Showing posts with label Irish Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Irish Constitution. Show all posts

Sunday, 1 October 2006

Danish Cartoon Controversy

In the midst of all the commentary and coverage of the Danish Cartoon Controversy a certain theme has, not unexpectedly, raised its head. I refer of course to the 'Clash of Civilisations' debate which is being offered up in some quarters as an explanation for the anger that has erupted.

According to this theory the Arab/Muslim world is in the grip of religious fervour and hence finds itself at odds with the 'western liberal secular tradition' or whatever adjectives you choose to insert. Western Europe (and by extension the Americas) is regarded as having societies where freedom of expression, as applied to public utterances and matters of conscience, is absolute and paramount to the democratic functioning of the state. The adverse consequences of this can only be addressed through vigorous public debate, right of criticism and vigilance.

This state of affairs is considered to have evolved out of centuries of struggle against the forces of blind (one might even say religious) obscurantism. From the Renaissance and Galileo through to the Reformation and the Enlightenment all these events have left their mark on our intellectual and cultural tradition. Fair enough, but do we here in the west really merit such a pat on the back?

If an outsider was to evaluate Irish society solely by reference to the fundamental law of the land, as laid down in our constitution, such a person might well come to some unflattering conclusions. In actual fact there is no such thing as an absolute right to freedom of conscience, or the free profession and practice of religion, according to Bunreacht na hÉireann because Article 44.2.1 makes these 'subject to public order and morality'. If Ireland was a mainly Muslim country, or even a country in which Islam constituted a significant minority (and who is to say this will not happen at some point in the future), a case could quite easily be brought under Irish law for the banning of offensive material such as the Danish cartoons. I should state here I haven't seen them but can only assume that they offend against 'public order and morality' for some at least.

Article 40.6.1(i) of Bunreacht na hÉireann even specifies that 'the publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law'. The Irish Times in its edition of 4th February, 2006 is at pains to point out that "while the Constitution and the law in Ireland prohibit blasphemy, the only attempt to mount such a prosecution in the State's history ended in failure". This only begs the question as to why do we have these stupid laws on our statute books in the first case?

I would suggest the reason is that, invariably, laws are the last thing to change as a society and a people change. Legislators are constantly locked in a battle to keep up with changes in public perception.

In my view, if we really wish to address ourselves to our Muslim brothers and sisters from the standpoint of 21st century intellectual enlightenment, and not as just a bunch of condescending chauvinists, then we really should start to clear out the skeletons in our own cupboards. As Ireland moves into a new era of multi-culturalism (and one could raise the question here, when did we ever become mono-cultural?) there is a lot that a lot of us would like to leave behind.

11th February, 2006

A version of this post was published as a 'Letter to the Editor' in Village Magazine (Issue 73, 16-22 February 2006) and Irish Independent newspaper of February 21st, 2006.

Copyright © Oscar Ó Dúgáin, 2006

Letter to Morning Ireland: On the Question of Religion in Ireland and the former Soviet Union.

Correspondence (or lack of) with RTÉ Radio One’s Morning Ireland programme

This is the complete text of a letter sent to the RTÉ Radio 1 programme Morning Ireland in response to comments broadcast alleging that communism banned religion in the former USSR.

Dear Morning Ireland,

I refer to comments broadcast on your programme of Friday, 6th January. Your reporter Emer Lowe (hope I’ve spelt that right) finished her piece on the Russian Orthodox community in Ireland and their Christmas celebrations with the bizarre claim that 'religion was banned under the communism during the soviet period'.

Please could you ask Emer Lowe to provide a source for this contention. I am quite conversant with the history of the October Revolution and the construction of a socialist state that ensued. I can assure you, Emer Lowe and your listeners, quite categorically, that no such event as 'the banning of religion' ever took place. If there were tensions of a church-state or church-populace nature then all that this suggests is that soviet society was no different to any other social system, including our own, although every system throws up its own unique features and characteristics.

I do not know what Emer Lowe's position is on any of these matters and therefore can only make a guess at what might have prompted her to make such an extraordinary claim. I would suggest that, either she has been duped by some kind of fanciful, Dan Brown-style, potted history of the twentieth century, or else she just didn’t bother to start her research from facts. It is the job of a journalist to investigate. It is not my job to do Emer Lowe's job for her. But since she is obviously in way over her head I will share the following information with you, that hopefully you will pass on to her.

The first constitution to follow the October Socialist Revolution was the constitution of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic of 1918. On the question of religion it states:

Article 13. In order to ensure genuine freedom of conscience for the working people, the church is separated from the State, and the school from the church: and freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

Can also be read at here, with a slightly different translation but the sense remains the same.

The 1936 Constitution reiterates the same principles:

ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizen’s freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

The 1936 constitution remained in force until 1977 when it was replaced by a new constitution. (Can also be read here.) The previous provision is re-worked, but the guarantee of religious freedom is retained and a new element to do with 'incitement to hatred' is introduced:

Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

All in all this is a less than satisfactory formulation and represents a dilution of the previous position, enshrined in the 1936 constitution. It seems to infer that Freedom of Conscience is exclusively a religious matter. Also the question of 'incitement to hatred' is dubious because how is the 'prohibition' to be enforced? It would seem to me that provisions like these could be open to abuse. Nevertheless all the evidence shows that no such thing as 'religion being banned under communism in the Soviet Union' ever took place. [Quite the opposite in fact - O.D. 29/6/2007.] Of course I may have overlooked something in which case perhaps Emer Lowe or Morning Ireland could enlighten me. The pursuit of knowledge is a worthy endeavour and a reward in itself.

Incidentally if we take the 1936 soviet constitution and compare it with our own Bunreacht na hÉireann, which was enacted the following year, it doesn't take a great intellectual feat to ascertain which is the more enlightened and progressive. References to 'the Most Holy Trinity' and 'our Divine Lord Jesus Christ' or the state's acknowledgement that 'homage of public worship is due to Almighty God' bear testimony to a time and place where certainly, Atheists at least would have had to thread carefully. But indeed people of minority faiths too where left in no doubt as to they stood, with the state's recognition of "the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens". - Bunreacht na hÉireann.

History has shown how ultimately this stance proved near disastrous for almost everyone concerned, not least the Catholic Church itself. In the Northern Ireland it was seized upon by unionist reaction to implement their agenda of creating a 'protestant state for a protestant people'. Why not if catholics were up to the same lark down south?

In point of fact, unlike the 1936 constitution of the Soviet Union, Bunreacht na hÉireann, did not then, and does not now guarantee complete freedom of conscience and free profession of religion since Article 44.1 qualifies this by making such 'subject to public order and morality'. So who is living in a police state? You tell me.

So, to conclude on this point I look forward to hearing Morning Ireland issue a correction or clarification in the very near future. To be honest, as a license payer I was rather taken a-back to hear such shoddy presentation from our state monopoly broadcasting service. I suppose the notion of deliberate falsification on your part is a little too Orwellian to contemplate. Nevertheless, perhaps it’s just as well that the semblance of a free market is beginning to emerge in Irish broadcasting.

If standards deteriorate any further at RTÉ I might just float the idea that the license fee be re-distributed more fairly, so that enterprises and individuals genuinely interested in providing public service broadcasting can have a go. Share the wealth is what I say. A little bit of socialism never did anyone any harm.

Is mise,

Oscar Ó Dúgáin 7/1/2006


Feedback and Responses to Date:

E-mail reply received 07 January 2006 13:26:

Thank you very much for emailing Morning Ireland, your message has been passed on to the editor. You can access the programme online at: "http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland.html"

******************************

----- Original Message -----
To: "mailto:morningireland@rte.ie"
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 7:50 PM
Subject: Re-sending: Religion in the USSR

Dear Morning Ireland,

I wonder if you have had a chance to consider the issues raised in my e-mail of 7th January (see below) and if so, what are your comments? I would be most interested to hear what the state controlled media in this country has to say for itself on this occasion.

Is mise,

Oscar Ó Dúgáin

******************************

E-mail reply received 15 January 2006 19:51:

Thank you very much for emailing Morning Ireland, your message has been passed on to the editor. You can access the programme online at: "http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland.html"

******************************

----- Original Message -----
To: "mailto:morningireland@rte.ie"
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 10:34 PM
Subject: Re- Re-sending: Religion in the USSR

Dear Morning Ireland,

Since you still have not replied to my letter of 7th January (re-sent on 15th January) I can only assume that you concede the points I made in relation to your broadcast. In which case I would now like to enquire as to when you intend to issue a correction. In the event that you have already done so, unbeknownst to me, could I humbly request a transcript or a statement of some sort from you.

Is mise,

Oscar Ó Dúgáin

******************************

E-mail reply received 21 January 2006 22:34:

Thank you very much for emailing Morning Ireland, your message has been passed on to the editor. You can access the programme online at: "http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland.html"

******************************

Copyright © Oscar Ó Dúgáin, 2006


The State We Are In. Éire is ainm don Stát. Meditations on politics, partition and football.

This post started out as a response to an article by Niall Gormley in The Northside People, 7 September 2005 entitled Ireland? Never Heard of It.

Being a frequent reader of Niall Gormley’s column in The Northside People I find his views on diverse matters interesting and his column in general to be quite readable.

However, I must take issue with his contention in his column of 7/9/05 where he asserts that 'this state is called Ireland'. I regret to inform him that he is only partially correct in this assertion.

Read again Bunreacht na hÉireann and in particular Article 4 to which Niall Gormley refers. Taking the Irish language version first - as Irish is the first official language of the state and, in the event of legal ambiguity, has precedence over the English language version - we read: "Éire is ainm don Stát nó, sa Sacs-Bhéarla, Ireland." For the benefit of those who are not conversant in the first official language of the state an English translation is also supplied and is equally specific: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Hence both the Irish and English language versions of the constitution are clear and specific: 'Éire is ainm don Stát' or 'The name of the State is Éire'.

At the same time the constitution is generous to those who may not be proficient in the first official language by allowing that the English equivalent of 'Ireland' may also be used. Hence it is not correct as Niall Gormley suggest that the term 'Éire' is merely the 'Irish language name for the State' - it is the name of the state, full-stop.

The 1948 ‘Republic of Ireland Act’ to which he refers, (and which I must take his word for on this occasion as I do not have a copy in front of me) simply speaks of the ‘description of the State’ - i.e. as a republic, not a monarchy or some other, non-republican, form of government. 'Description of the state' and 'name of the state' are not the same thing and should not be confused.

It is worth citing here Article 5 of Bunreacht na hÉireann which states that 'Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state' ['Is Stát ceannasach, neamhspléach, daonlathach Éire']. This does not address the question of whether Ireland is a 'sovereign, independent, democratic' republic or a 'sovereign, independent, democratic' constitutional monarchy. Of course, in this day and age, any reasonable person would be able to see through the contradiction of a monarchical form of government claiming the credentials of ’democracy’, whatever about being 'sovereign and independent'.

To understand the reasons for the ambiguity reflected in Bunreacht na hÉireann one has to go back to the history of the 1930's, when De Valera was whittling away at the 1922 Anglo-Irish Treaty by stealth. For tactical reasons, he didn't want to confront directly the question of the right of the British Crown to claim the allegiance of the Irish state, which existed at that point.

This also explains why De Valera and Fianna Fáil were opposed to the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act. Firstly they believed that the declaration of 'the Republic' should await the establishment of an All-Ireland, 32-county government with appropriate institutions. Secondly, and more interestingly, they obviously felt that in withdrawing Éire-Ireland from the [British] Commonwealth, an important, common association with the people of Northern Ireland was thereby broken.

This is also, I believe, why it is still the policy of Fianna Fáil (and possibly other parties) to seek re-incorporation of Éire-Ireland into the Commonwealth. (No longer referred to as the ‘British’ Commonwealth incidentally but simply, ‘The Commonwealth‘, and described merely as an association for whom membership is open to any country which accepts the Queen of England as ‘Head of the Commonwealth‘. Mozambique, which was never a British colony, is one of the more recent members to join.)

As to the question of both Irish soccer teams calling themselves Ireland up until 1953, when FIFA intervened, this is another question that has interesting origins. In pre-partition Ireland it was in fact the Irish Football Association (IFA - today the ‘northern association‘) that served the role of governing body for the game across the entire island of Ireland. The website of the IFA tells us that it was:
"Founded in the Queens Hotel, Belfast back on 18th November 1880 the Irish Football Association is the fourth oldest governing body in the world behind the other three home associations.

"This inaugural meeting was at the behest of the Cliftonville club – the oldest in Ireland – who gathered clubs from Belfast and the outlying districts together with a view to creating a unifying constitution and set of rules along the lines of those adopted by their Scottish counterparts some seven years earlier.

"The aims of this fledgling, but ambitious, body were to promote, foster and develop the game throughout the island. ...

"However, it is off the pitch that the Association has had its greatest impact. A member of the International Football Board – the rule-making body – the IFA sits as an equal with the other British associations and representatives of FIFA itself."

Hence the IFA, “despite a population well below two million, despite only having just over 1,500 registered clubs and despite being able to draw from a pool of approximately 25,000 players spread over less than 5,500 square miles” can justly lay claim, as they do, to being among “the true giants of world football”. Further their website tells us that “the influence the association had – and still does – on the game across the globe is immeasurable”. They even lay claim to having invented the Penalty Kick!

The IFA’s position in world football is something akin to that of permanent membership of the Security Council of the UN. The rules of the game are subject to an annual review by the world’s governing body, FIFA. On any proposed law change eight votes are cast. Four votes are allocated to the associations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the remaining four from FIFA. A three-quarter vote majority is required before a rule can be altered.

After partition the IFA remained in existence but jurisdiction was effectively limited to newly created Northern Ireland state. In the southern 'Free State' a new body was set up known as the 'Football Association of the Irish Free State (FAIFS, later the Football Association of Ireland or FAI).

According to the website of the FAI:
"... there was always a feeling among clubs from outside the Belfast area that the IFA favoured Ulster based, Protestant, clubs - especially when selecting sides for international matches. ... Despite this, it was not until after the 1916 Rising and the rise of Nationalism that southern affiliates, such as the Leinster FA, took an aggressive approach in their dealings with the IFA. ...

"[In 1921] the IFA reneged on a promise to play the IFA Cup final replay between Shelbourne and Glenavon in Dublin and scheduled the match for Belfast. Shelbourne refused to comply and forfeited the Cup. A meeting of southern associations and clubs was arranged and on June 1 1921, the Football Association of the Irish Free State (FAIFS) was formed in Molesworth Hall in Dublin. ... "
At this point it’s obvious that FAI’s official history is confused. How for example could an association known as the ‘Football Association of the Irish Free State’ have been formed at a meeting on 1st June, 1921 when no such country as the ‘Irish Free State’ existed as of that date? As any student of Irish history knows, it was not until December of that year, with the negotiation of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, that a proposal for an Irish Free State was first muted. The Irish Free State can only really be said to have come into existence when Dáil Éireann voted in January of the following year to accept the said treaty. That treaty can only be said to have been endorsed by the people of the ‘Irish Free State’ when the elections held later in June returned a pro-treaty majority. It must therefore be presumed that the association that was founded on 1st June, 1921 operated under some kind of provisional nomenclature.

Also, how can it be said that the ‘rise of nationalism’ contributed towards the formation of rival and separate associations. The setting up of a partitionist ‘free state’ association would hardly have been the ‘nationalist’ response in 1921. Are we to assume therefore that it was the Ulster protestant dominated IFA who were beating the nationalist drum? Well, stranger things have happened I suppose.

I e-mailed the FAI (on 26th October, 2005) seeking clarification. They wrote back very promptly accepting that there is a discrepancy and that the matter would be referred to their press office but to date I have received no reply and no correction appears on their website. However if any new information by way of clarification emerges I will report it here. Watch this space....
"A Free State League was hastily organised, with eight teams taking part. Originally all eight teams were from Dublin, but Athlone became the first provincial club to join the league the following season. ... The FAIFS had greater difficulty in arranging international fixtures.  
"All the home nations' associations had blacklisted the FAIFS, but the Association had better fortune in their dealings with FIFA. ... In August of [1923], FIFA accepted Ireland's application for membership and the FAIFS joined the international community. ...  
"At the time, both the FAIFS and IFA selected players from all over Ireland meaning that many footballers won caps for both Associations. It wasn't until 1950 that FIFA intervened." See FAI website.
Elsewhere on the FAI’s website we are informed that:
"1950 was ... the year that the problem of players playing for both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland was finally solved, with FIFA directing both Associations to only pick players from within their own boundaries. FIFA were also to clear up another matter in 1953, when they ruled that the FAI's team would be known as the Republic of Ireland with the IFA's side being called Northern Ireland.

"Up to that point, both Associations referred to their teams as 'Ireland'."
The question of why soccer seems to be unique in Irish sport in the manner in which it was affected by the political divisions arising out of partition remains a puzzle. It can only be hoped that there is some historian/enthusiast out there who is interested enough to take it upon his/her self to clarify the issue.

Of course we can’t change the past, nor can we accurately determine the future, but maybe we can influence it by trying to steer the course of discussion. So in conclusion here is what I am proposing:

Given the recent disappointing performances of both Irish soccer teams in failing to qualify for the 2006 World Cup Finals; recognising that this is obviously due in no small part to the limitations on of having such a small pool of players to draw upon; recognising that this in turn is compounded by lack of resources, competition with other sports etc; maybe the time is ripe to at least begin debating the merits of all-Ireland approach to developing the game of soccer on this island. A start to this could be made at international level with a cross-border team to represent the entire island of Ireland in international competitions. I do not suggest that either of the two associations would have to give up their independence. Rather an all-Ireland international squad could be conceived somewhat in the same terms as the cross-border institutions envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement. To overcome the political, diplomatic and other niceties involved I suggest that the initial approach could be made with the prodigal son seeking rapprochement and, partially at least, returning to the fold.

8th January, 2006

An earlier version of this post was published as a 'Letter to the Editor' in the Northside People (Vol. 11, No. 38; 21-27 September 2005).

Copyright © Oscar Ó Dúgáin, 2006

Labels

Alan Shatter (1) An Garda Síochána (1) an tOireachtas (1) Anglo-Irish Bank (1) Anglo-Irish relations (1) Armistice Day (1) banking (1) Bertie Ahern (1) Blasphemy (1) Bono (1) Brian Cowen (2) Brian Lenihan (2) British monarchy (1) Broadcasting in Ireland (1) Bunreach na hÉireann (3) Church and State (2) Clash of Civilisation (1) Colonialism (2) Communism (1) Conor Lenihan (1) Cumann na nGaedheal (1) Cutbacks (1) Dáil Éireann (2) Danish Cartoon Controversy (1) Darwinian Evolution (1) David Lloyd George (1) David McWilliams (2) Democracy (2) Democratic Unionist Party (1) Eamon de Valera (1) Easter Rising 1916 (1) Education (2) Edward VII (1) Enda Kenny (1) executive presidency (1) FAI (1) Fianna Fáil (3) FIFA (1) Financial Crisis (1) Fine Gael (5) Fionnan Sheahan (1) Football (1) Free Speech (1) Funding for Political Parties (2) Garret FitzGerald (2) Gay Mitchel (1) General Election 2011 (1) George Lee (1) George W. Bush (2) Good Friday Agreement (4) government (1) Green Party (1) history of British monarchy (1) I am Spartacus (1) Iceland (1) IFA (1) IMF (1) Immigration (2) Independent Newspapers (1) Iran (1) Ireland (2) Irish Citizenship (2) Irish Constitution (3) Irish Democracy (1) Irish economy (1) Irish Foreign Policy (1) Irish Independent (1) Irish Language (3) Irish Politics (8) Irish Re-unification (1) Irish Republican Army (1) Irish Soccer Team (1) Islam (1) Israel (1) Karl Marx (1) Labour Party (1) Liz O'Donnell (1) London Bombing 7/7 (1) Lucinda Creighton (1) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (1) Martin McGuinness (1) Matt Cooper (1) McGill Summer School (1) Membership of the Commonwealth (1) Michael Lowry (1) Michael Noonan (1) Middle East (3) Moriarty Tribunal (1) Morning Ireland (2) Multi-Culturalism (1) NAMA (1) national survival (1) Niall Ferguson (1) Nuclear Proliferation (1) Oath of Allegiance (1) Office of An Taoiseach (1) Palestinians (1) parliamentary system of government (1) Partition of Ireland (1) Philantrophy (1) political economy (1) political survival (1) Politics (2) Power Sharing (1) presidential election 2011 (1) Queen Elizabeth's state visit to Ireland (1) Religion (2) Remembrance Day (1) RTE (1) Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act (1) Shannon Stopover (1) Sinn Féin (1) Sovereignty (1) Soviet Union (1) Stanley Baldwin (1) The Irish Press (1) third level fees (1) Third World (1) Tony Blair (2) Tony O'Reilly (1) toxic bank (1) Twitter Joke Trial (1) U2 (1) US Military (1) W.T. Cosgrave (1) War on Terror (1) wealth tax (1) World War I (1) World War II (1)