We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THE CHILDREN’S OMBUDSMAN Emily Logan has announced she is being nominated the first Chief Commissioner of the new Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission.
The Commission is being formed through the merging of the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority, under new legislation passed by the Oireachtas last week.
Logan said she was “honoured to be nominated” for the position, and that it “will be an honour to work with a Commission of such calibre, expertise and diversity.”
She added:
I would like to join Mr David Joyce, Acting Chairperson of the IHREC (Designate) in his public commitment to delivering the mandate given to the Commission by the new legislation to work for the promotion and protection of the human rights and equality of everyone in Ireland.
Logan will step down from her Ombudsman post this autumn in order to take up her new role.
“It has been a privilege to serve as Ireland’s first Ombudsman for Children for the past decade,” she said today.
It was a remarkable experience for me both personally and professionally, and I believe that my Office made an important contribution to the promotion and protection of children’s rights during this time.
Then-Justice Minister Alan Shatter announced the names of the 14 members designate to the new body in April 2013. The formal appointment of the Commission chief and members will be made by President Higgins following the passing of relevant motions in the Dáil and Seanad.
The new Minister of State with responsibility for Equality Aodhán Ó Ríordáin welcomed Logan’s nomination, saying she “brings a wealth of experience from her role as Ombudsman for Children” to her new post.
“I wish her every success in her new position,” he said, adding:
The new Commission has the potential to make a very real difference to human rights and equality in Ireland, not least by working with public bodies to improve standards, providing training and invite the development of action plans to address identified failures, for which it has been given a specific power by the legislation.
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties also welcomed Logan’s nomination.
ICCL Director Mark Kelly described Logan as an “outstanding choice” for the role.
“As Ombudsman for Children, she has been a fearless defender of the rights of vulnerable young people and her independence and vision will be huge assets to Ireland’s new statutory national human rights institution,” Kelly said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
That was always going to happen. They only did it for publicity.
No surprise there then that it was withdrawn, the College has a history of doing this.
They got their publicity stunt – now they will move on to the next one.
As for should the man have been allowed to speak, that’s a big ever ongoing debate beyond the college and across the internet on forums.
Now withdraw even the notion of inviting Maggie Thatcher too.
I honestly see the threat from dissident republicans proving to much for the young blue shirts on the tatcher thing.
This is becoming repetitive.
It’s a win for the people opposing him and a big win for Griffin.
Nonsense comment
This comment makes plenty of sense. First of all, getting the event cancelled in spite of college support for the visit was a definite success for those who opposed it. Secondly, Griffin has benefitted from the publicity – and can once again play the victim card and blame the liberal leftie media/multiculturalist anti-white bias for the infringement of his “rights to free speech”. The Pol Soc are a disgrace.
It’s a free country so we should not silent Nick Griffin!
Sound familiar?
Congrats students. He can now add to his speeches that Ireland does not allow free speech. Give him a platform to speak and get someone to actually show him what he is, a fascist.
Fascism isn’t all that bad, there’s much worse political ideals and parties out there; just look at Fine Gael and Labour. Having said that though Griffin’s ideas aren’t worth spending this much time debating over whether we should hear them or not. Of course we shouldn’t, not because he’s a member of the BNP, just because it would waste time and energy. Everyone is entitled to their Free Speech, but most people aren’t worth listening to. I had no problem with UCC inviting him to speak, but their lack of resolve is shameful.
Tobias I truly hope you’re joking. Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore hardly compare to Franco and Pinochet now do they?
@Jimmy: Pinochet wasn’t a Fascist, some have said he had Fascist tendencies, but he wasn’t a member of any such party. And Franco was a Falangist. I think you are confusing Dictatorship with Fascism. Also yes I think a government that is hypocrites and apocryphal despite being democratically elected is no better than a government doing what’s best for its country undemocratically.
Ok, I don’t think you understand what fascism is. Fascism has these core features: ultra-nationalism, authoritarianism/totalitarianism, and corporatism. Fascist states are normally totalitarian police states, exactly what Chile and Spain were under Pinochet & Franco. One doesn’t need to be a member of a fascist party to be a fascist, but that is beside the point. Falangists are indeed fascists, from Spain to Lebanon. Tell me Pinochet wasn’t a nationalist, dictator, and corporatist? Tell me Franco wasn’t the same? You must be seriously far removed from reality to think for a minute that our circumstances in Ireland right now, albeit terrible and criminal, are even close to the horrors suffered by people in Chile and Spain during those periods. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faDcfHDUppc
You seem to be mixing your political compass up there. Authoritarianism is the polar opposite to Libertarianism. The extreme of the former being Fascism the extreme of the later being Anarchism. Yes Fascism is authoritarian and yes it’s nationalistic, but it’s a political ideology, one to which Pinochet did not subscribe. Authoritarianism does not equal fascism. Stalin was authoritarian, as was Maggie Thatcher, but neither were Fascists.
As for Falangists, they are not Fascists despite being associated with them, they will tell you they are not, and if you compare the ideologies of both, which they are within the same political spectrum they do not share the same policies. You might as well say that all Liberals are Communists, as both associate with the same morals and ideals.
Lastly, I was not comparing the situations in Ireland to any other country, nor the political events that happened in either. Pinochet and Franco did terrible things as dictators, something which I was not even discussing. I’m talking purely about political ideologies, parties and politics. And therefore you could more accurately associate this with administration of public affairs and government. On on that basis be it communists, fascists, socialists, falangists or extreme conservatives, I believe the democratically elected government of Ireland is not acting democratically, honestly, openly or effectively for the people of Ireland.
Just looking at that website, (it’s always good to check a website before you read the article) I can see books advertised with the names: ‘Jihad and Genocide’ (by a Rubenstein, presumably then a right-wing Zionist), ‘The Left is seldom right’ (by the article’s author), ‘Allah is dead: why islam is not a religion’, ‘Defending the West’, and other such bigoted and racist titles.
So I didn’t read the article.
Typical students, no back bone whatsoever.
Freedom of speech is protected by Article 40.6.1 of the Irish constitution, but it’s not absolute protection. “Public order or morality or the authority of the State” shall not be undermined when expressing this right.
However Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution states “the State shall, in particular, by its laws, protect as best it may from unjust attack (and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate) the life, person, good name and property rights of every citizen.”
Here-in lies the complexity of the issue. Most agree we have the right to free speech and opinion, and equally the right to be protected from attack on our beliefs.
So if the right to free speech imposes on individuals rights, do we then begin a game of deciding which right trumps the other?
free speech is just that..free. it allows ALL speak even those who like griffin practice vile hatred thinly veiledcas political policy.
They could have invited any politician in the world but decided it was a good idea to give that honour to a former leading member of the National Front and current BNP leader and noted holocaust denier. He’s entitled to his free speech but they don’t have to invite him to speak. That is giving him a platform to spread his vile racist message.
I agree. However, he is not being denied free speech. He is being denied the college’s platform and encouragement.
Personally, I think a random person from the street would have more of value to say. That’s a good enough reason not to invite someone.
Griffin = twat. No platform for twats. Twats are bad. etc etc etc
I don’t like him either, but what your saying is free speech is fine and well as long as you agree with it,
If you don’t agree then it can’t be talked about, double standards perhaps?
@ Barry. There is a big difference between not giving someone a platform and denying them their right to speak.
we`ve had enuf right wing muppets talkin shite we dont need to start importing them
I don’t agree with one iota of what Nick Griffin has to say, and I think his party appeals exclusively to a particular subculture of underachievers and social non-participants. That said, wouldn’t it have been better to let him show himself up for the moron he is by letting him spout his nonsense and then being systematically debunked in public. This is the problem with the liberal-left consensus of which students form a large part – they feel an entitlement to not be offended, and to simply exclude the views of those they don’t agree with. UCC just come off looking spineless.
With reference to being offended
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cycXuYzmzNg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
(don’t worry, it’s not offensive!!)
How disappointing!
In the interest of free speech I hereby invite Mr. Griffin to address a gathering of my friends and neighbours at the top of my road for a spot of lively debate and target practice.
Moral of the story: Threats of violence trump UCC’s commitment to free speech.
“A debate on inviting Griffin had been held at the college’s Philosophical Society last week, with a majority of students reportedly backing the plans to invite the BNP leader.”
Student Debating Society in ‘voting for debating to continue shocker’. :)
Don’t UCC Phil have about 20 coming these days by all accounts? Used to be 200 back in the mid-late 2000s.
G19 was, at a guess, 2/3 full on the night. Now, if there only being 20 regulars is accurate, what does that say about the other 100 voting for debating to continue? That darn Philosoph, getting attention from the Express and it being picked up. Ban Express contributors from the Kane, I say!
Someone has egg on their faces! Anyone care to go back and look at UCC’s comments over Trinity not going ahead with Nick Griffins debate?
We all knew this was going to happen!
Paradox?
have your say