sluggerotoole--2020-06-01--Is authority split between the UK government and devolved  “nations” helping or hindering the manage

Is authority split between the UK government and devolved  “nations” helping or hindering the management of the pandemic?

Has the management of the pandemic further weakened the Union or behind the political noise , proved that Westminster and the governments of Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland are essentially working well together ?
No doubt an only partly suppressed competition to win credit with the voters at the end of the day is being waged .
But cooperation is to an extent made more difficult because the division of responsibilities isn ’ t always clear .
The devolved governments run for example health and education and most of law and order , but the UK government is finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and can command greater expertise .
( By the way I ’ m not clear that all the UK ’ s expertise is made totally available at source to the devolved governments and their experts .
This should be cleared up ) .
It ’ s argued with some force that divergences over the pace of easing lockdown have been decided not out of nationalist contrariness but because of different epidemiological conditions applying in different parts of the UK .
With localised restrictions in prospect to deter second spikes in England , elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are calling for similar powers without fundamental constitutional implications .
Two recent analyses have given a proper airing to the themes .
One is by Jim Gallagher a former senior civil servant with the Scottish government and a declared opponent of Scottish secession .
In his examination of how the UK- devolved nations relationship is changing , Akash Paun of the Institute for Government concludes that the unionist –nationalist struggle has been postponed by Covid but the stand-off over the next phase of Brexit it will revive it , with results that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devolved governments can work together – at least in a crisis Given the many disputes over Brexit , the Union and other matters in recent years , and the underlying weaknesses of the UK ’ s system of intergovernmental relations , it was far from a foregone conclusion that the different administrations would be able to cooperate at all .
But credit should be given where it is due .
In early March , the UK and devolved governments published a joint Coronavirus Action Plan – a rare sighting of a government policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administrations .
More recently , however , it appears that the trust and close relationships that underpinned that cooperation may have begun to dissipate… .
It may be that only under the red hot pressure of a crisis can joint working between governments become the norm , in which case a return to a more competitive relationship was inevitable .
Nonetheless , lessons can be learnt – by the respective governments and those seeking to hold them to account – about what has worked well in facilitating cooperation .
Devolution inevitably leads to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ naturally wish to avoid the charge that they are ‘ playing politics ’ amidst a health crisis , but the reality is that evidence can inform but not determine policy choices , especially when there is substantial uncertainty about the consequences of particular decisions , such as allowing schools to reopen in June ( as in England ) rather than August ( as in Scotland ) .
There is , in other words , scope for legitimate political judgement , for which ministers can be held to account .
Another relevant factor is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ termed the ‘ devolution paradox ’ , voters often simultaneously express support for the principle of devolved decision-making , and resistance to the reality of different rules and rights applying in different parts of the country .
This may create political pressures for convergence of lockdown rules .
Coronavirus has led to a substantial rise in public spending – by both UK and devolved governments A further constraint on divergence comes from fiscal pressures .
According to the Scottish Parliament Information Centre ( SPICe ) , the Scottish government is expecting to receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barnett Formula , as a result of additional spending in England on the NHS , and support for small businesses , rail providers and charities .
Wales and Northern Ireland will receive similar per capita funding increases .
To some extent , this allows the devolved governments to set different priorities in responding to coronavirus – as Scotland did , for instance , when it moved more quickly to offer support to the fisheries sector .
But , as if to underline the devolution paradox , the SPICe analysis finds that Scottish ministers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions taken for England , for example in creating a similar small business support scheme .
Furthermore , alongside the extra money provided through the Barnett block grant system , the devolved nations are benefitting from UK Treasury-controlled schemes for supporting employers , employees and the self-employed during this period… Coronavirus may create new opportunities for unionists – and nationalists too At the start of the coronavirus crisis , the Scottish government officially dropped its plan to hold a second Scottish independence referendum in 2020 .
But with elections to the Scottish and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the debate over the future of the Union has just been put on temporary hold and seems likely to reignite as May 2021 approaches , a period in which the ever-divisive issue of Brexit will also return to the top of the agenda .
The resumption of arguments over the UK-EU relationship may also reopen divisions in Northern Ireland , potentially sparking further talk of a ‘ border poll ’ on Irish reunification .
How the constitutional debate plays out is impossible to predict .
But one can already identify certain effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Union .
On the one hand , unionists will point to the role the UK government has played – both in providing additional financial resources to all parts of the country , and in coordinating a UK-wide public health response , for instance through creating additional COVID-19 testing capacity – as evidence of the strength of the Union , and the need for strong UK-wide action led from Westminster .
Falling global oil prices will also make it harder for the Scottish government to explain how an independent Scotland would balance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the crisis has enabled the devolved administrations to demonstrate their own capacity to coordinate much of the coronavirus response within their territories .
Data from Ipsos MORI suggests that , in Scotland , Nicola Sturgeon ’ s performance was viewed far more favourably than that of Boris Johnson , even before the controversy about Number 10 adviser Dominic Cummings .
In addition , evidence that the UK may emerge from the pandemic with one of the worst mortality rates in the world may strengthen the nationalist argument that Scotland would be better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it were independent , and therefore had the full panoply of fiscal and other levers available to ministers in Westminster .
On the island of Ireland , contested reports of a higher coronavirus death rate in the north than the south may similarly help pro-reunification politicians to press their cause .
Following the 2014 Scottish independence referendum , the 2016 EU referendum , and the bruising Brexit battles that followed , coronavirus is the latest black swan event to raise big questions about devolution and the Union .
Answering these questions seems set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such matters busy for some time to come .
Akash might have given greater weight to the public pressures on the DUP and Sinn Fein to cooperate not only over Covid but on reducing east- west friction over GB-NI trade .
Nor has he appeared to notice or think relevant that appeals for north-south integration of Covid measures have largely fallen on deaf ears in the south not the north .
Over the final withdrawal agreement , any future Dublin government will remain utterly exasperated by British perversity .
But they will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defending the EU single market and achieving minimum friction on the east-west economic border .
Jim Gallagher detects greater political motivation in an impression of wider divergencies than actually exist and urges the UK and Scottish governments in terms , to put a sock in it .
Some commentators appear surprised the UK government can not simply instruct the devolved administrations ; others claim the Scottish government is doing better than the UK government and has “ attracted commendation from … both at home and abroad ” .
Such claims mainly display the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional allocation of powers can not just be overridden .
Scotland is , however , doing no better than the rest of the UK in controlling the virus .
Excess deaths are typical of UK levels ; the “ reproduction number ” is possibly slightly higher than the UK average , and the gap between virus testing in Scotland and England is apparently increasing .
It is nevertheless worthwhile reflecting on how coronavirus and the territorial constitution affect one another .
Devolution always assumed an integrated UK approach to emergency planning and management @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockstep for the first couple of months .
Inevitably , the UK government brings more capacity to this work than the devolved administrations do ( eg the technical expertise of Porton Down , or fiscal capacity to support furloughs ) , but critical parts of the response are in devolved control , not just legally , but in practical terms , eg the operation of the NHS , or responsibility for care homes .
How successful this joint approach has been is open to question .
UK excess deaths are among the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on saving the NHS may have put the vulnerable in care homes more at risk .
With the crisis far from over , judgements may be premature .
Higher mortality might reflect the openness of the UK economy and society rather than government failures .
But the UK government and the devolved administrations share responsibility for the decisions and outcomes .
Some divergences may be driven by different objective circumstances , such as the trajectory of the virus , but others perhaps by the different priorities of political leaders .
The UK entered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Edinburgh and , despite governments working closely together , relations have strained .
This was mostly about presentation rather than substance .
Nicola Sturgeon was perceived to steal a march on the UK government by announcing schools policy before them , and Boris Johnson let the devolved governments find out about policy changes on television .
Maybe not surprising , under great pressure , institutions and people revert to their default behaviours .
Whitehall still instinctively regards itself as a unitary UK government , even when it knows it is not ( after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population is unaffected by devolution ) .
Boris Johnson defaults to studiedly ambiguous communications .
Nicola Sturgeon reverts to her defaults too .
She finds it easy to present in a more orderly way than Johnson ( their personae could hardly be more different ) .
But it is also easy for SNP politicians to present Scotland as disempowered or disrespected in the management of the crisis ( they would say the UK does that normally ) and claim Scotland is doing much better , even though halting epidemic spread , protecting care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Scottish , not a UK government , responsibility .
Rattiness between politicians under pressure is to be expected .
But the resultant mixed messages are unhelpful in managing an almost insoluble policy problem .
Emergency lockdown can not be sustained indefinitely ; public behaviour is changing by itself .
No government in the UK has an easy to understand strategy that will command public confidence for returning to anything like normal economic activity while continuing to suppress virus transmission .
Divergent approaches will worsen that , and create awkward mismatches between devolved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , the most important gap is a shared one : having enough testing capacity to run an effective “ test , track and isolate ” approach , routinely testing those most at risk having and passing on the disease .
Filling that policy gap is critical .
We need our political leaders to hammer out a credible joint approach , laying aside any mistrust and resisting the temptation to default to the tropes of normal politics , amidst a medical crisis .
Those can come back along with rest of normal life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understanding between the UK and EU have been expressed in a report by the Lords Committee on EU affairs .. the continued uncertainty could prompt businesses in the rest of the UK to think again about investing in Northern Ireland .
“ There is a real danger that businesses based in Great Britain could conclude that it is economically unviable to continue to operate in Northern Ireland , leading in turn to reduced choice and higher costs for Northern Ireland consumers , thus undermining Northern Ireland ’ s economic model , its future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stability , ” the peers said .
Northern Irish businesses have also been hampered in their preparations for the new potential trading regime by the impact of coronavirus , the report said .
“ The combination of uncertainty , lack of momentum and lack of time , compounded by the shock of the Covid-19 pandemic , is a potent threat to economic prosperity and political stability in Northern Ireland.
” Arlene Foster , Northern Ireland ’ s first minister , called on Sunday for any checks on goods entering to be as limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the future of constitutional relationships within the UK will be greatly affected by the settled verdict on the performance of the Johnson government , in dealing with the twin crises of Covid and Brexit .
We can all agree on that .

Has the management of the pandemic further weakened the Union or behind the political noise, proved that Westminster and the governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are essentially working well together? No doubt an only partly suppressed competition to win credit with the voters at the end of the day is being waged. But cooperation is to an extent made more difficult because the division of responsibilities isn’t always clear. The devolved governments run for example health and education and most of law and order, but the UK government is finally responsible for national emergencies, dominates funding and can command greater expertise. (By the way I’m not clear that all the UK’s expertise is made totally available at source to the devolved governments and their experts. This should be cleared up).
It’s argued with some force that divergences over the pace of easing lockdown have been decided not out of nationalist contrariness but because of different epidemiological conditions applying in different parts of the UK. With localised restrictions in prospect to deter second spikes in England, elected mayors in large conurbations such as Manchester are calling for similar powers without fundamental constitutional implications.
Two recent analyses have given a proper airing to the themes. One is by Jim Gallagher a former senior civil servant with the Scottish government and a declared opponent of Scottish secession. In his examination of how the UK- devolved nations relationship is changing, Akash Paun of the Institute for Government concludes that the unionist –nationalist struggle has been postponed by Covid but the stand-off over the next phase of Brexit it will revive it, with results that are hard to predict.
Extracts
The UK and devolved governments can work together – at least in a crisis
Given the many disputes over Brexit, the Union and other matters in recent years, and the underlying weaknesses of the UK’s system of intergovernmental relations, it was far from a foregone conclusion that the different administrations would be able to cooperate at all.
But credit should be given where it is due. In early March, the UK and devolved governments published a joint Coronavirus Action Plan – a rare sighting of a government policy paper that was co-branded by the four administrations.
More recently, however, it appears that the trust and close relationships that underpinned that cooperation may have begun to dissipate…
. It may be that only under the red hot pressure of a crisis can joint working between governments become the norm, in which case a return to a more competitive relationship was inevitable. Nonetheless, lessons can be learnt – by the respective governments and those seeking to hold them to account – about what has worked well in facilitating cooperation.
Devolution inevitably leads to policy divergence – but within constraints
Governments naturally wish to avoid the charge that they are ‘playing politics’ amidst a health crisis, but the reality is that evidence can inform but not determine policy choices, especially when there is substantial uncertainty about the consequences of particular decisions, such as allowing schools to reopen in June (as in England) rather than August (as in Scotland). There is, in other words, scope for legitimate political judgement, for which ministers can be held to account.
Another relevant factor is public opinion. In what is sometimes termed the ‘devolution paradox’, voters often simultaneously express support for the principle of devolved decision-making, and resistance to the reality of different rules and rights applying in different parts of the country. This may create political pressures for convergence of lockdown rules.
Coronavirus has led to a substantial rise in public spending – by both UK and devolved governments
A further constraint on divergence comes from fiscal pressures. According to the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe), the Scottish government is expecting to receive some £3.7bn in extra funding via the Barnett Formula, as a result of additional spending in England on the NHS, and support for small businesses, rail providers and charities. Wales and Northern Ireland will receive similar per capita funding increases. To some extent, this allows the devolved governments to set different priorities in responding to coronavirus – as Scotland did, for instance, when it moved more quickly to offer support to the fisheries sector. But, as if to underline the devolution paradox, the SPICe analysis finds that Scottish ministers have committed to follow quite closely spending decisions taken for England, for example in creating a similar small business support scheme.
Furthermore, alongside the extra money provided through the Barnett block grant system, the devolved nations are benefitting from UK Treasury-controlled schemes for supporting employers, employees and the self-employed during this period…
Coronavirus may create new opportunities for unionists – and nationalists too
At the start of the coronavirus crisis, the Scottish government officially dropped its plan to hold a second Scottish independence referendum in 2020. But with elections to the Scottish and Welsh parliaments less than a year away, the debate over the future of the Union has just been put on temporary hold and seems likely to reignite as May 2021 approaches, a period in which the ever-divisive issue of Brexit will also return to the top of the agenda.
The resumption of arguments over the UK-EU relationship may also reopen divisions in Northern Ireland, potentially sparking further talk of a ‘border poll’ on Irish reunification.
How the constitutional debate plays out is impossible to predict. But one can already identify certain effects that coronavirus might have on the politics of the Union.
On the one hand, unionists will point to the role the UK government has played – both in providing additional financial resources to all parts of the country, and in coordinating a UK-wide public health response, for instance through creating additional COVID-19 testing capacity – as evidence of the strength of the Union, and the need for strong UK-wide action led from Westminster. Falling global oil prices will also make it harder for the Scottish government to explain how an independent Scotland would balance its books.
On the other hand, the crisis has enabled the devolved administrations to demonstrate their own capacity to coordinate much of the coronavirus response within their territories. Data from Ipsos MORI suggests that, in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon’s performance was viewed far more favourably than that of Boris Johnson, even before the controversy about Number 10 adviser Dominic Cummings. In addition, evidence that the UK may emerge from the pandemic with one of the worst mortality rates in the world may strengthen the nationalist argument that Scotland would be better able to deal with such challenges if it were independent, and therefore had the full panoply of fiscal and other levers available to ministers in Westminster.
On the island of Ireland, contested reports of a higher coronavirus death rate in the north than the south may similarly help pro-reunification politicians to press their cause.
Following the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the 2016 EU referendum, and the bruising Brexit battles that followed, coronavirus is the latest black swan event to raise big questions about devolution and the Union. Answering these questions seems set to keep those of us who follow such matters busy for some time to come.
Akash might have given greater weight to the public pressures on the DUP and Sinn Fein to cooperate not only over Covid but on reducing east- west friction over GB-NI trade. Nor has he appeared to notice or think relevant that appeals for north-south integration of Covid measures have largely fallen on deaf ears in the south not the north. Over the final withdrawal agreement, any future Dublin government will remain utterly exasperated by British perversity. But they will be equally keen the square the circle of defending the EU single market and achieving minimum friction on the east-west economic border.
Jim Gallagher detects greater political motivation in an impression of wider divergencies than actually exist and urges the UK and Scottish governments in terms, to put a sock in it.
Some commentators appear surprised the UK government cannot simply instruct the devolved administrations; others claim the Scottish government is doing better than the UK government and has “attracted commendation from … both at home and abroad”.
Such claims mainly display the preconceptions of those making them. The constitutional allocation of powers cannot just be overridden. Scotland is, however, doing no better than the rest of the UK in controlling the virus. Excess deaths are typical of UK levels; the “reproduction number” is possibly slightly higher than the UK average, and the gap between virus testing in Scotland and England is apparently increasing. It is nevertheless worthwhile reflecting on how coronavirus and the territorial constitution affect one another.
Devolution and Emergencies
Devolution always assumed an integrated UK approach to emergency planning and management. Government actions were generally taken in lockstep for the first couple of months. Inevitably, the UK government brings more capacity to this work than the devolved administrations do (eg the technical expertise of Porton Down, or fiscal capacity to support furloughs), but critical parts of the response are in devolved control, not just legally, but in practical terms, eg the operation of the NHS, or responsibility for care homes.
How successful this joint approach has been is open to question. UK excess deaths are among the world’s highest, and the emphasis on saving the NHS may have put the vulnerable in care homes more at risk. With the crisis far from over, judgements may be premature. Higher mortality might reflect the openness of the UK economy and society rather than government failures. But the UK government and the devolved administrations share responsibility for the decisions and outcomes.
Political Games?
Some divergences may be driven by different objective circumstances, such as the trajectory of the virus, but others perhaps by the different priorities of political leaders. The UK entered the crisis with mistrust between London and Edinburgh and, despite governments working closely together, relations have strained.
This was mostly about presentation rather than substance. Nicola Sturgeon was perceived to steal a march on the UK government by announcing schools policy before them, and Boris Johnson let the devolved governments find out about policy changes on television.
Maybe not surprising, under great pressure, institutions and people revert to their default behaviours. Whitehall still instinctively regards itself as a unitary UK government, even when it knows it is not (after all, 85% of the UK population is unaffected by devolution). Boris Johnson defaults to studiedly ambiguous communications.
Nicola Sturgeon reverts to her defaults too. She finds it easy to present in a more orderly way than Johnson (their personae could hardly be more different). But it is also easy for SNP politicians to present Scotland as disempowered or disrespected in the management of the crisis (they would say the UK does that normally) and claim Scotland is doing much better, even though halting epidemic spread, protecting care homes or providing tests in Scotland is a Scottish, not a UK government, responsibility.
The underlying problem
Rattiness between politicians under pressure is to be expected. But the resultant mixed messages are unhelpful in managing an almost insoluble policy problem. Emergency lockdown cannot be sustained indefinitely; public behaviour is changing by itself. No government in the UK has an easy to understand strategy that will command public confidence for returning to anything like normal economic activity while continuing to suppress virus transmission. Divergent approaches will worsen that, and create awkward mismatches between devolved and reserved aspects of policy. Just now, the most important gap is a shared one: having enough testing capacity to run an effective “test, track and isolate” approach, routinely testing those most at risk having and passing on the disease.
Filling that policy gap is critical. We need our political leaders to hammer out a credible joint approach, laying aside any mistrust and resisting the temptation to default to the tropes of normal politics, amidst a medical crisis. Those can come back along with rest of normal life.
Concerns over the persisting gap in understanding between the UK and EU have been expressed in a report by the Lords Committee on EU affairs
.. the continued uncertainty could prompt businesses in the rest of the UK to think again about investing in Northern Ireland.
“There is a real danger that businesses based in Great Britain could conclude that it is economically unviable to continue to operate in Northern Ireland, leading in turn to reduced choice and higher costs for Northern Ireland consumers, thus undermining Northern Ireland’s economic model, its future prosperity and, potentially, its political stability,” the peers said.
Northern Irish businesses have also been hampered in their preparations for the new potential trading regime by the impact of coronavirus, the report said.
“The combination of uncertainty, lack of momentum and lack of time, compounded by the shock of the Covid-19 pandemic, is a potent threat to economic prosperity and political stability in Northern Ireland.”
Arlene Foster, Northern Ireland’s first minister, called on Sunday for any checks on goods entering to be as limited as possible.
In the end of the future of constitutional relationships within the UK will be greatly affected by the settled verdict on the performance of the Johnson government, in dealing with the twin crises of Covid and Brexit. We can all agree on that.


sluggerotoole--2020-06-01--What is justice anyway?

What is justice anyway?

What is justice ?
The answer might be obvious , but in past Forward Together podcast interviews it has been noticeable that the responses to that question have been inconsistent .
While parts of political unionism seem focused on the judicial process for acts going back to the Troubles , the response by some in republicanism has been that the core of justice is about creating a fair society today .
Daniel Holder , deputy director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice , tells the latest Holywell Trust Forward Together podcast that it is important to use the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and human rights , applying these on a consistent and fair basis .
Objectivity is essential , argues Daniel .
“ That ’ s the whole point of human rights law .
It isn ’ t designed for here , obviously , it is designed for everywhere .
To have an objective framework , that everyone is equal before the law .
National or regional governments have to reach certain standards so that they are actually objective and fair .
This isn ’ t a question of different identities having different interpretations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ power in the past , with laws that weren ’ t fair and weren ’ t applied equally.
” He adds : “ Human rights are things that are agreed in international treaties at the level of the United Nations and the Council of Europe .
They are matters of international law .
We ’ re talking about things like civil and political rights , freedom against torture , right to a fair trial .
You ’ re talking about socio-economic rights , like rights to health and housing and work .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because we think it broadly provides solutions and a decision-making framework.
” Daniel continues : “ You can ’ t make human rights up… .
When the smoking ban came in way back , people were sort of going , well , what about my right to smoke ?
You don ’ t actually have a right to smoke !
You ’ ve just made that up.
” The question then is how to apply those principles in the context of the legacy of the Troubles .
“ There are dozens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to develop a body of law , ” Daniel points out .
These provide a framework for dealing with legacy alongside truth , “ but also very importantly , guarantees of non-recurrence.
” He suggests we “ would be better-off calling ourselves a society emerging from conflict ” , rather than a “ post-conflict society ” .
Daniel asserts that the Troubles were “ a conflict… .
fuelled by patterns of human rights violations .
We are in a position to develop structures to stop them recurring and stop ourselves being trapped in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent work of significance by the CAJ was a report , co-authored by Daniel , which examines the actions of the British government , which seems to be leading to the avoidance of prosecutions of soldiers .
Daniel argues that this is a breach of the Stormont House Agreement .
He believes that the UK government has committed a u-turn , not just on that , but also on what was in the New Decade , New Approach agreement , which set out the principle of an independent investigations unit to examine offences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the terminology used by the British government is itself a breach of the principles of the separation of powers , between the executive and judiciary .
“ I mean , [ it is ] a preposterous suggestion… [ of ] vexatious prosecutions… .
[ It ] is the executive branch of government , really , undermining its own criminal justice system by suggesting that somehow its own Director of Public Prosecutions is engaged in a sort of false or mischievous prosecutions of members of the military ” .
The CAJ was established @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body , but its role was pushed in a different direction as a result of Brexit and how it affects the rights of people in Northern Ireland .
“ Brexit was something that happened and caused us to start to re-orientate work considerably on the back of the referendum , ” says Daniel .
It was particularly concerned about protecting the rights of migrant workers living in Northern Ireland .
But it also acted with regard to differences between the rights of people in Northern Ireland who had either British or Irish citizenship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Forward Together series is available here on the website of peace and reconciliation charity Holywell Trust .
It is funded by the Community Relations Council ’ s Media Grant Scheme Disclaimer : This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity , respect for diversity , and recognition of interdependence .
The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council .

What is justice? The answer might be obvious, but in past Forward Together podcast interviews it has been noticeable that the responses to that question have been inconsistent. While parts of political unionism seem focused on the judicial process for acts going back to the Troubles, the response by some in republicanism has been that the core of justice is about creating a fair society today.
Daniel Holder, deputy director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice, tells the latest Holywell Trust Forward Together podcast that it is important to use the objective and settled international definitions of justice and human rights, applying these on a consistent and fair basis.
Objectivity is essential, argues Daniel. “That’s the whole point of human rights law. It isn’t designed for here, obviously, it is designed for everywhere. To have an objective framework, that everyone is equal before the law. National or regional governments have to reach certain standards so that they are actually objective and fair. This isn’t a question of different identities having different interpretations. It is a question of abuse of power in the past, with laws that weren’t fair and weren’t applied equally.”
He adds: “Human rights are things that are agreed in international treaties at the level of the United Nations and the Council of Europe. They are matters of international law. We’re talking about things like civil and political rights, freedom against torture, right to a fair trial. You’re talking about socio-economic rights, like rights to health and housing and work. That is the framework within which we operate, because we think it broadly provides solutions and a decision-making framework.”
Daniel continues: “You can’t make human rights up…. When the smoking ban came in way back, people were sort of going, well, what about my right to smoke? You don’t actually have a right to smoke! You’ve just made that up.”
The question then is how to apply those principles in the context of the legacy of the Troubles. “There are dozens of international human rights standards that set out to develop a body of law,” Daniel points out. These provide a framework for dealing with legacy alongside truth, “but also very importantly, guarantees of non-recurrence.” He suggests we “would be better-off calling ourselves a society emerging from conflict”, rather than a “post-conflict society”.
Daniel asserts that the Troubles were “a conflict…. fuelled by patterns of human rights violations. We are in a position to develop structures to stop them recurring and stop ourselves being trapped in a cycle of conflict.”
The most recent work of significance by the CAJ was a report, co-authored by Daniel, which examines the actions of the British government, which seems to be leading to the avoidance of prosecutions of soldiers. Daniel argues that this is a breach of the Stormont House Agreement. He believes that the UK government has committed a u-turn, not just on that, but also on what was in the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which set out the principle of an independent investigations unit to examine offences committed during the Troubles.
Daniel suggests that the terminology used by the British government is itself a breach of the principles of the separation of powers, between the executive and judiciary. “I mean, [it is] a preposterous suggestion… [of] vexatious prosecutions…. [It] is the executive branch of government, really, undermining its own criminal justice system by suggesting that somehow its own Director of Public Prosecutions is engaged in a sort of false or mischievous prosecutions of members of the military”.
The CAJ was established during the Troubles as a human rights body, but its role was pushed in a different direction as a result of Brexit and how it affects the rights of people in Northern Ireland. “Brexit was something that happened and caused us to start to re-orientate work considerably on the back of the referendum,” says Daniel. It was particularly concerned about protecting the rights of migrant workers living in Northern Ireland. But it also acted with regard to differences between the rights of people in Northern Ireland who had either British or Irish citizenship.
This latest podcast in the second Forward Together series is available here on the website of peace and reconciliation charity Holywell Trust. It is funded by the Community Relations Council’s Media Grant Scheme
Disclaimer: This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council.


Fergus on Monday

Click to share on Facebook ( Opens in new window )

Donate to keep Slugger lit!
For over 20 years, Slugger has been an independent place for debate and new ideas. We have published over 40,000 posts and over one and a half million comments on the site. Each month we have over 70,000 readers. All this we have accomplished with only volunteers we have never had any paid staff.
Slugger does not receive any funding, and we respect our readers, so we will never run intrusive ads or sponsored posts. Instead, we are reader-supported. Help us keep Slugger independent by becoming a friend of Slugger.
While we run a tight ship and no one gets paid to write, we need money to help us cover our costs.
If you like what we do, we are asking you to consider giving a monthly donation of any amount, or you can give a one-off donation. Any amount is appreciated.


sluggerotoole--2020-06-01--Our own populism holds us back in Northern Ireland

For a part of the world that relies so heavily on compromise to literally allow public administration to function , we don ’ t do nuance very well .
You need only look at the public outcry to the mere suggestion that we may have to pay for our own water back when the New Decade , New Approach deal was agreed as the latest evidence of our own self-defeating populism .
The uncomfortable , and unpopular , truth is that this mindset holds us back in Northern Ireland .
It quite literally stops us from progressing as a society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of latitude on what progress means for you and your family .
In the context of a finite amount of resources , we have to make decisions about how to allocate them .
It ’ s not practical for nearly two million of us to make these decisions , so we choose people to do it on our behalf through elections .
In a similar way , on the first day of GCSE economics , you learn of the basic economic problem .
It goes that we , as human beings , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of limited resources , we have to make decisions as to how those resources are allocated .
In this sense , the politics and the economy ( money ! )
are inextricably linked .
When you bring politics and economy back to these base principles , the logical conclusion that you can ’ t be all things to all people is uncontroversial .
But not in Northern Ireland .
Our default setting historically is to blame “ the folks on the hill ” , but in the classic way that a cart follows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direction of the electorate .
If they don ’ t , they don ’ t get elected .
And if they don ’ t get elected , they can ’ t implement any of the probably well intended things they ’ d promised and that you asked for .
It ’ s that simple .
In more mature democracies , there is a general acceptance that there are pros and cons to any decision and that more money for health is less money for roads , or that more money for both is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This jostling of pros and cons is what gives political leaders and policy-makers space for thinking creatively about how we respond to problems .
But not in Northern Ireland .
Populism has seen somewhat of a resurgence across the world of late , but its primary impact in Northern Ireland is that it prevents the development of new ideas and stops good people getting elected to public office .
Because we continue to allow our elections to become de facto border polls , there is little or no space for a proper debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the levers at our disposal to make things better .
Moreover , our lack of responsibility for raising the money we spend means there is little or no accountability in how public funds are used , outside of scandals like RHI , or any scrutiny of spending commitments in manifestos .
For example , it ’ s generally accepted that there are too many big hospitals in Northern Ireland and that it has a detrimental impact on both general and acute services .
The point being made isn ’ t that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we spend on public health , rather we want to spend the money we have more efficiently and in a way that will deliver better outcomes .
There is public outcry when our nurses have to strike over their pay , but we refuse to pay for our water that would provide the money to do so .
We introduced prescription charges , then we scrapped them .
We are obsessed with the free universal provision of absolutely everything , even though much of the evidence suggests that it can actually exacerbate inequality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on where it is really needed .
Breaking this mould is a “ first mover ” problem for our politicians .
Because nobody can be sure anyone else will pipe up in a similar fashion , there is no incentive to be the first person to answer a Nolan question simply and honestly .
Until we , the electorate , realise that our own populism and nimbyism is hampering our collective progress , the answer to the difficult questions will remain “ but not in Northern Ireland.
” Photo by geralt is licensed @ @ @

For a part of the world that relies so heavily on compromise to literally allow public administration to function, we don’t do nuance very well. You need only look at the public outcry to the mere suggestion that we may have to pay for our own water back when the New Decade, New Approach deal was agreed as the latest evidence of our own self-defeating populism.
The uncomfortable, and unpopular, truth is that this mindset holds us back in Northern Ireland. It quite literally stops us from progressing as a society, even allowing for a wide degree of latitude on what progress means for you and your family.
In the context of a finite amount of resources, we have to make decisions about how to allocate them. It’s not practical for nearly two million of us to make these decisions, so we choose people to do it on our behalf through elections. In a similar way, on the first day of GCSE economics, you learn of the basic economic problem.
It goes that we, as human beings, have unlimited wants but, in the context of limited resources, we have to make decisions as to how those resources are allocated. In this sense, the politics and the economy (money!) are inextricably linked. When you bring politics and economy back to these base principles, the logical conclusion that you can’t be all things to all people is uncontroversial. But not in Northern Ireland.
Our default setting historically is to blame “the folks on the hill”, but in the classic way that a cart follows a horse, politicians move in the direction of the electorate. If they don’t, they don’t get elected. And if they don’t get elected, they can’t implement any of the probably well intended things they’d promised and that you asked for. It’s that simple.
In more mature democracies, there is a general acceptance that there are pros and cons to any decision and that more money for health is less money for roads, or that more money for both is less money in your pay packet. This jostling of pros and cons is what gives political leaders and policy-makers space for thinking creatively about how we respond to problems. But not in Northern Ireland.
Populism has seen somewhat of a resurgence across the world of late, but its primary impact in Northern Ireland is that it prevents the development of new ideas and stops good people getting elected to public office. Because we continue to allow our elections to become de facto border polls, there is little or no space for a proper debate about how we get creative with all of the levers at our disposal to make things better.
Moreover, our lack of responsibility for raising the money we spend means there is little or no accountability in how public funds are used, outside of scandals like RHI, or any scrutiny of spending commitments in manifestos.
For example, it’s generally accepted that there are too many big hospitals in Northern Ireland and that it has a detrimental impact on both general and acute services. The point being made isn’t that we want to close hospitals to reduce what we spend on public health, rather we want to spend the money we have more efficiently and in a way that will deliver better outcomes.
There is public outcry when our nurses have to strike over their pay, but we refuse to pay for our water that would provide the money to do so. We introduced prescription charges, then we scrapped them.
We are obsessed with the free universal provision of absolutely everything, even though much of the evidence suggests that it can actually exacerbate inequality because we can’t target spend on where it is really needed.
Breaking this mould is a “first mover” problem for our politicians. Because nobody can be sure anyone else will pipe up in a similar fashion, there is no incentive to be the first person to answer a Nolan question simply and honestly.
Until we, the electorate, realise that our own populism and nimbyism is hampering our collective progress, the answer to the difficult questions will remain “but not in Northern Ireland.”
Photo by geralt is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-06-02--Our New Class System During The Coronavirus Pandemic…

The coronavirus pandemic has completely reordered the world as we know it .
Simple , everyday things that we took for granted such as shopping or going to the gym or bars have either been taken or been severely restricted for the good of public health .
In these restrictions that have become the new normal has emerged a new class system in all societies all over the world : Essential Workers and Shielders .
A third group are those who fall somewhere in between .
These new classes experience life during the pandemic very differently .
Shielders are instructed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all social contact outside their household – effectively , live in isolation .
Essential workers are instructed to practise social-distancing and clinical hygiene practices as they perform their essential work duties .
The third group – the inbetweeners – may not be working at the moment in receipt of government assistance or have had to adapt in their working practices to the effects on their industry of the pandemic .
Our new class system is not one based on wealth but rather health .
We are all familiar with how important it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealth where quite often the former is exchanged for the latter but nowadays , health is rightfully put before wealth as a matter of not just national interest but also international interest .
As each class experiences life differently , each class will have their own priorities during the pandemic and how their society navigates through it .
While the not-so-vulnerable might be more relaxed about easing of lockdown restrictions , the clinically extremely vulnerable will rightfully be a lot more cautious .
It ’ s also important to remember that those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not necessarily motivated by selfishness but also by care for their fellow person as a whole load of other issues have erupted such as an increase in mental health issues and domestic abuse which also need to be taken into account .
It will take a long time before we return to a normality that could be described as the Pre-Covid era , though I imagine the Post-Covid era will still bear the scars of the pandemic as a new normal after the one we currently experience gradually phases in .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience and it is only natural that this is organically reflected in the Post-Covid era .
While I have no idea about the prospect of a vaccine being developed or some sort of solution to help navigate the world out of the current pandemic , I do know the constant that is politics will feature in it .
I have already seen distrust of the government , particularly in the USA , which drives those who do not think the government is equipped to handle the pandemic and do not want to follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the detriment of not just their health but also public health .
Even more worrying is the recent state killing of George Floyd in Minnesota , which is another incident in a long running of terrible events that bring race relations in the USA to the fore once again along with trust in government institutions that are supposed to protect its citizens .
This terrible event highlights for me as a gay man how different groups in society experience life and how empathy for each other is needed .
I think of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience that a vulnerable group in society will experience life differently from the not-so-vulnerable , be they a black person , a gay person or in the case of the Coronavirus pandemic , a shielder .
Every society is judged by how it treats the vulnerable .
I am reminded of the American science-fiction movie Elysium ( 2013 ) , directed by Neill Blomkamp and starring Matt Damon and Jodie Foster , which shows a dystopian world where the wealthy live exclusively in the space habitat orbiting Earth named Elysium that has access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diseases which those living on Earth in poverty need .
I can only hope that if a vaccine to the coronavirus is developed , that the politics of its production and distribution is limited for the sake of world health as the entire world will need to get through this pandemic for us all to prosper in our interconnected , interdependent world .
Photo by NickyPe is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

The coronavirus pandemic has completely reordered the world as we know it. Simple, everyday things that we took for granted such as shopping or going to the gym or bars have either been taken or been severely restricted for the good of public health. In these restrictions that have become the new normal has emerged a new class system in all societies all over the world: Essential Workers and Shielders. A third group are those who fall somewhere in between.
These new classes experience life during the pandemic very differently. Shielders are instructed to stay at home and to avoid all social contact outside their household – effectively, live in isolation. Essential workers are instructed to practise social-distancing and clinical hygiene practices as they perform their essential work duties. The third group – the inbetweeners – may not be working at the moment in receipt of government assistance or have had to adapt in their working practices to the effects on their industry of the pandemic.
Our new class system is not one based on wealth but rather health. We are all familiar with how important it is to protect our health in pursuit of wealth where quite often the former is exchanged for the latter but nowadays, health is rightfully put before wealth as a matter of not just national interest but also international interest.
As each class experiences life differently, each class will have their own priorities during the pandemic and how their society navigates through it. While the not-so-vulnerable might be more relaxed about easing of lockdown restrictions, the clinically extremely vulnerable will rightfully be a lot more cautious. It’s also important to remember that those who call for an easing of lockdown restrictions are not necessarily motivated by selfishness but also by care for their fellow person as a whole load of other issues have erupted such as an increase in mental health issues and domestic abuse which also need to be taken into account.
It will take a long time before we return to a normality that could be described as the Pre-Covid era, though I imagine the Post-Covid era will still bear the scars of the pandemic as a new normal after the one we currently experience gradually phases in. Our lives and societies are built on our experience and it is only natural that this is organically reflected in the Post-Covid era.
While I have no idea about the prospect of a vaccine being developed or some sort of solution to help navigate the world out of the current pandemic, I do know the constant that is politics will feature in it. I have already seen distrust of the government, particularly in the USA, which drives those who do not think the government is equipped to handle the pandemic and do not want to follow government advice let alone use a vaccine to the detriment of not just their health but also public health. Even more worrying is the recent state killing of George Floyd in Minnesota, which is another incident in a long running of terrible events that bring race relations in the USA to the fore once again along with trust in government institutions that are supposed to protect its citizens.
This terrible event highlights for me as a gay man how different groups in society experience life and how empathy for each other is needed. I think of it as factual based on my own experience that a vulnerable group in society will experience life differently from the not-so-vulnerable, be they a black person, a gay person or in the case of the Coronavirus pandemic, a shielder. Every society is judged by how it treats the vulnerable.
I am reminded of the American science-fiction movie Elysium (2013), directed by Neill Blomkamp and starring Matt Damon and Jodie Foster, which shows a dystopian world where the wealthy live exclusively in the space habitat orbiting Earth named Elysium that has access via wealth to hi-tech medical solutions to diseases which those living on Earth in poverty need. I can only hope that if a vaccine to the coronavirus is developed, that the politics of its production and distribution is limited for the sake of world health as the entire world will need to get through this pandemic for us all to prosper in our interconnected, interdependent world.
Photo by NickyPe is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-06-02--Stormont has just performed better than Westminster. Signs of a new era dawning for the Northern Ire

Stormont has just performed better than Westminster. Signs of a new era dawning for the Northern Ireland Assembly

Just as Westminster makes an ass of itself over voting against digital voting , Stormont enters a more hopeful new era .
It ’ s sort of complicated but that ’ s a positive virtue compared to the old familiar choice between deadlock and carve up .
The DUP and Sinn Fein finally voted together in favour of some restrictions on Westminster ’ s widely drawn abortion regulations ( not my personal choice but a real compromise ) ; while a majority of MLAs supported an extension of the Brexit timetable on an SDLP motion despite being opposed by both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brexit vote as “ a surprise.
” I ’ m not so sure .
In a surprise development Brexit vote a nationalist , green and social democratic parties held sway in Stormont , saying business can not prepare for a no-deal Brexit in the middle of a pandemic .
The motion proposed Matthew O ’ Toole , the SDLP ’ s Brexit spokesman , had not been expected to carry after opposition was expressed by the Democratic Unionist and the Ulster Unionist parties .
O ’ Toole commented : ” For the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted to listen to NI ’ s representatives .
We ’ ve spoken – over to them ” .
It was a different but equally ground breaking vote to oppose Westminster ’ s abortion legislation for the province which saw the DUP and Sinn Fein finally voting together .
The motion passed by 46 votes to 40 .
Sinn Fein withdrew their amendment which was virtually the same as the DUP ’ s main motion .
Both parties voted together in favour of specifically banning the abortion of a non-fatally disabled foetus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in particular .
Claire Bailie of the Green Party said SF ’ s position would mean to women would continue to have to travel to England .
“ That was not SFs election message of equality for all and compassionate healthcare – this is a clawback of women ’ s rights.
” Alliance MLA Paula Bradshaw accused the DUP and Sinn Féin of “ playing politics ” with a sensitive matter.
” They are trying to imply that any MLA that does support them does not care about children born with a disability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth.
” The abortion vote has no legal effect but was designed to “ send a signal ” to Westminster .
But the stronger signal of a day of memorable voting shows that old fences are starting to collapse in an Assembly without a sectarian majority .
Stormont may be starting to function effectively at long last .

Social distance voting at Westminster.
Just as Westminster makes an ass of itself over voting against digital voting, Stormont enters a more hopeful new era. It’s complicated, even tortuous, but that’s a positive virtue compared to the old familiar choice between deadlock and carve up.
Correction
I earlier reported the voting wrongly for lack of information. It was even more complicated than I supposed. I’m indebted to Sam McBride of the Newsletter for explaining how the DUP and Sinn Fein basically agreed but Sinn Fein couldn’t bear to vote with the DUP.
In an unusual debate tonight where Stormont discussed abortion for the first time since devolution was restored and widespread abortion was legalised in Northern Ireland, both parties said that they believed the law passed last year by Westminster went too far.
The DUP last year opposed the change, while Sinn Fein said at the time that it supported what Westminster was doing.
However, amid accusations from some MLAs and pro-choice activists that Sinn Fein was playing politics with the issue, the party yesterday argued both in favour of what Westminster had done, while also opposing it.
The debate centred on a DUP motion which said the Assembly “rejects the imposition of abortion legislation which extends to all non-fatal disabilities, including Down’s syndrome”.
Sinn Fein tabled an amendment to that motion which said the Assembly “rejects the specific legislative provision in the abortion legislation which goes beyond fatal foetal abnormalities to include non-fatal disabilities, including Down’s syndrome”. As expected, that amendment fell and Sinn Fein then voted against the DUP motion.
That allowed Sinn Féin to both say that it had tried to limit abortion and had opposed the DUP’s attempts to limit abortion.
Neither the DUP motion, which passed by 46 votes to 40, nor the Sinn Fein amendment would actually have changed the law, but are a signal of the Assembly’s will ahead of what is likely to be a legislative attempt by the DUP to limit abortion. The straight pro choice minority attacked SF in particular. Claire Bailie of the Green Party said SF’s position would mean to women would continue to have to travel to England. “That was not SFs election message of equality for all and compassionate healthcare – this is a clawback of women’s rights.” Alliance MLA Paula Bradshaw accused the DUP and Sinn Féin of “playing politics” with a sensitive matter.”They are trying to imply that any MLA that does support them does not care about children born with a disability, nothing could be further from the truth.”
The Guardian reports the Brexit extension vote was “a surprise.” I’m not so sure.
In a surprise development Brexit vote a nationalist, green and social democratic parties held sway in Stormont, saying business cannot prepare for a no-deal Brexit in the middle of a pandemic.
The motion proposed Matthew O’Toole, the SDLP’s Brexit spokesman, had not been expected to carry after opposition was expressed by the Democratic Unionist and the Ulster Unionist parties.
O’Toole commented: ” For the past 3 years the UK Government said it wanted to listen to NI’s representatives. We’ve spoken – over to them”.
These were simple 50% +1 majority votes, not formal cross community votes. An added bonus is that they were held undisturbed by the ambush of a petition of concern veto of 30 votes. This is the sort of Assembly vote that will decide whether Northern Ireland remains within the ambit of the EU single market in a few years’ time. Note that in the present Assembly the unionist bloc could not win a vote to leave the single market. A certain flexibility has been created by the absence of an overall bloc majority. New majorities on different issues are possible, a development deferred until now because of three years of Assembly suspension.
The abortion vote has no legal effect but was designed to “send a signal” to Westminster.
But the stronger signal of a day of memorable voting shows that old fences are starting to collapse in an Assembly without a sectarian majority. Stormont may be starting to function effectively at long last.


sluggerotoole--2020-06-02--Abortion as an individual human right or by the will of a majority? The NI Assembly wants to “send a

Abortion as an individual human right or by the will of a majority? The NI Assembly wants to “send a signal”

Do the new regulations permitting abortion in Northern Ireland extend to foetal abnormalties like Down ’ s syndrome or not ?
Behind the question is a constitutional argument over whether Westminster had the moral right to enact an abortion law over the heads , even when they were in suspension .
But although the DUP and SF seem to be in broad agreement , they seem to be content to win two separate majorities by designation rather than go for an overall simple majority .
BBC NI quotes Westminster sources saying that the UK government remains under a legal duty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women ( CEDAW ) .
That report said abortions should be allowed in Northern Ireland where there is “ severe foetal impairment ” , but that provision should not “ perpetuate stereotypes ” towards disabled people .
What does that mean ?
That today ’ s supposedly more enlightened society towards disability should not extend to near full term abortion of the potentially disabled ?
If so where does that leave the new abortion regulations ?
As the BBC report states : No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foetal abnormality , where there is a substantial risk that the foetus would die or , if born , would suffer a severe mental or physical impairment .
That element of the law has been interpreted by some as meaning terminations could be carried out with no time limit , in cases of Down ’ s syndrome , cleft palate or club foot .
As the Assembly debates the regulations today , the DUP and SF are vying to be the lead party in forming a simple majority against non fatal foetal abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s enactment of abortion regulations over their heads when they were in suspension .
If they rely solely on their own designations this won ’ t happen .
If their priority is to win a overall vote by simple majority , they have to vote together .
It will be a real test of what they care about more .
The DUP want one kind of clarity , calling for the rejection of “ the imposition of abortion legislation which extends to all non-fatal disabilities , including Down ’ s syndrome ” Sinn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s motion but their mealy mouthed amendment is a distinction without a difference .
Both parties draw inspiration from the powerful appeal from Heidi Crowter who is Down ’ s syndrome and is about to get married .
The Northern bishops appear not be rejecting abortion entirely ..
The Bishops make an urgent call “ to defend the equal right of children with disabilities to appropriate protection and care both before and after birth , as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Finally , the Bishops reiterate their belief that “ politicians and all people of good will , who recognise the extreme nature of the Regulations , should not meekly acquiesce to their promulgation ” .
They call for urgent action , expressing their desire to enter into dialogue with MLAs and reaffirming their willingness to contribute to the formulation of the new Regulations .
The Alliance for Choice group , in condemning the Sinn Féin amendment , said it would “ mean people would have to continue to travel for terminations for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to in the 26 counties ” Amnesty International opposes the DUP motion and the Sinn Féin amendment that would support restricting abortion rights .
It accuses the medical authorities of dragging their feet .
This motion will change nothing legally but is a clear signal that the DUP wants to roll back the hard-won rights of women and girls .
“ Sinn Féin and other parties must not prop up a dangerous anti-choice agenda – instead , they should support human rights and show they ’ re on the side of women .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and forgotten – left without vital abortion services , despite regulations coming into force two months ago Two months since abortion regulations came into force in Northern Ireland on 31 March , the Department of Health has yet to commission any services , meaning women and girls have been left without the vital healthcare beyond the 10 weeks gestation period .
It is now more than seven months since abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland .
Additionally , the COVID-19 pandemic has made it unsafe to travel for an abortion , severely restricting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service outside Northern Ireland .
Despite the rest of the UK introducing emergency telemedicine that allows women to safely take both abortion pills at home , ensuring women can continue accessing the healthcare during the pandemic , Northern Ireland has not introduced such measures .
As any Assembly vote can not change the regulations and can do no more than “ send a message ” , such clarity as is available can only come from medical practitioners and their lawyers .
They should state their position without delay .

Heidi Crowter, anti-abortion campaigner
Do the new regulations permitting abortion in Northern Ireland extend to foetal abnormalties like Down’s syndrome or not? Behind the question is a constitutional argument over whether Westminster had the moral right to enact an abortion law over the heads, even when they were in suspension. But although the DUP and SF seem to be in broad agreement, they seem to be content to win two separate majorities by designation rather than go for an overall simple majority.
BBC NI quotes Westminster sources saying that the UK government remains under a legal duty to implement recommendations made in 2018 by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). That report said abortions should be allowed in Northern Ireland where there is “severe foetal impairment”, but that provision should not “perpetuate stereotypes” towards disabled people.
What does that mean? That today’s supposedly more enlightened society towards disability should not extend to near full term abortion of the potentially disabled? If so where does that leave the new abortion regulations? As the BBC report states:
No time limit applies in cases of fatal foetal abnormality, where there is a substantial risk that the foetus would die or, if born, would suffer a severe mental or physical impairment. That element of the law has been interpreted by some as meaning terminations could be carried out with no time limit, in cases of Down’s syndrome, cleft palate or club foot.
As the Assembly debates the regulations today, the DUP and SF are vying to be the lead party in forming a simple majority against non fatal foetal abortion and a clear declaration against Westminster’s enactment of abortion regulations over their heads when they were in suspension. If they rely solely on their own designations this won’t happen. If their priority is to win a overall vote by simple majority, they have to vote together. It will be a real test of what they care about more.
The DUP want one kind of clarity, calling for the rejection of “the imposition of abortion legislation which extends to all non-fatal disabilities, including Down’s syndrome” Sinn Féin don’t support the DUP’s motion but their mealy mouthed amendment is a distinction without a difference.
Both parties draw inspiration from the powerful appeal from Heidi Crowter who is Down’s syndrome and is about to get married.
The Northern bishops appear not be rejecting abortion entirely ..
The Bishops make an urgent call “to defend the equal right of children with disabilities to appropriate protection and care both before and after birth, as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”.
Finally, the Bishops reiterate their belief that “politicians and all people of good will, who recognise the extreme nature of the Regulations, should not meekly acquiesce to their promulgation”. They call for urgent action, expressing their desire to enter into dialogue with MLAs and reaffirming their willingness to contribute to the formulation of the new Regulations.
The Alliance for Choice group, in condemning the Sinn Féin amendment, said it would “mean people would have to continue to travel for terminations for foetal anomaly diagnoses as they still have to in the 26 counties”
Amnesty International opposes the DUP motion and the Sinn Féin amendment that would support restricting abortion rights. It accuses the medical authorities of dragging their feet.
This motion will change nothing legally but is a clear signal that the DUP wants to roll back the hard-won rights of women and girls.
“Sinn Féin and other parties must not prop up a dangerous anti-choice agenda – instead, they should support human rights and show they’re on the side of women.
“Women and girls are being failed and forgotten – left without vital abortion services, despite regulations coming into force two months ago
Two months since abortion regulations came into force in Northern Ireland on 31 March, the Department of Health has yet to commission any services, meaning women and girls have been left without the vital healthcare beyond the 10 weeks gestation period. It is now more than seven months since abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland.
Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has made it unsafe to travel for an abortion, severely restricting women’s ability to access the service outside Northern Ireland.
Despite the rest of the UK introducing emergency telemedicine that allows women to safely take both abortion pills at home, ensuring women can continue accessing the healthcare during the pandemic, Northern Ireland has not introduced such measures.
As any Assembly vote cannot change the regulations and can do no more than “send a message” , such clarity as is available can only come from medical practitioners and their lawyers. They should state their position without delay.
..


sluggerotoole--2020-06-02--Gerry Adams’ “illegal detention” Supreme Court ruling needs correction by Parliament to prevent hund

Gerry Adams’ “illegal detention” Supreme Court ruling needs correction by Parliament to prevent hundreds of compensation claims

Gerry Adams ’ victory in obtaining a Supreme Court ruling against the legality of his detention without trial followed by his escape from the Maze in 1975 has produced serious opposition within the establishment .
The ruling rests on a technicality with potentially wide implications , that the interim custody order made against him hadn ’ t been signed personally by the secretary of state Willie Whitelaw .
To a lay person this ruling seems more than slightly bonkers ; but its defenders will argue that the observation of strict process provides protection against the abuse of power .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it calls “ judicial activism “ encroaching on the powers of Parliament .
In a new report it declares that Lord Kerr ’ s decision was simply wrong on the technical argument and should be corrected as soon as possible by legislation .
The same authors condemned the Supreme Court ’ s historic ruling that the prorogation or suspension of Parliament was unlawful .
This view has considerable support within the party and government and there is much talk about clipping the Court ’ s wings .
The Adams ruling is another stick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Exchange provides legal and other authority for these opinions .
They extend to Adams ’ next option , which is to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights for a ruling in favour of compensation .
Many Conservatives argue that the right of appeal should be curtailed and if necessary abolished .
If pursued by zealots such as the Attorney General Suella Braverman this is has implications for all sorts of human rights issues on both sides of the water including those governed by the Good Friday Agreement .
Another aspect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases against the Army abroad ( not applying to Northern Ireland ) was reaching conclusion today , when all but one case among thousands against British soldiers during the Iraq war and occupation were dropped .
Policy Exchange ’ s argument against the Supreme Court ruling has the powerful endorsement not only of the former Attorney General Geoffrey Cox ( he of the booming voice ) but of the arch mandarin Robin Butler , the senior surviving cabinet secretary .
Butler is damning in his criticism of the Supreme Court ’ s ruling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judgment in allowing Gerry Adams ’ appeal against his conviction for attempting to escape from lawful custody almost 45 years ago are potentially very damaging… it is quite clear to me that the intention of the legislator in making the Detention of Terrorists ( Northern Ireland ) Order 1972 was to permit a Secretary of State , Minister of State or an Under Secretary of State to authorise temporary detention .
Personal consideration by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was not required… .
had the legislator intended to require personal consideration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ireland it would surely have done so expressly .
The Supreme Court ’ s ruling invites Gerry Adams and many others who were detained between 1972 and 1974 to seek damages .
In a time of national economic crisis , few can welcome the prospect that the government might now be obliged to pay substantial damages to Mr Adams and to others detained during that period .
Just as worrying are the judgment ’ s political costs .
The Supreme Court has given force to those who would say that the British government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1972 .
Even if the Supreme Court judgment were correct , I am convinced that this is not the case .
At the very most this is a technicality The path of least resistance , especially for a government facing other challenges , might be simply to hope that the Supreme Court ’ s judgment proves less damaging in practice than is now to be feared .
This paper makes clear that neither the government nor Parliament can safely make that assumption .
I am persuaded that the judgment needs to be overturned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the paper recommend .
The PE Report entitled “ Mishandling the Law .
Gerry Adams and the Supreme Court ” is written by Professor Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws .
The Supreme Court ’ s reading of the 1972 Order is mistaken .
Properly interpreted , the Order did authorise Ministers of State to exercise the Secretary of State ’ s power to detain , and Parliament , when approving the Order , was informed by the Attorney General in person that the power to make an ICO was exercisable by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Custody Order : a Secretary of State , a Minister of State , or an Undersecretary of State… he principle is fundamental to the workings of government..
This is exemplified by any number of statutory authorisations from , at latest , the nineteenth century .
The Supreme Court ’ s judgment has major implications .
It is obviously a major propaganda victory for Gerry Adams and for others who opposed the actions Her Majesty ’ s Government took to restore peace and maintain order in Northern Ireland after 30 March 1972 .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt possibly hundreds of detentions , as well as related convictions , and exposes the government to the risk – or certainty – of numerous legal proceedings for false imprisonment , to which it will have no defence .
It also invites proceedings before the Strasbourg Court , for breach of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights ( the right to liberty ) , alleging that the unlawfulness of the detention is a reason for that Court to revise its important 1978 ruling that the UK ’ s derogation from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was properly made .
… Even if the government must now be taken to have failed in its own Order to make clear what it obviously actually intended , the unlawfulness that resulted was clearly at most the result of a technical error made in good faith , and is very different in kind from the paradigm cases of unlawful arrest or detention .

Gerry Adams’ victory in obtaining a Supreme Court ruling against the legality of his detention without trial followed by his escape from the Maze in 1975 has produced serious opposition within the establishment. The ruling rests on a technicality with potentially wide implications, that the interim custody order made against him hadn’t been signed personally by the secretary of state Willie Whitelaw. To a lay person this ruling seems more than slightly bonkers; but its defenders will argue that the observation of strict process provides protection against the abuse of power.
The think tank Policy Exchange campaigns against what it calls “ judicial activism “ encroaching on the powers of Parliament. In a new report it declares that Lord Kerr’s decision was simply wrong on the technical argument and should be corrected as soon as possible by legislation. The same authors condemned the Supreme Court’s historic ruling that the prorogation or suspension of Parliament was unlawful. This view has considerable support within the party and government and there is much talk about clipping the Court’s wings. The Adams ruling is another stick to beat the Court with.
Policy Exchange provides legal and other authority for these opinions. They extend to Adams’ next option, which is to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights for a ruling in favour of compensation. Many Conservatives argue that the right of appeal should be curtailed and if necessary abolished. If pursued by zealots such as the Attorney General Suella Braverman this is has implications for all sorts of human rights issues on both sides of the water including those governed by the Good Friday Agreement.
Another aspect of the Tory campaign against “vexatious” cases against the Army abroad (not applying to Northern Ireland) was reaching conclusion today, when all but one case among thousands against British soldiers during the Iraq war and occupation were dropped.
Policy Exchange’s argument against the Supreme Court ruling has the powerful endorsement not only of the former Attorney General Geoffrey Cox ( he of the booming voice) but of the arch mandarin Robin Butler, the senior surviving cabinet secretary. Butler is damning in his criticism of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The consequences of the Supreme Court judgment in allowing Gerry Adams’ appeal against his conviction for attempting to escape from lawful custody almost 45 years ago are potentially very damaging… it is quite clear to me that the intention of the legislator in making the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 was to permit a Secretary of State, Minister of State or an Under Secretary of State to authorise temporary detention. Personal consideration by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was not required…. had the legislator intended to require personal consideration by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland it would surely have done so expressly.
The Supreme Court’s ruling invites Gerry Adams and many others who were detained between 1972 and 1974 to seek damages. In a time of national economic crisis, few can welcome the prospect that the government might now be obliged to pay substantial damages to Mr Adams and to others detained during that period. Just as worrying are the judgment’s political costs. The Supreme Court has given force to those who would say that the British government acted without regard to the law in 1972. Even if the Supreme Court judgment were correct, I am convinced that this is not the case. At the very most this is a technicality
The path of least resistance, especially for a government facing other challenges, might be simply to hope that the Supreme Court’s judgment proves less damaging in practice than is now to be feared. This paper makes clear that neither the government nor Parliament can safely make that assumption. I am persuaded that the judgment needs to be overturned by urgent legislation, as the authors of the paper recommend.
The PE Report entitled “Mishandling the Law. Gerry Adams and the Supreme Court” is written by Professor Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws.
The Supreme Court’s reading of the 1972 Order is mistaken. Properly interpreted, the Order did authorise Ministers of State to exercise the Secretary of State’s power to detain, and Parliament, when approving the Order, was informed by the Attorney General in person that the power to make an ICO was exercisable by all those authorised to sign an Interim Custody Order : a Secretary of State, a Minister of State, or an Undersecretary of State… he principle is fundamental to the workings of government.. This is exemplified by any number of statutory authorisations from, at latest, the nineteenth century.
The Supreme Court’s judgment has major implications. It is obviously a major propaganda victory for Gerry Adams and for others who opposed the actions Her Majesty’s Government took to restore peace and maintain order in Northern Ireland after 30 March 1972. However, more importantly, it puts in doubt possibly hundreds of detentions, as well as related convictions, and exposes the government to the risk – or certainty – of numerous legal proceedings for false imprisonment, to which it will have no defence. It also invites proceedings before the Strasbourg Court, for breach of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to liberty), alleging that the unlawfulness of the detention is a reason for that Court to revise its important 1978 ruling that the UK’s derogation from the ECHR, including Article 5, was properly made.
… Even if the government must now be taken to have failed in its own Order to make clear what it obviously actually intended, the unlawfulness that resulted was clearly at most the result of a technical error made in good faith, and is very different in kind from the paradigm cases of unlawful arrest or detention.


sluggerotoole--2020-06-03--On #CargoOfBricks Graham Brownlow says economic recovery from #Covid19 must be long sighted and ambi

On #CargoOfBricks Graham Brownlow says economic recovery from #Covid19 must be long sighted and ambitious

In this week ’ s episode of Cargo of Bricks , I ’ m talking with Graham Brownlow who is a Senior Lecturer in Economics at Queens Management School in Belfast about the economic effects of Covid 19 , and what he thinks our response needs to be .
Some of the themes we talked about include : • Rise of internet-based giants like Amazon poses huge business case challenges for local retail calling into question its capacity to continue providing services to local communities , leading to downward pressure on commercial rents… • Northern Ireland ’ s economy remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skilled workers who are suffering disproportionately during the crisis by taking on higher health risks and a more uncertain future .
• Belfast , not Derry , is the outlier in terms of economic performance , so the recovery plan must invest long term ambitions to overturn demographic and geographic imbalances through early years learning , clean budget planning , and infrastructure .
Enjoy and see you next week , when I ’ m talking to Professor Gary Murphy of DCU on the art of government formation in the south .
You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TV , and other podcasts on Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts or Spotify .


sluggerotoole--2020-06-03--Our growing understanding of how men benefit from fatherhood and other favourite lockdown dividends?

In the week before the UK government revealed its plans for closing down our social and working lives as we ’ d known it , my friend Richard and I ( safely social distancing in the yard ) were talking over the sheer strangeness of it all .
Somewhere in the flow of our conversation , I blurted out that tough as the days ahead were likely to be I didn ’ t want to go back to the way life had been before .
As the world learned to breathe properly ( at least for a while ) again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Two months later we met again each with a beer in hand ( bought as a carryout in what had been our favourite pub , but now our favourite corner shop ) , it became clear to both of us that despite the uncertainty there have been some wins .
1950s traffic , for one .
I just missed the 50s , but I do know I was allowed go to school on my own in the early 60s just one day after my mum showed me the best way get there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my dad had a pub to run and my two younger siblings to look after .
She needed the time .
As she told me thirty years later when I was bemoaning the fact my kids were not allowed to go to school on their own as P4s , never mind P1s , she said , “ it ’ s the traffic son , I ’ d never have let you do it either if it had been like it is today.
” Our lives were more local then , less time spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foot and with cleaner air to breathe than in more recent times .
And , just as importantly we had more time together as families .
Something that hasn ’ t escaped Anne Harris today… There is no doubt the lockdown will be viewed by sociologists of the future as a great social experiment : whole families hermetically sealed for months on end .
It ’ s only as it ends that we begin to comprehend the fallout .
And the tragedy of increased domestic violence is the only subject we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small children are the big losers .
Timidity , fear of contact with adults , is the natural result of the virus paranoia , which has been inculcated in them ; they haven ’ t met their friends for months .
Certainly , as Bertie Ahern said of his grandchildren on the Brendan O ’ Connor show , they have been denied all the little rites of passage in school .
But are small children such losers ?
For 66 days now , men and women have , in the main , been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that fathers have been more accessible to their children .
The sunrise – yes sunrise – beach gatherings of young people ( behavioural scientists can disabuse themselves of the idea that teenagers are the big losers ) are heavily interspersed with parents pushing buggies – especially fathers .
…for some time now serious sociologists have been studying the question of contemporary fatherhood , finding that men who have closer relationships with their children report greater marital satisfaction and better health .
“ They feel less stress , less stress to be successful , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Jemimah Bailey of Trinity College Dublin examines the structural barriers for men who want more involvement with their children , challenges the notion of the “ patriarchal dividend ” which simply means that men have it all – agency , power , influence – and suggests instead that when it comes to fatherhood , men can be in a position of disadvantage .
Lockdown may have changed that .
At last , it ’ s lifting .
More and more companies offer their employees the option of working from home .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will choose to stay home .
I ’ m betting that person is not necessarily the mother .
The notion that the marketplace defines your worth is harder to shift for women than men .
Among the many things psychologists debate is how long it takes to change a behaviour pattern .
Sixty-six days seems to be a mean average .
For the last 66 days many men have had , perhaps for the first time , a real chance to reconcile work and family life .
Could the growing understanding of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown dividend ?
For me , in a household where I travel much less for work than my partner has had to , the benefits are cross-gender and cross family .
Sitting down to lunch together has been the closest thing I remember to our all-family/working life in the sixties .
It doesn ’ t work for everyone , but then not every working man wants to spend his life going god-knows-where at breakneck speed .
“ I didn ’ t marry just to stay home ” , the builder next door said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting back to the dignity of work .
There won ’ t be a new normal .
But if we ’ re lucky , there will be measures that put into practice some of the resiliences we ’ ve picked up through this difficult time ( like Boots pharmacy using consultation rooms as a safe space for victims of domestic abuse ) .
And as Harris notes , increasing the home carer tax credit in the Republic could prove to be an incentive to more men to stay at home and in doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health of their families , but also their own .
Not forcing , facilitating .
A grade one reset for our own health and that of the planet ’ s , won ’ t come of its own , or merely through items in any new Dublin government ’ s programme .
[ Any sign of our first actual NI budget since 2016 btw ?
– Ed ] .
Now , shhh .
Give them a chance !
Much of it comes down to us as citizens being willing to make the smallest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then government and politicians being willing to tweak and trimtab systems that allow those choices to mainstream a general reset .
Photo by Victoria_Borodinova is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

In the week before the UK government revealed its plans for closing down our social and working lives as we’d known it, my friend Richard and I (safely social distancing in the yard) were talking over the sheer strangeness of it all.
Somewhere in the flow of our conversation, I blurted out that tough as the days ahead were likely to be I didn’t want to go back to the way life had been before. As the world learned to breathe properly (at least for a while) again, I for one wanted a reset.
Two months later we met again each with a beer in hand (bought as a carryout in what had been our favourite pub, but now our favourite corner shop), it became clear to both of us that despite the uncertainty there have been some wins. 1950s traffic, for one.
I just missed the 50s, but I do know I was allowed go to school on my own in the early 60s just one day after my mum showed me the best way get there and another way back. She and my dad had a pub to run and my two younger siblings to look after.
She needed the time. As she told me thirty years later when I was bemoaning the fact my kids were not allowed to go to school on their own as P4s, never mind P1s, she said, “it’s the traffic son, I’d never have let you do it either if it had been like it is today.”
Our lives were more local then, less time spent in cars, most of it on foot and with cleaner air to breathe than in more recent times. And, just as importantly we had more time together as families. Something that hasn’t escaped Anne Harris today…
There is no doubt the lockdown will be viewed by sociologists of the future as a great social experiment: whole families hermetically sealed for months on end. It’s only as it ends that we begin to comprehend the fallout. And the tragedy of increased domestic violence is the only subject we’ve talked about thus far. +++++++ Many think small children are the big losers. Timidity, fear of contact with adults, is the natural result of the virus paranoia, which has been inculcated in them; they haven’t met their friends for months. Certainly, as Bertie Ahern said of his grandchildren on the Brendan O’Connor show, they have been denied all the little rites of passage in school. But are small children such losers? For 66 days now, men and women have, in the main, been working from home. This has meant that fathers have been more accessible to their children. The sunrise – yes sunrise – beach gatherings of young people (behavioural scientists can disabuse themselves of the idea that teenagers are the big losers) are heavily interspersed with parents pushing buggies – especially fathers.
Hard to disagree. She continues…
…for some time now serious sociologists have been studying the question of contemporary fatherhood, finding that men who have closer relationships with their children report greater marital satisfaction and better health. “They feel less stress, less stress to be successful, powerful and competitive.” An important paper by Jemimah Bailey of Trinity College Dublin examines the structural barriers for men who want more involvement with their children, challenges the notion of the “patriarchal dividend” which simply means that men have it all – agency, power, influence – and suggests instead that when it comes to fatherhood, men can be in a position of disadvantage. Lockdown may have changed that.
And…
At last, it’s lifting. More and more companies offer their employees the option of working from home. The burning question among couples is which one will choose to stay home. I’m betting that person is not necessarily the mother. The notion that the marketplace defines your worth is harder to shift for women than men. Among the many things psychologists debate is how long it takes to change a behaviour pattern. Sixty-six days seems to be a mean average. For the last 66 days many men have had, perhaps for the first time, a real chance to reconcile work and family life. Could the growing understanding of how men benefit from fatherhood be the real lockdown dividend?
For me, in a household where I travel much less for work than my partner has had to, the benefits are cross-gender and cross family. Sitting down to lunch together has been the closest thing I remember to our all-family/working life in the sixties.
It doesn’t work for everyone, but then not every working man wants to spend his life going god-knows-where at breakneck speed. “I didn’t marry just to stay home”, the builder next door said last week speaking of his relief at getting back to the dignity of work.
There won’t be a new normal. But if we’re lucky, there will be measures that put into practice some of the resiliences we’ve picked up through this difficult time (like Boots pharmacy using consultation rooms as a safe space for victims of domestic abuse).
And as Harris notes, increasing the home carer tax credit in the Republic could prove to be an incentive to more men to stay at home and in doing so contribute not only to the broader health of their families, but also their own. Not forcing, facilitating.
A grade one reset for our own health and that of the planet’s, won’t come of its own, or merely through items in any new Dublin government’s programme. [Any sign of our first actual NI budget since 2016 btw? – Ed]. Now, shhh. Give them a chance!
Much of it comes down to us as citizens being willing to make the smallest possible changes in a range of areas and then government and politicians being willing to tweak and trimtab systems that allow those choices to mainstream a general reset.
Photo by Victoria_Borodinova is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA