Court of Human Rights is one lawyer who has public and quite strong anti-abortion and pro-family views.

Now, I am not in any denegrating this person, who shall remain nameless, and I am sure has firm convictions, but what I wish to canvass is is it appropriate for the Irish Government to nominate someone who has such public views to a court which will, over the coming years, have to grapple with major social issues such as gay marriage etc.

It should be noted that there is a very famous irish Supreme Corut case of Dublin Wellwoman Centre V Ireland where the judge in that case was obliged by the Supreme Court to remove herself from hearing the case as she had been the Chair of the Commission on the Status of Women which had views on the X case and had communicated them to the Government.

The Supreme Court took the view that it was not just actual bias that mattered but rather if a reasonable person might consture that there MIGHT be bias.

Of course she is not guaranteed of getting the job, there are two other candidates in the race, but I am of the view that considering the above, the Irish Government were mistaken in nominating her for appointment.

[CJH]

I dont undertand your argument. The point in Wellwoman wasn't that Carroll J shouldnt have opinions on abortion, but that, given her publicly known views, she shouldnt hear a case involving abortion issues.

If a known pro-life judge were in the same position, the same rules would apply.

Are you suggesting that pro-lifers shouldnt be allowed sit on the bench at all?

[corelli]

That is exactly my point. Is it the case that this person will not be allowed hear or objections will be made to her sitting in a case on the subjects she has public views on. I am simply saying that is better if a person without strong public views were nomintated. Of course she is perfectly entitled to be appointed, and I am not pro abortion myself, but It may make for all kinds of difficulties in the future. My argument would equally apply to a person with publicly known views in the other direction.

[smiffy]

Now, I am not in any denegrating this person, who shall remain nameless, and I am sure has firm convictions, but what I wish to canvass is is it appropriate for the Irish Government to nominate someone who has such public views to a court which will, over the coming years, have to grapple with major social issues such as gay marriage etc.

Why not name this person (and the other nominations)? How did you hear about it? It's hard to have a serious discussion on this issue if we're only talking about some anonymous person with unspecified 'pro-family' views.

[corelli]

I don't see the point in naming the individuals as it adds nothing to what is a general point.

However,
One is a Senior Counsel with a reasonable practice.
The second is a well respected Senior Counsel with a large criminal practice.
The third is some youngish solicitor who I have never heard of but who would appear to have been added to the list after the original 3rd pulled out.

As to how I know, well, is not the whole point of politics.ie to create debate without having to identify ones sources etc. If I indicated how I knew the source would become obvious.

[odie1kanobe]

It has come to my notice, though it has not been released publicly, that amongst the 3 persons nominated by the Irish Government for appointment to the European Court of Human Rights is one lawyer who has public and quite strong anti-abortion and pro-family views.

Damm it must really stick in your craw that the Govt nominated someone who is in tune with the wishes of the majority of the Irish people in being anti abortion and pro family.

[CookieMonster]

Why not appoint somebody who anti-abortion and pro-family views?

[corelli]

If people took the time to read my post you will see that I make the same argument for someone that was pro abortion.

The simple point is that, in my view, appointing someone with public and strong views, on ANY ISSUE of controversy, as abortion most certainly is, will likely result in that person being unable to hear or at least being objected to in hearing, any case relating to the issue on which they have such public views. It would simply make more sense to nominate persons who do not court publicity or are not on record as having strong views on such matters.

People might remember Rory O'Hanlon having to resign from the Law Reform Commission over just such a matter.

It is not that the individual WILL be biased but that a person appearing before them might reasonably have the impression that they MIGHT be biased.


Let this post not move into a pro and anti abortion debate. (pro live - whatever you want to call it). It is a general post about appointing persons with strong public views in controversal matters to the judiciary.

[Dunny]

If you took the time to read my post you will see that I make the same argument for someone that was pro abortion.

I'm Pro Life.. Anti Abortion is an attempt by the Pro Choice Lobby to move away from the core issue

[CookieMonster]

I'm pro-opinion.