Why Northern Ireland is incompatible with woman's rights #abortion

When the High Court in Belfast ruled last month that Northern Ireland's abortion legislation was "incompatible" with human rights law, I expected there to be some objections. However, with both the Attorney General and Justice Minister lodging appeals against that decision.

Now the Justice Minister unlike the Attorney General admits that some change does need to be made to Northern Ireland's abortion laws, his words show a certain bias none the less. David Ford has said:

"The judgement from the High Court does not fully clarify the law and potentially leaves open the possibility there could be abortion on demand in Northern Ireland on an even wider basis than is the case in the rest of the United Kingdom."

Firstly the use of the phrase abortion of demand ignores the fact that many Northern Irish women already access abortion within the confines of the law in the rest of the UK. The way to stop there being legal challenges as to the compatibility with human rights law is to act in a positive direction to relax the restrictions not challenge a ruling that says you need to act.

What they need most is support prior and post the terminations which do happen. We need that support on demand! Hoiwever, with the current archaic laws in Northern Ireland they fear being arrested for taking whatever means they have done to terminate a pregnancy. The fact that future gynecological issues may arise because of earlier terminations, but such women in Northern Ireland may fear seeking assistance for these because of their secret, taboo, history.

I do not think any makes a decision for termination lightly. It is an emotive subject with heated arguments on both sides of the debates. But the people for who it is the most emotive are not the protesters outside the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast, not are they the feminists who stand up loudly against just such protesters. Not the people for whom this is most emotive are of course the women carrying the foetus/unborn child (depending on your viewpoint) and those who care for them secondly.

So while we continue to fail to move any distance on abortion here in Northern Ireland we are incompatible with human rights law and that is we are enslaving many women to a live of fear of authorities finding out what they may have done in their past, or might have to consider in the future.

Personally I want to see the 1967 Act extended to Northern Ireland but I certainly believe we need to go some distance further than even the limited position that the Department of Justice has said it is prepared to move.

Ulster [Unionists] Say No!

Strange to think that today it was the Ulster Unionists that said 'No'. That used to the be single word epithet us from Northern Ireland used to place with the DUP.

If this had been the first assembly there wouldn't have been the cross community agreement to devolve police powers. But that was was when the UUP were a bigger Unionist voice than the other Unionist parties now that role is reversed.

There is of course one dissenting UUP voice, Lady Sylvia Hermon MP is the widow of former RUC Chief Constable Sir Jack Hermon. She herself trained in law and was a professor at Queens alongside David Trimble for a time. In February while the talks about devolution of policing and justice were ongoing she asked Shaun Woodward in the Commons:

"For those of us who definitely do not want to go back to direct rule and who want devolution and the talks at Hillsborough to succeed, with the principles of tolerance and respect at their core, what more can we in this House do to encourage those in the negotiations to take them forward and make them successful, in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland?"

Interesting that the sole UUP representative with inside knowledge both of the upper echelons of Northern Irish policing and law should take such a different stance from Economist and leader Reg Empey.

I think her independence from a bizarrely shaping up UUP and Tory marriage, is probably all that is going to be needed to return my home seat to becoming held by some form of independent Unionist once again after 9 years or experiencing the mainstream. Or is having the only UUP member for the last 5 years really the mainstream?

Further on the Nicola Sturgeon Situtation

As one would have guessed the story of the morning on Scottish blogs revolves around Nicola Sturgeon. One thing you can trust about the internet, bloggers and their commentators is that is some knowledge, sane opinions and comments amongst all the detritus.

Jeff at SNP Tactical Voting launches into a defence of the SNP Deputy First Minister ignoring one key fact, this is not the man's first offence. Yes he is now willing to sell the property that for 5 years he forgot he owned to pay any fine and pay back the amount he had defrauded. But he'd been fraudulent before and after serving a four year term the Judge may not deem that a non-custodial sentence would be enough for the man, as used by the MSP for Glasgow Govan requested.

It is his comments that show some knowledge comes to the fore which I think is worthy of consideration. DougtheDug points out the MSP's code of conduct parenthesis his:

SECTION 8: ENGAGEMENT AND LIAISON WITH CONSTITUENTS

8.1 Dealing with individual constituents' cases

8.1.1 Every constituent is represented by one constituency MSP and seven regional MSPs. It is expected that each member will take on a case when approached although it is recognised that there may be legitimate reasons for a member to decline a constituent's case in certain circumstances, for example, where a constituent requests an MSP to take inappropriate action, or if that case seeks action which would represent a conflict of interest with existing casework or is contrary to the member's political beliefs. If so, the member would ordinarily be expected to inform the constituent that the member is not taking up the case

Also Scott at Love and Garbage adds:

I spoke to a friend that's a Procurator Fiscal (PF) last night and read a locked blog post from another. Their combined experience is around 45 years of prosecuting. Neither is aware of a letter from a serving government minister having been used in mitigation throughout their careers (although MSPs or MPS do write to the PF as matters progress for information or to raise issues which can be taken in the decision to prosecute). Neither has seen a letter from an MSP or MP where there are previous convictions in relation to the same general matter, and the matter has this level of seriousness (and £80,000 fraud is not trivial).

This highlights the point made by Donald Findlay, the Queen's Counsel, who was defending Rauf at Glasgow Sheriff Court, said it was the first time in his long legal career he had handed the court a letter from someone of such importance.


The letter has now been made public (see above) in which Ms Sturgeon writes:

"For a number of years Mr Rauf has suffered from poor health mainly associated with his heart; he has a family, including young children aged under ten; and he is heavily involved in the community. All of these aspects of his life have been impacted upon by the mistake he has made."

No where in this letter does Ms Sturgeon seem to mention as I wrote earlier that she was aware of the previous conviction, indeed she says:

"I have been aware of Mr Rauf's case since July 2008 when he sought assistance from me after a search warrant was executed at his home by the Department of Work and Pension and officers of the Strathclyde Police."

The only mitigating circumstance she puts forward that might be taken into consideration is a heart issue, she does not specify what. As many people survive quite happily with minor heart conditions. That missing factor of the severity, on a casual reading, suggests it is mild but has been worsened because of the pressures maybe of being found out again etc.

As Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken points out:

"It is extraordinary to describe a second conviction for fraud as a mistake. Either Ms Sturgeon didn't care about his previous fraud conviction or she didn't check. Either would be unbelievable and a grave lapse of judgment. His previous conviction was a matter of public record as recently as four weeks ago. To call these crimes a mistake is simply wrong."

The more that unearths about this issue, the lack of propriety that Ms Sturgeon has shown on this issue comes to the fore. As pointed out above there is no 'obligation', nor is there 'precedent' for this level of intervention on a second, more serious, conviction for the same crime.

Whether that is a resigning issue or not is something for Ms Sturgeon and her party colleagues to decide. However, we must not lose sight of the reasons they have called for the resignation or removal of others themselves in the past when we consider the eventual outcome.

UPDATE: As you can see from the top left hand corner this blog got a mention the following day in The Scotsman article on the Blogopshere's take on this story:

Stephen's Linlithgow Blog, put together by a Lib Dem party member, was less damning but still critical:"There is no 'obligation', nor is there 'precedent' for this level of intervention," it said.

Ok they got the name of the blog wrong but still I like the comment.

A Mistake the Second Time Around? Come on Nicola

It is one thing for the Scottish Justice Minister to visit in jail an terminally ill man who is seeking parole from his sentence, it is quite another when the Deputy First Minister writes to a Sheriff and suggests what sentencing he should carry out on the case of a convicted fraudster.

Of course Nicola Sturgeon is entitled to write a letter of support for her constituents. She is quite entitled to write laying out any circumstances she feels the judge should take into consideration when making his judgement of sentence. However, she should really rely on research she is a trained solicitor after all.

Abdul Rauf had been convicted of defrauding the taxpayer of £80,000. She claims that he made a "mistake" and urged the judge to "consider alternatives to a custodial sentence". Sadly if it was a mistake or not, and the judge had ruled that it was not, her constituent had a prior conviction of four years for stealing £58,624 of pension and benefit payments in 1996.

As Mike Rumbles the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip says:

"It beggars belief that the deputy first minister of Scotland could think it appropriate to write in support of a convicted fraudster who is now facing another conviction."

Sturgeon admitted last night that she knew of the previous conviction before writing this letter, claiming it was a mistake the second time around. Rauf was convicted this time claiming £650 per month income support from 2001-2006 while living in one property in Glasgow, while owning a second in Edinburgh. His previous offence occurred when he was sub-postmaster at Tollcross Post Office in Edinburgh. Between June 1993 and July 1994, he stole £58,624 in pension and benefit payments. He was sentenced at the High Court in Edinburgh after a sheriff-court jury heard he had forged signatures on 779 Department of Social Security payment orders and kept the cash for himself.

When asked in court why he had not declared the property in Edinburgh he said, "It slipped my mind."

As the DWP campaign to catch benefit fraud says, no ifs, no buts. This is not a few pounds but several thousand. This is not one mistake but a constant claiming on Income Support month on month and signing a declaration that the details are correct.

No ifs, no buts Nicola.

UPDATE: To be fair I'm giving two alternate views one from new blogger Marion Steel, the other from Caron (because so rarely do we take differing views).

Northern Ireland Positioning Carries On

You thought the agreement last Friday to devolve police and justice to a Northern Irish Ministry would be the end of the arguments. Well hold the horses don't be so confident. There is still debate as to who will take up the post.

It had long been assumed that the Alliance Party would be the most acceptable party to hold the post and give the position a degree of neutrality. But the Ulster Unionist and SDLP are upset that this goes against the d'Hondt system of allocating Ministers by proportion of representation in the Assembly.

David Ford the Alliance Party leader has said this evening that his party will not be nominating for the position of Justice Minister. Speaking at Stormont earlier he said:

"The situation is that at the present time we have not seen enough movement around a shared future and around the policies for the Department of Justice for an Alliance nomination to be made. There is plenty of time before April the 12th. I do not think we are in a long dragged out process. But clearly there is still a little bit of work that needs to be done.

"If others wish to engage, then others are entitled to engage. What we are saying is what Alliance believes to be necessary for the job to be done right."

Meanwhile the SDLP who would be next in line under d'Hondt have said that newly elected party leader Margaret Ritchie will not be their nomination. She is currently the only SDLP Minister serving as Minister for Social Development, however they will be nomination lawyer Alban Maginniss as their proposed option. Mrs Ritchie however says that the current approach for the role is a "corruption of democracy". She is looking for clarity on just what was agreed between the DUP and Sinn Féin last week saying:

"We will make our judgement on the Hillsborough arrangement when we know what is on the table and, more importantly, what is under the table.

"If the two parties won't reveal what they have already agreed then we will be pressing the two governments for greater transparency."

The Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness however remained confident that a new Minister for Justice would be in place after the 10 days of talks that lead to his party and Peter Robinson's agreeing a framework to devolve policing and justice and to set up a new independent parades body. He said:

"It will be whatever person can command cross-community support in the assembly.

"At this stage, I think all I can say about it is I'm supremely confident that come 12 April we will have a person nominated who will command cross-community support."

So while a week is often considered a long time in politics we only need a weekend in Northern Ireland to throw a whole different cat amongst the pigeons. So while Alban Maginnis may be qualified for justice being on the Northern Irish and Irish bar, the debate even from Sinn Féin it would appear is that cross-community support is key.

We certainly live in interesting times.

Still Talking at Hillsborough

I know a lot of eyes will be on the Queen Elizabeth exhibition centre today, but don't also lose sight of what is going on at Hillsborough. Even though the Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and Brian Cowen have left the Northern Irish politicians are still talking.

If there is no agreement made by later today the British and Irish governments have said their own proposal on policing and justice. Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams said naming two controversial parade routes:

"Anybody who thinks that the price of policing and justice is a walk down the Garvaghy Road or Ardoyne is just ridiculous."

While Alliance Party leader David Ford said that the politicians were not "merely going through the motions". Of course Northern Ireland politics would be that if not for the one dissenting voice, step forward Jim Allister, Traditional Unionist Voice Leader:

"The manner in which Sinn Féin seeks to advance its agenda, not through accepting the processes within devolution, but by loading its gun to the DUP's head with every pet project, is a reminder that even if the present Stormont crisis is sorted, Sinn Féin will be back for more and more."

Of course the devolution of policing and justice powers is not merely the Sinn Féin agenda it was agreed upon in St. Andrews before the resumption of devolved powers. It would be a sign of maturity in Northern Ireland politics if such powers could be devolved. The fact that the TUV leader is still using the language and symbolism of war when others are trying to negotiate a settlement shows a lack of productivity on his part for a stable Northern Ireland.

Is that a true voice of Northern Ireland? I for one don't think so. I'm hoping that the talks are at a substantive stage where agreement may be met once they resume this morning and come to a swift conclusion.

Brown Proffers Packages Tied Up With String

Police powers to Ulster,
Or is that "six counties".
Hours after hours of discussion and nothing.
Brown proffers packages tied up with string,
This is an old Northern Irish thing.

Forty eight hours to mull over the offer,
Then Brown will decide what becomes of the coppers,
Marches and justice are all in his hands.
Peter and Martin are on shifting sand.

When the times up
Loggerheads or not
They could be feeling bad.
They'll have to remember the thing that unites
And then they won't feel so mad.

Apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein but as Brown flies out of Northern Ireland without the deal being signed, I'm sure you'll agree it was worth it (the song not Brown's 48 hours in Hillsborough).

READ ALSO: Alistair Carmichael* the Liberal Democrats Northern Irish Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary of State gives his own view on the current situation on his new blog.

* By linking to him I'm not expected to escape his tap on my shoulder to prepare at Federal Conference Glee Club for enditions of either Flower of Scotland or Danny Boy.

Now Sinn Fein are Threatening the SNP Tactic

Yesterday I blogged about the bankers at RBS using the SNP tactic of not just taking the ball away, but themselves out of the game if their bonuses of £1.5 bn (25% of profits) are turned down by Government. Today I see that Martin McGuinness the Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland is threatening, in coded language, that the same may happen in Northern Ireland over the timing of devolution and justice to Stormont.

I say coded message so let me decipher, McGuinness says that the institutions are unsustainable without a date for devolution of policing by Christmas. You may think so what if you are not Northern Irish, but that is code for all the institutions of devolution, not just cross-border agencies but also the Assembly and the dual mandate of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Devolution of policing has always been one of the major stumbling blocks in fully implementing the Good Friday Agreement. After all Sinn Féin and their military were never going to be likely to be on friendly terms with the force that was arrayed against them throughout the Troubles. So this has been the longest, hardest and most painstaking march towards a peaceful, settled Northern Ireland there has been.

However, it is one of those rare occasions that I agree with the DUP Jeffrey Donaldson. I quite often have found the man objectionable in the past, but he is correct when on the BBC this morning I heard him say that setting deadlines in stone was something that should never be done in Northern Ireland politics, but that the best settlement for all sides should be worked out. If that is done by Christmas then that is fine, however if it is not Sinn Féin should not arbitrarily walk away from all the progress that has been made.

There are signs that a consensus is almost settled on the first Justice Minister under this period of devolution. David Ford the Alliance party leader looks set to gain the cross-community support to take on that role. Now the politicians need to reach agreement over policing and McGuinness is right in that it has to cover equality issues. But with only three weeks to Christmas and probably less that two of those productive setting a Christmas deadline for a resolution is ludicrous so close to that date. Even Tony Blair over ran on his deadline to get the Agreement signed off initially.

MacAskill Makes Sound Judgement in Face of Emmotive Opposition

On the 12 December 1988 I was about 5 minutes further towards London Waterloo than the Clapham Rail disaster occurred.

On the Saturday of that week the 17th me and a friend were driving past Lockerbie on the then A74 at about 7pm. Wednesday the next week Pan Am Flight 103 came crashing out of the sky there.

Also that Christmas while I was home I was out for a run, came in showered, went down to watch the news and saw a bomb had gone off in the last hour along my route of that night.

December that year was a memorable one for that young student at the end of his first term of tertiary education. Being raised in Northern Ireland of course I was also used to seeing the families of victims of terrorism on TV all the time. Therefore the reactions to the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate got me thinking back to those more troubled times.

On the TV those families had one of two reactions, there was either bitter anger or a forgiving compassionate response. I long knew which type of person I'd far rather spend more time with. The latter weren't hurting any less than the former but showed compassion, maturity, not wishing to escalate what was often a volatile situation any further.

If like many other times this year there was a story about a terminally ill prisoner being given compassionate release from prison, it may have made the front page of a local paper, but a column inch, if that, in the national's other news section. It is because of who it is and the nature and extent of the crime that this got this attention.

I was mischievous earlier about Kenny MacAskill sounding more like a Kirk Minister than a Government one. But unlike Daniel Hannan's playing to an American audience and forgetting the home viewers reaction, MacAskill was playing to both. He attempted to appease both sides with the promise that the decision was hard come by.That he eulogised about a higher power and a greater inescapable sentence being imposed, but it failed to quell the anger of some of the American families.

There were issues with the handling of the build up but the resultant outcome was the right one. America can shout and scream all it wants to but they have a legal system lacking compassion. In reality they have an Old Testament legality overlooking the New Testament, there an eye for an eye still holds true, here we believe in re-education and reintegration.

Back to the Northern Irish situation the peace dividend, after many Americans supported the IRA cause, has led to many of those who carried out killings to be released. Did we see a hoopla in the States about any of the IRA murderers being released early, not even on grounds of compassion due to imminent terminal disease? No, of course we didn't, but then these releases were also right in a different way.

The Americans are sadly,to an extent, largely, a selfish people, it is part of their inward lookingness. Their national champions in some sports after all are called World Champions. But some of the squawking about the shame to Scotland and the Scottish people shows the shame to the American people.

Back to those scenes on the TV in Northern Ireland and just over a year before Lockerbie one of the most emotive appearances for Gordon Wilson who held unto his dying daughter Marie's hand under the rubble of the Enniskillen Remembrance Day bomb. He was a victim physically and emotionally as someone present and as someone losing a dear one. His initial and lasting reaction was not to condemn those who had carried out the atrocity but to work for a lasting peace. After the release by Scotland of al-Megrahi some American statesmen are saying this will change how they deal with Libya. Why? How? Surely that is the wrong way to build a lasting peace. Libya are trying to get involved in the global fight against terrorism these days, steps have been made to a reconciliation, so why do Americans react this way?

A nation that shows compassion finds it easier to look past the past, one that hold grudges finds it harder to let it go. So while the triumphalism of al-Megrahi's return to Libyan soil was over the top so too has been the heightened of tension, deepening of old wounds that the American political class and media has stirred up.

MacAskill made a tough decision, but made a right one based on the medical evidence and leaving emotions out of it. If emotions cloud our rationale in making these sort of decisions we end up getting involved in trying to justify those actions with dubious facts (WMD in Iraq anyone?).

Justice for Omagh Victims

On the day of the Omagh bombing I was at Stormont. No I wasn't pulling some overtime, and besides the Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment, where I worked at the time, was just off the estate. I was at the Northern Ireland Civil Service sports club playing in the semi-final of the Irish Junior Cup for bowls. There were enough civil servants on both teams and from the spectators to realise that there was a little bit too much activity, mainly arriving, at that time on a Saturday to be normal.

At the end of the game we learnt the full extent of what was going on around us. While in the warm summer's sun of that day eleven years ago we, like the people who were visiting Omagh, were making the most of what was seen as a start of a peaceful Northern Ireland. No criminal trial has been able to put away any of those accused of the attack by the Real IRA but yesterday the families of the victims got some justice as £1.6m in damages was awarded to the relatives of 29 people. While the monetary compensation may not be forthcoming in full from the accused in some small way it is the decision that they are accountable that is of some importance to the families.

The following Saturday at a different bowling green, we stood heads bowed as a mark of respect before delivering our first bowl. Like the victims of the previous weekend we were Protestant and Catholic merely, indeed more determined, to make the best that Northern Ireland was now offering.

Intrernational Outcry Against Aung San Suu Kyi Charges

Aung San Suu Kyi has now been officially charged by authorities in Burma (Myanmar) for breaking terms of her house arrest.

US Citizen John Yettaw who swam across the lake to her compound and then hid out there for two days, despite Suu Kyi asking him to swim back across the lake and not wanting him there, is the reason for these charges. The military junta seem to be ceasing on this outside and unwanted influence to detain the Nobel Peace Laureate for longer than they currently can and past the date of elections scheduled for 2010.

She will face trial having been removed from her compound to Insein jail this morning on Monday and the charges carry a maximum five year jail term.

US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said:

"We have seen this report, which is certainly troubling if true. US Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton has seen it as well, and has asked the Department to work
to get more information."

Gordon Brown has added the concerns of the UK saying:

"The Burmese regime is clearly intent on finding any pretext, no matter how
tenuous, to extend her unlawful detention. I am deeply disturbed that Aung San
Suu Kyi may be charged with breaching the terms of her detention.

"The real injustice, the real illegality, is that she is still detained
in the first place. If the 2010 elections are to have any semblance of
credibility, she and all political prisoners must be freed to participate.

"Only then will Burma be set on the road to real democracy, stability
and prosperity."

Elsewhere Norway and Germany are amongst a growing list of nations that condemn the arrest and impending trial of Ms Suu Kyi.

Keep up to date with more and what you can do to help at the Burma Campaign UK site.

Four Who Should Face Investigation over Torture

Maybe the choice of the first family's dog having the word 'water' was more than a coincidence as Peter Brookes suggests above from today's Times. Of course the alternative did have the word 'poodle' in it so no matter what he'd gone for the half hearted use of the memos he has released would probably have led to a dog themed cartoon.

What is startling as the details of the legal positions on those memos is investigated is the detailed lengths to which the 'victims' can or cannot be exposed to these measures without it constituting torture. By the way the level before torture happens is defined in the memos as the 'interrogation' not causing intense, severe or lasting physical pain or psychological damage.

Issues such as:

• the water should not be colder that 41F
• exposure to water should not exceed 20 minutes "without drying and rewarming"
• exposure to waterboarding should not be greater than 40 seconds at a time

It is the precision of these memos penned by Jay Bybee (Assistant Attorney General 2001-2003 now judge on the 9th Circuit), John Yoo (a colleague from the Justice Department now professor at Berkeley School of Law) and Stephen Bradbury (Head of the Justice Dept. Office of Legal Counsel now an attorney in Washington) that raises concern. These men knew that they were running right up next to the letter of the law, right up to the envelope of what actually would be entailed and correctly branded as torture. They were working on the margins, indeed defining the margins of what is legal.

How carefully did those carrying out the actually know the detail in those 100 plus pages of legal advise? Did the water temperature drop? Where the time limits exceeded? If by trying to hedge people in from something that is on the cusp of being legal with so much detail surely some of that was from time to time overlooked. In the heat of everyone's day to day job some small detail is almost certainly neglected, not intentionally, but in error on a regular basis.

Why did Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury not give advise to steer well clear of anything that could even be conceived as torture? Because they were acting under orders? Whose orders? George W. Bush that's who. Bradbury was the chief legal counsel for all of the Bush second term. If there are arguments for letting the agents executing the orders off then surely these are the names of the four men who set the definitions, limits and legal parlance of when a torture technique is or isn't actually torture. They were aware of the thin line to the extent that they were so meticulous is trying to prevent it being crossed knowing that what they were planning or setting down the precedents for was very close to the quick.

These four surely have questions to answer and should not be allowed to get of.