Colm O’Gorman, of Amnesty International Ireland
Further to Amnesty International Ireland last year being told by the the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) to return a €137,000 donation to fund their campaign to repeal the Eighth Amendment from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation…
Amnesty International Ireland is pleased that its judicial review action before the Irish High Court has been resolved on the basis that the Standards in Public Office Commission accepts that the process leading to the adoption of the decision it made in November 2017 was procedurally flawed.
This decision has now been quashed.
Amnesty International Ireland has been vindicated in our decision to challenge the decision. The Commission has also confirmed that Amnesty has at all times cooperated in our responses to its inquiries into the OSF grant.”
From a statement released by Amnesty International Ireland this afternoon.
Amnesty welcomes quashing of SIPO’s decision on OSF grant (Amnesty International Ireland)
Previously: Above The Law
Rollingnews
I’m not crazy about any foreign money whatsoever being used in an Irish referendum to shift public opinion. Also, as a former Amnesty member I was a bit baffled they got so involved in the abortion debate. It seemed a mile away from their original role in helping political prisoners and campaigning against torture.
If the No side had their way, women would be prevented from even leaving the state to avail of abortions and would be forced to give birth, irrespective of the ramifications of what that meant – in the case of children who are the victims of rape, it can mean anything up to death as seen in Nicaragua, for example.
So perfectly acceptable for Amnesty to take a stand on this Human Rights issues and I say this as someone views them now with some measure of caution due to some of their actions over and the years – same as well for Colm O’Gorman so I am not some blind cheer leader for them.
First of all, I voted Yes.
Second, that ridiculous scenario you’ve outlined above is up there with the daftest propaganda from the No campaign.
First of all, I don’t care about how you voted. But to put you back in your little box, here are some facts:
1. We had to have a referendum on the right to travel, remember that one? Without it, women could have been prevented from the leaving the state.
2. In Nicaragua, among other places, children have died from being forced to give birth due to their extreme abortion laws.
So please, regale me with how you believe me outlining these potential ramifications is ridiculous please?
Oh and can it with the ‘I voted Yes’. I don’t believe you. Another sneaking regarder for the No side it seems.
In the future, the No side will be viewed the same way we view the KKK.
‘Oh and can it with the ‘I voted Yes’. I don’t believe you. Another sneaking regarder for the No side it seems. ‘
I always find it funny when someone has such a black and white view of the world that they cannot fathom a person having any sort of nuanced view on a topic.
‘In the future, the No side will be viewed the same way we view the KKK.’
– interesting new twist on Godwin, anyhow.
@Joe – Amnesty is an Irish organisation, so while in theory their money is ‘Irish’, I l see where you are coming from. While I actually agree with George Soros on almost everything, I am uncomfortable with the idea that foreign billionaires can use their wealth to influence our referendums. And before Ian-O goes all scorched earth on me, that extends to the money from Catholic Church and Amercian evangelicals, too.
Yeah Rob, that is my worry. If this had been money from some religious nuts from the States we’d be jumping up and down condemning it. If we’re not consistent, we just look like hypocrites.
Reading Ian-o’s posts made me remember why the run up to the referendum was such a giant pain in the hoop.
What? You don’t miss those heady days.
Me either.
624,059 Irish voters (or 37.6% of the Electorate) voted in favour of temporarily suspending a woman’s right to travel outside of her own country (which would involve arrest and/or physical restraint, a risk of being found in contempt of court, and the threat separate threat
of criminal liability and associated penalties) for a procedure which was absolutely lawful in other EU Member State territories.
If it wasn’t for organisations like Amnesty, we’d be living in an Orwell novel.
Many of the 600k who voted that way was probably wholly or in part due to a foreign organisation (RCC) projecting its wealth and influence.
I think the best thing to do would be to restrict these organisations, inasmuch as is possible, from exerting their influence in this way. Otherwise it just becomes an arms race, with the side with the most money being able to project their message furthest.
Careful Bobby, saying these facts might get you labelled a Godwinist or similar.
For the record, I am totally opposed to all foreign money being used in elections or any other polls irrespective of what side they are funding.
I am glad to hear that, Ian, but this seems to be at odds with your sentiments from a few posts ago, when you said it was “perfectly acceptable for Amnesty to take a stand on this Human Rights issues” – the issue highlighted in the article was that Amnesty was using money from a foreign billionaire to finance the stand it was taking on this issue.
They are a human rights organization and abortion is a recognized human rights issue. There role has always been to champion human rights
True, but try explaining that to someone who uses the tired old ‘I was once a member/I voted Yes’ (this will become like Britain in the 90’s when nobody could find anyone who would admit to voting for Thatcher in the 80’s) who seems to think real life situations which have happened is ridiculous or daft.
but Joe, the money wasn’t used. The no side used their foreign help to invest in youtube ads, billboards etc. Whereas everyone on the Yes side were on the take, pocketing donations and turning over profits with no money going back in to the campaign. Think of all the campaign drives there were, and how the quickly the goal of 500k was reached and subsequently surpassed, and what did we see? a few measily posters. Where’d all the rest of it go? Sure people were doing table quizes etc. to raise funds actual days before vote day. We are the greediest nation of people in Europe, and no one can help themselves with the temptation of invisible cash. Yer one made a fortune off the repeal jumpers, none of that went back in to anything, the site eventually came clean and said the jumpers goal was to create a talking point, to start conversations about repeal, which worked v well at the start of the campaign, but no one was unaware of repeal towards the last while leading up to the campaign, she was just making a big profit off it. Una Mullaly got a book out of it too, stories of women effected by the 8th, for sale right up to the vote day. She said half the profits would go to the campaign, even tho, as anyone in the book biz knows, she wouldnt be getting money for the sales from that until at least November.
Serious, criminal accusations. Proof?
just a theory, from living in dublin and walking around, not seeing any yes side stuff, but lots of no side stuff. The repeal jumpers isn’t a theory, that’s just fact, nor is it criminal. Mullalys book, I don’t know if that’s criminal or not, but it is also fact that she won’t see any of that book money until about November. So if she said some profit goes to repeal campaign, she was lying.
So empty, ugly, evil slander of other people’s good name. Disgusting.
i gave you facts, you gave me back .. nothing. Hide behind your faux disgust all you like, but don’t bother tell me about it unless you can refute what I’ve told you. I think it’s more ‘disgusting’ that people profiteered from such an important campaign, when they should’ve used the money to help it over the line. Luckily it passed regardless.
The Soros money wasn’t for use in a referendum campaign. It was granted well before any referendum was called. It was to lobby FOR a referendum, which is what it was spent on. The international Amnesty campaign on abortion rights equally predated the calling of the Irish referendum.
So the invisible hand got their way here, probably knew the decision would be overturned but after the referendum ….
The invisible hand? This an economics term referring to the free market.
Its also a defense used by rapey gropers
that’s that deck cleared
he has a free run now
So?
anyone taking bets?
Interesting take Frilly. Hadn’t thought of that.
Doubt he’d garner much popular support.
doesn’t matter
its about the free media and appearances that comes with it
along with personal promotion with professional staff that gets paid for from a campaign budget
2025 is going to be a free for all
so why not get a head start
True.
Would you not take a run at it yourself?
nah
I’m far too shy
@Rob_G – If saying things that are true is now ‘scorched earth’ perhaps you should invest in a MAGA hat?
As for your views on nuance, ”I always find it funny when someone has such a black and white view of the world that they cannot fathom a person having any sort of nuanced view on a topic.”
Glad I gave you a chuckle with that, your innocence gave me one back so thanks. Joe Small made a comment that basically said he couldn’t understand why Amnesty were getting involved with what is accepted by pretty much everyone as being a human rights issue. The only people who do not view it as such are No voters, ergo, my disbelief of his claims to be a Yes voter. He also rubbished my claims that we could find ourselves in a situation, like what is happening in placs like Paraguay and Nicargua, whereby women die from lack of access to abortion sevices – do you think that pointing out real stuff that really happens is ridiculous? Do you remember the original X case? The right to travel? I referenced these but you are more interested in attacking me.
As for your referring to Godwinism:
‘In the future, the No side will be viewed the same way we view the KKK.’
– interesting new twist on Godwin, anyhow.
I completely stand by this and add to it by saying those who voted No in the SSM referendum will be viewed the same way as well. Feel free to spew out sound bites while wearing the MAGE hat.
“is accepted by pretty much everyone as being a human rights issue. The only people who do not view it as such are No voters”
I disagree massively with this on both points. What does that make me? Probably up there with the KKK going by your weirdly childish outlook on life.
Are you a No voter? Do you think its not a human rights issue?
It is a human rights issue, end of story. Feel free to disagree and I will feel free to label those who thinks its not a human rights as being No voters who will be viewed one day on par with the KKK.
Sorry if that triggered you, not my intention, but the truth hurts.
No, I was not a no voter. I also did not think that it was a human right. I did, and still do, think that it is a womans choice. I also see the fertilised egg as a human life so I don’t see how the taking of a human life could be considered a human right. While not personally being in favour of it, I have been lucky enough not to have been put in a position where I had to question this belief too much. I know other people are not so lucky and so it was not for me to say what they should or should not be able to do.
It would probably have been easier for me to take your view point though and dismiss anyone who did not think exactly like me. It must be great in your little bubble of righteousness.
No point in rerunning the referendum here, suffice to say, it is a human rights issue – freedom of movement and bodily autonomy.
Here’s a human rights element. My right to medical treatment depends on a pregnancy test. The hospital/scan centre etc don’t accept my word that I’m not pregnant and in order to get a scan, I have to do a pregnancy test and wait until they confirm I’m not pregnant. Under the 8th, the potential contents of my uterus are given precidence over whatever medical issues I have until proof arrives that I’m not pregnant. Under the 8th, a woman or girl doesn’t have to be pregnant for it to impact on her health and wellbeing and has always been a danger to us with no positives.
The 8th amendment treats every menstruating woman and girl first and foremost as a liar. Our word is not trusted and neither are we, and that’s not acceptable anymore. The sooner legislation is passed, the better.
https://www.facebook.com/142243109783448/posts/208355646505527/
…SIPO waited 6 months before they declared the Soros donation was illegal and should be paid back…now that decision has been reversed shows how weak the legislation is. I doubt very much that the Soros intervention helped the ‘Yes’ campaign.
SIPO are a very small, under-resourced organisation which, strangely in this instance, also effectively functions as the secretariat for the Referendum Commission. Its not exactly in the politician’s interest to ensure a strong, independent well-resourced SIPO.
Interestingly, AI used to have a rule that a national branch couldn’t take part in campaigns in their own country, in order to ensure independence from the political process there.
I don’t know if they still have such a rule, but if they have they overstepped the line here.
If that rule is gone, then AI is just another pressure group. Or maybe a self-promotion group for the liberal right wing.