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.
PARALLELS BETWEEN THE bank guarantee and the Irish Water debacle are few, aside from how little we were consulted before our money was promised to both. But yet again we find ourselves in a situation where thousands of people are galvanised in opposition to an ill-conceived and rushed act of the Oireachtas. And again members of the Oireachtas are having to admit, in hindsight, that the people were right and the Oireachtas was wrong.
This is not necessarily the fault of individual members of the Oireachtas. As an institution, the Oireachtas is far more deeply dysfunctional than its members are capable of being on their own. But the logical conclusion of the painful lessons we have learned over the past half decade is that the people must have a formalised role to intervene directly in the running of the State.
Predictably, demands like this draws pained and defensive responses from the Irish political establishment. Far from the notion of this republic being a forum where all citizens are engaged and equal, the role of the people in the affairs of our State is perceived as being that of “the electorate” — or sometimes, at least somewhat more honestly, as “the tax payers”.
As “citizens” we ought to expect to be empowered and equal members of a polity: entitled to think, to act and to intervene when the Oireachtas acts in a manner that is not in our interests or that is against our wishes. As “electors” our job is to put people into office – after which, no matter how many of us come together, we have no further formal role in the running of the State until the next time around.
To use the wearied analogy of Ireland Inc, as shareholders we could expect that (if enough of us came together) we could call an EGM and vote to direct the board to do one thing or another. What Irish Water and the bank guarantee have shown us is that, in this Ireland Inc, we are expected to plough ever more money into the company and calmly stand by while the board do as they wish and we are powerless to stop them until it is too late.
There is, however, a very slim chance that this might soon change.
Citizen initiatives
On Wednesday, after a delay of 12 months, the Government will respond to the fourth report of the Constitutional Convention. This report includes the recommendation to hold a referendum on adding a provision for citizens’ initiatives to the Constitution.
A citizens’ initiative (also known as ‘direct democracy’) is a process whereby, if enough citizens come together and formally call for something, then the Oireachtas must either act on it or put it to a referendum.
A sensible example of a provision like this would be that the number of signatories needed for an initiative would be set at 1% of the Total Valid Poll in the previous general election (so 22,000 signatures based on the 2011 general election). And for the Dáil to have the right to make a counter-proposal, if it didn’t accept the initiative, which would be put to the People at the same time.
A provision for citizens’ initiatives would open the doors to citizens intervening directly on matters like Irish Water. For example, by backing the current petition calling for a referendum to permanently block the privatisation of water in Ireland.
A similar process was introduced at European level with the Lisbon Treaty, needing 1 million signatures from across the EU. Perhaps not coincidentally, the first citizens’ initiative at European level also dealt with water. It was “to exclude water supply and management of water resources from internal market rules and liberalisation”. This initiative was accepted by the European Commission in March of this year.
For those who fear citizens’ initiatives might lead to a tyranny of the minority, consider that our current political system vests vast power in a very small elite. In practise, government in this country is controlled by a handful of cabinet politicians supported by (or bamboozled by) a clutch of civil servants, lobbyists and party wonks.
The recommendation from the Constitutional Convention is for enabling citizens’ initiatives with “adequate safeguards to ensure that no measures could be adopted that would have the effect of undermining citizens’ fundamental rights”.
Adding such a provision to the Constitution would go a great way towards mending the anger and frustration that citizens have been feeling since the bank guarantee and that we see now again with Irish Water.
A “Democratic Revolution”
When Fine Gael and Labour formed a government in 2011, they described that vote as a “democratic revolution”. Perhaps they were naïve in understanding exactly what that means; but now, this week, the Oireachtas has the opportunity to turn those words into fact.
Interestingly, citizens’ initiatives were a part of the original Irish Free State constitution. On that occasion, the Oireachtas failed to implement the provision into law. When Fianna Fáil collected 96,000 signatures instructing it to do so, the Oireachtas responded by unilaterally removing the provision for citizens’ initiatives from the Irish Free State constitution in 1929. No referendum was held.
It would be shameful if, this Wednesday, the Oireachtas again missed the opportunity to put the question to the people.
If we do get that chance, this recommendation of the Constitutional Convention might finally put form on the momentum for a new kind of politics and a newly-empowered sense of citizenship that the marches against Irish Water are again pulsating with.
Oliver Moran is a 36-year-old software engineer from Cork. He is a founder of Second Republic, a non-aligned campaign group for political reform set up in 2010. Second Republic lobbied for the establishment of the Constitutional Convention as a means for citizen-driven reform.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
No mention of the American culture of working every hour god sends. This means parents spend very little time with their kids. They are raised by strangers and shipped of to camps during holidays etc. the majority of these shooters are white middle class from hard working families.
Very interesting thought Paul.
Simple- the more guns you have freely available in a society will have killings with guns
Very true, but I think the article also hints that even with tight gun control there will still be some kinds of incidents.
The silence from US politicians is embarrassing; anyone with an ounce of sense can see that the gun trade in America is making money from death, not protection.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
I agree entirely with Barry – the ancient and outdated ‘freedom to bear arms’, in the USA, is used as the justification of the arms manufacturers to allow retail and online sale of virtually any kind of weapon ( of mass destruction ).
I witnessed it myself in the Shopping Malls of America , where buying over the counter is as natural as buying a mobile phone.
Until the laws are changed in every State , unfortunately the huge numbers of murders and shootings will prosper!
It’s all about the magic Dollar – where the manufacturers are concerned and their highly organised gun lobby!
I think the medication for their depression can sometimes have adverse effects on the minds of theses young men . I read that Harris had come off his meds which he himself admitted made him more aggressive .
Medication is handed out too easily in America to solve emotional problems .
That comment makes no sense to me – you’re saying that a guy who was prescribed medication went off the meds and then killed 13 people – but while he was on them he was more aggressive?
Rather than blame the medication, I think maybe Eric Harris could have been more pro-active about communicating with his doctor about how the medication affected him. Sometimes medication is not suitable and can be changed but coming off medication is a step to take very carefully and always under advice of the doctor.
I meant that the effects of coming off the meds having been on them for sometime . He was apparently on medication for some time and used to come off them without telling anybody . He talked about it in his journals .
I’m not saying it was the medication that made him do it but it may have have been a contributing factor . That’s all I’m saying .
America needs to examine its relationship with guns. The second amendment is completely out of date and unnecessary in the modern world where there are more civilised ways of holding a government to account. The free availability of weapons designed to kill humans is at odds to what America purports to represent.
“More civilised ways of holding a government to account”. And that’s working very well now, isn’t it?
What do you suggest? Armed uprisings ?
No, what I’m suggesting to you is that executive power in the US is gradually exerting its influence over every element of the lives of ordinary people the, in the name of “national security”. Governments might be toppled in elections, but policies rarely change (look at the two candidates with the best chance of winning the next election). The US government has also learned the lessons of 1963, and students in the US are more passive than ever before. Occupy Wall Street was easily eclipsed by the Tea Party, a protest essentially in favour of big business. This passivity is brought about by high education costs, which forces students to be on their best behaviour, so as to not waste their investment. Debt keeps people nice and compliant.
Sure, this isn’t enough to merit an armed and blopdy uprising (unless you think along communist lines), but the only way of drastically changing US Government policies is by extra-parliamentary agitation of SOME kind.
No, what I’m suggesting to you is that executive power in the US is gradually exerting its influence over every element of the lives of ordinary people the, in the name of “national security”. Governments might be toppled in elections, but policies rarely change (look at the two candidates with the best chance of winning the next election). The US government has also learned the lessons of 1963, and students in the US are more passive than ever before. Occupy Wall Street was easily eclipsed by the Tea Party, a protest essentially in favour of big business. This passivity is brought about by high education costs, which forces students to be on their best behaviour, so as to not waste their investment. Debt keeps people nice and compliant.
Sure, this isn’t enough to merit an armed and bloody uprising (unless you think along communist lines), but the only way of drastically changing US Government policies is by extra-parliamentary agitation of SOME kind.
Just look at the number of US films in particular that use guns and other weapons. Many of these films are simply gunfire and mayhem interspersed with bits of dialogue. The glorification of killing using tools made specifically to kill a fellow human being, must have an effect of desensitising the general population and for a number of people who are mentally unstable it seems that using a gun to wreak vengeance is the only way out – just like their heroes on the big screen.
We watch same movies in Europe. I dont see any mass murders over here
Forgotten Utøya already?
Anyway, as the article says, the causes are always complex. Desensitisation isn’t the only cause, but must be a factor.
Good point Fergus. I guess the point I was trying to make is that we cant blame movies! What happened in Norway was awful
And Dunblane?
In any event, the number of revenge movies that have come out and the influence they have on people barely matches the kind of disgusting bloodthirst seen on forums and comment sections of news sites just like this one where calls for killing the perpetrator(s) of such massacres before they’ve even been formally charged is prolific.
Harassment and isolation play a role in many shootings. Columbine was a classic case of kids bullied striking back. It is the American way.
The common thread is they are all mentally disturbed! End of.
The legal availability of guns is not the issue, lots of countries have high levels of gun ownership yet tis sort of tragedy never happens.
Bottom line is that if someone decides to kill on a large scale, they should manage it one way or another, be it obtaining illegal firearms or some other method.
Thejournal.ie really needs to quit with its clearly ultra pro-feminist, left leaning agenda.
For the record, I appreciate that this’ll get loads of red thumbs, I find it ironic that a core of these will be from Shinners that actively supported a terrorist organisation that dealt in death and illegal firearms running for decades!
So Holmes’s alleged schizophrenia had nothing to do with it? It’s all about drugs and nothing to do with any other environmental factors, psychological factors, personality factors or stressor’s. There is no one particular factor that causes actions like this but a complex combination that come together that cause an individual or individuals to carry out rampages like this.
If as you assert drugs were the cause of Holmes’s rampage and assuming that he wasn’t the only person taking them, then why haven’t there been a massive outbreak of mass killings throughout the US?
American society was built on violence and is maintained with violence. We shouldn’t be surprised when it’s citizens act in a violent manner.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy this. You can equally say that the Irish nation was built upon violence, a valid opinion, but we clearly do not expect violence in Irish society as inevitable.
The real reasons: http://goo.gl/O2RBt
Prescription Drugs. But Big Pharma will tell you otherwise.
Take a look at US foreign policy and the atrocious violence it uses to establish the nations self interest, take a look at the violent computer games the country churns out. The US has normalised violence in order to destroy all those little brown men who live on their rightful oil deposits in the middle east
The violence in films and games is an old hobby-horse, at least w’ve dropped “popular music” from the unholy trinity. It’s a fallacy to say violent computer games are produced only in the US, the games may have a US shine to them, but the games themselves are produced and developed worldwide; GTA in Scotland ( I think ) Crysis in Germany, Deus Ex in Canada, etc. the link between violence in entertainment is only anecdotal.
How much does the US spend on their military every year hundreds of billions who are they protecting themselves from? The US government is obsessed with weapons and violence .One or two incidents wont make them change anything regarding gun laws they endorse the use of guns and violence.
I just love the violent imagery in games / movies argument.. Isn’t that what the age ratings are designed for?
If kids are getting 18 rated games it’s either because staff in shops aren’t doing their jobs right or because parents aren’t supervising what games their kids play / movies they watch..
Having said that, most people with some grasp on reality are able to differentiate between games / movies and reality fairly early on.. If they can’t then why didn’t anyone explain it to them?
The Columbine Shooter and Virginia Tech shooter mentioned in the piece above were both taking SSRI medication.
As was the shooter at Fort Hood. That Chinese guy that massacred a load of kids in a school in China, Shane Clancy from Bray who murdered his ex’s new fella before killing himself, Raoul Moat, and so many others..
We await Dr Fentons testimony to see if the Aurora shooter was too..
The listed side effects for many psychiatric drugs include:
“may increase the risk of violence and / or suicide”
If you will visit http://www.ssristories.com you will see the ever increasing list of events linked with these drugs.
Bear in mind that schools and universities in the US have staff psychiatrists. Anti depressant medication is not supposed to be prescribed to adolescents (see the package inserts if you do not believe me) but they are prescribed to children as young as 4 in the US (and animals too, Reconcile is the brand name for doggie Prozac).
There is a common cause.. The fact that these drugs can have adverse side effects in some people, and should be prescribed with far more caution and supervision than they are at present.
yes Hugh there is. experts repeatedly ask that news organizations not report on them but you can’t help yourselves can you.
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Bad guys are always going to have firearms whether they are bought legally or illegally, why shouldn’t innocent citizen be allowed posses them for protection?
Didn’t realise the NRA were so active on the journal. While I agree that people kill people it wouldn’t be as easy without access to automatic weapons.
Faceless he didn’t use automatic weapons , he used semi-automatic weapons which are also available in Ireland through gun dealers. He used an AR-15, a Glock 40 and a pump action shot gun none of which are classed as automatic weapons.
American kids are wrapped in cotton wool. They live in a bubble world and cant handle when something goes wrong in life. Unfortunately sometimes they go bananas and take it out on innocents.
Its too late to change the gun laws but give them back their kinder eggs and stop coddling them.
Maybe they’ll handle the “hardships” of their yuppie lives if they grow up with some more reality checks. Everyone has problems. Killing lots of people because life didnt turn out rosy is cowardly. The common theme is cowardice in my opinion.
The fact of the matter is that Harris had a rifle with a drum magazine, a shotgun, 2 pistols with 6000 rounds all legally bought. Surely some database somewhere should have flagged this and he should have been checked on.
Someone brought up Dunblaine. In the aftermath the British government clamped right down on guns and such a massacre has never been repeated.
are you sure about that? wasnt there one only about 2 years ago.
It should be a criminal offense to disarm your workforce like they did at the Naval Yard. This shooting, by one account, took thirty minutes to conclude! In the first few seconds you have panic and shock, but after that someone should have been able to do something! We should be able to prepare for it, and then react when it happens. I even just read a book on it, Fight, Flight, or Hide, by John Forsythe, but I’m sure there’s lots of resources out there that would be just as helpful.
http://www.amazon.com/Fight-Flight-Surviving-Shooting-ebook/dp/B00B9J8FL2
If somebody wishes to use a gun in a criminal act, then they’ll find one. About all you can do is to restrict the sale of the most dangerous, and unneccesary firearms (who needs an assault rifle for hunting?). While maintaining legal access for legitimate gun owners (for hunting, sports shooting, or “self defence”).
There should also be stricter screening and registration/licensing for those who wish to lawfully posess firearms. Rather than a free for all like kids in a candy store.
You’ll never stop gun crime from occurring. But you can minimize it’s impact in such cases, and hopefully cut down on the frequency of such incidents.
its quite simple
have your say