View previous topic | View next topic

Ireland: Mary McAleese and Queen Elizabeth

Page 3 of 7
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

ali
724367.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:30 pm Reply with quote

OK, for those interested - here is the (English) text of the Constitution of Ireland

Also, while article 39 places limitations on what may be called treason (that's all it does); the crime of treason is dealt with primarily under the provisions of the Treason Act, 1939. This is the act as enacted in 1939. There have been changes; in particular, section 1(1) calls for the death penalty - which was prohibited in 2002 by the 21st amendment to the Constituton (though I believe the death penalty was removed for this act earlier).

CB27 wrote:
Simon Cowell is the Dark Overlord who's really in charge of the country


I knew it!!


Last edited by ali on Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:34 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
Efros
724368.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:33 pm Reply with quote

Simon Cowell is the Dark Overlord who's really in charge of the country!

 
suze
724369.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:07 pm Reply with quote

ali wrote:
The death penalty - which was prohibited in 2002 by the 21st amendment to the Constituton (though I believe the death penalty was removed for this act earlier).


The death penalty in Ireland was in fact abolished by the Criminal Justice Act 1990. The Fianna Fáil government of that time had planned to make this irreversible by incorporating its abolition into the constitution, but fell before it could do so - so it was to be another twelve years before that constitutional amendment happened under pressure from Europe.

In fact, the last judicial execution to take place in Ireland was in 1954, and since Ireland had no state executioner, Albert Pierrepoint was brought in to do the evil deed. A few dozen capital sentences were issued after that date, but all were either commuted on appeal or were overruled by Presidential mercy.

An Act of 1964 abolished the death penalty for piracy and for most murders (including abortions), but retained it for treason, for some military offences, and for the murder of a police officer or prison officer in the line of duty. The last seven death sentences issued - the last in 1985 - were all for the murders of Gardaí, but none was carried out.

 
ali
724371.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:12 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
ali wrote:
The death penalty - which was prohibited in 2002 by the 21st amendment to the Constituton (though I believe the death penalty was removed for this act earlier).


The death penalty in Ireland was in fact abolished by the Criminal Justice Act 1990. .


Ah, thanks suze - I knew it was abolished earlier, but hadn't managed to track the details down

 
legspin
724372.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:53 pm Reply with quote

Spud McLaren wrote:
Me, or Mr Dow?

Just so's I know...

The OP. was the moron I was refering to.

The ignorance of the situation over here displayed by said poster really does boggle the mind. There is some disquiet over the proposed visit of Mrs. Windsor, but it is really only the usual idiotic gobshites. Republican Sinn Fein springs instantly to mind. The fact that this particular blowhard is not even irish only makes it even more absurd.

I may not particularly care for the position of Liz Windsor but she is the head of a friendly foreign sovereign state to where our head of state has been invited on many occasions. It is only courteous that a return invite should be offered. It would also surprise many just how popular ER.II is amongst some here. My mother-in-law would be a case in point and she's a mad Dev-head as well.

I have always thought that it is a little unfair that one of the most horse mad families in the UK. is excluded from all of the meets over here, especially considering the support given by said family to that particular industry over here. I think she should go to the Galway Races in August personally. We wouldn't be able to keep her away after that.

 
Peter Dow
724380.  Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:49 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Peter Dow wrote:
Well assuming you are right, this article 39 was written by a fascist and it has no place in a democratic republican constitution.


Like the whole of the original constitution, it was in fact written by two teams of legal draughtsmen under the personal supervision of Éamon de Valera. That man has been described as many things, but "fascist" has not often been one of them.

Well this "Éamon de Valera" of whom you speak was a fascist clearly because he personally supervised an article 39 which said no matter what terrible deeds the head of state (president) and the state's officers under him did - exterminations of the people or whatever - article 39 says "you Irish people can't touch the President and his state, nah nah nah nah nah". The Irish state can do ANYTHING to the little Irish man or woman!

Because remember the state controls the mechanisms of the law - the police, the courts, the prisons and so on, so the only way to make a fascist, exterminating state accountable to the people is to defeat it by an insurgent revolutionary war. Assassinating the head of state is the freedom fighter recommended method. Legal action against the state is a waste of time when the state controls the courts.

When dealing with fascists, there is only one effective treatment - violent war, kill fascists soon, kill them often: the only thing that makes a difference.

Presumably, not often calling de Valera a "fascist" has allowed his fascist article 39 to stand for so long?

Fascist de Valera! Fascist de Valera!

I am proud to say my great uncle Jock was conscripted and died in training for the Normandy invasion. A worthy sacrifice.

We Scots and other Britons and real republicans with backbone and principle, such as American republicans and free French, can be proud of fighting Hitler and no amount of quoting Godwin is going to help Irish fascists and cowards live down the historical shame of neutrality in world war 2.

What can save Irish honour is trashing the memory of de Valera and putting his article 39 in the dustbin of history and start holding the Irish state to account for its abuses against the people.

As of right now, article 39 of the Irish constitution smells like used toilet paper to a republican of democratic principle.

Up until now I have been arguing for impeachment of Mary McAleese believing that the Irish people would be free to commence impeachment and removal proceedings against McAleese for violating the constitution. But if the constitution actually does not limit the power of the state and simply gives the state a get-out-of-jail free card then maybe impeachment is a waste of time and McAleese and any other future Irish president who is content with article 39 should be assassinated along with any visiting monarch of like mind such as Queen Elizabeth?

 
dr.bob
724415.  Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:43 am Reply with quote

Peter Dow wrote:
UK and specifically its monarchy is the enemy of the British nation (and the enemy of the Scottish nation), being as it is the kingdom which enslaves the British (& Scottish) nation, for example denying us the right to elect our own head of state


That's a very good example. The monarchy does absolutely deny us the ability to elect our own head of state (though I'm not sure that electing a head of state is necessarily a "right", but what the hey).

For a bonus 1,000 points, can you name any other rights that are denied to us by having a monarchy? Just one? I dare you!

Peter Dow wrote:
Bloody Sunday


Yep, good point. Innocent people killed by officers of the state. But what's your point? Are you saying that this is a direct result of having a monarchy? If that were true, you'd have to prove that illegal killing of innocent people never happens within a republic. If you were to try and do so, I think Kathryn Johnston, Joseph Hamley, Jesse Lee Williams, Jr., Juan Herrera, and countless others would beg to differ.

Peter Dow wrote:
For proof of harm to Scots, see "Dunblane Primary School Massacre cover-up revealed".


Wow! That's pretty breathtaking!

Let's ignore for a moment the fact that you can't find any real reports to back up your argument, and have to rely on your own personal rantings to try and bootstrap your point , and actually analyse what your insane rantings actually say:

"We must now realise that the police and Scotland's civil power have failed, dreadfully and disgracefully; they are partly to blame for these and other violent deaths. The case for intervention by the military power to remedy this failure must now be made."

"the police had failed to be immediately on hand at the primary school, armed and ready to shoot any madman before he could murder the innocent."

So, despite the fact that you seem really rather set against the idea of fascism, you seem more than eager to replace the police with military power, and to have a permanent armed presence at every primary school.

Personally, I think I much prefer our current system where people may be at risk of the very rare occurrence of a madman going haywire with a gun, but are free to live their lives without jackbooted, gun-toting officers of the law in their face 24 hours a day.

 
busk31
724417.  Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:07 am Reply with quote

This made my day:http://scot.jpmannion.com/lookingforawoman.htm#top

 
Neotenic
724418.  Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:10 am Reply with quote

Quote:
When dealing with fascists, there is only one effective treatment - violent war, kill fascists soon, kill them often: the only thing that makes a difference.


Congratulations.

Your 'only' solution for dealing with fascism is utterly fascist. Perhaps you should just call it your 'final' solution and be done with it.

But I suppose it is par for the course, considering your recommended method for dealing with 'treasonous' behaviour - however nebulous a definition of the term is employed - is actual treason.

To believe that it is 'backbone' or 'principle' to advocate strongly taking the life of any other individual is utterly, utterly wrong-headed. I would love to hear an honest defence of this position that doesn't rely on bizarre accusations about forest fires.

But look closely in the mirror, my friend, for I fear you may be the very best example of what you claim to hate.

 
Peter Dow
724449.  Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:21 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
but there is a section for people to show off their websites, have you bothered to go there?

What section, where? I can't see any section saying "show off your website here".

I can be bothered if I can find the section, if it truly exists. However since it is so poorly sign-posted probably few of the people using this site know of this section.

So it would be like showing your website off in a dark cupboard with no-one there.

There is not even a place in a person's profile to link to their own website. QI forum is one of those "North Korean" type forums which are closed off to influence from the world outside of the BBC and other state broadcasters.

You all sit in blissful ignorance of the truth admiring "the great leader" Queen Elizabeth and "the dear leader" Prince Charles.

 
barbados
724455.  Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:47 am Reply with quote

Try looking here. It's not that hard to find, it's near the top of the bit that says General Banter, where everyone stops to have a chat

Now is there any chance you can find a way to get me back all of the time I've wasted ready this ridiculous bile?

 
Neotenic
724461.  Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:15 am Reply with quote

Quote:
So it would be like showing your website off in a dark cupboard with no-one there.


In all honesty, that sounds like the best place for your website.

 
Jenny
724532.  Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:53 am Reply with quote

Peter Dow wrote:
CB27 wrote:
but there is a section for people to show off their websites, have you bothered to go there?

What section, where? I can't see any section saying "show off your website here".

I can be bothered if I can find the section, if it truly exists. However since it is so poorly sign-posted probably few of the people using this site know of this section.

So it would be like showing your website off in a dark cupboard with no-one there.

There is not even a place in a person's profile to link to their own website. QI forum is one of those "North Korean" type forums which are closed off to influence from the world outside of the BBC and other state broadcasters.

You all sit in blissful ignorance of the truth admiring "the great leader" Queen Elizabeth and "the dear leader" Prince Charles.


The section is not only there, it has deliberately been made 'sticky' so that it does not slip down the page if it is not used frequently. Short of illuminating it with flashing lights for people who can't be bothered to actually look or who come to the forum for no other purpose than to use it as a pulpit, I'm not sure what we can do.

 
Jenny
724533.  Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:55 am Reply with quote

busk31 wrote:
This made my day:http://scot.jpmannion.com/lookingforawoman.htm#top


I get an Error 403 - no access on this server - when I try and reach that. Can anybody else get to it? I do not want it there if it is something against the interests of QI or this forum.

 
barbados
724534.  Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:07 am Reply with quote

Same 403 error Jenny

 

Page 3 of 7
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group