Knockvicar
Boyle
Co. Roscommon

071 96 67138
083 3330256

 

Department of the Taoiseach,
Government Buildings,
Upper Merrion Street,

Dublin 2.

6 April 2011

Dear Taoiseach

I have a problem with the Census form and I have been told that you are the person responsible for it.

This letter addresses my concerns as an individual but they are formed by my work as Executive Director of the Family Rights and Responsibilities Institute of Ireland and as Chairman of the National Mens Council of Ireland where the motto is,

“Doing what men have always done … protecting their Families, Faith and Freedom from attack by the State”

A young woman, Patricia McHugh came to my home and asked me to take a Census form and fill it in on 10 April 2011.

I had already downloaded a specimen copy of the census form from the CSO website and so was familiar with the questions asked.

I explained to Patricia that there were several very serious defects in the census that prevented me from taking a copy until they were resolved and corrected. I asked her to provide me with the answers to the defects but after hearing each query raised and after consultation with her supervisor, Patricia Perry she was unable to answer and asked me to write to the CSO at the same address as where the completed Census forms were to be sent.

This did not seem logical as my correspondence would not be a completed form so I phoned the free phone number given on the CSO website and asked the same questions to the operative who answered. He was unable to give me any sensible answers and put the phone down on me which was very rude of him. The only useful information that he gave me was to inform me that you were the person liable for this census on foot of an Order made last year and that the Attorney General had given legal advice to the CSO in structuring the questions.

The first problem that I encountered was that none of the operatives could tell me who was liable in a Family founded on Marriage for submitting the census form. i.e. which of the Spouses – the Husband or the Wife – would be liable for the penalty and possible imprisonment. Clearly one needs to know that answer before committing oneself to taking part in the Census. Please give me the answer by return or by email to familymen@eircom.net.

The Attorney General should have advised the CSO that the Family founded on Marriage is a legal entity and acts always as a unity with one voice when engaging with society. That voice is recognised as the joint power and authority of the Family, i.e. the consent of the Husband to the Wife’s application or the consent of the Wife to the Husband’s application.

Where the State believes it should sue the family unit it does so by suing the Husband. Feminists have always claimed that Marriage is sexist because in Common Law the Husband was always held to be the nominal head of the Family, so this fact must be indisputable. These same feminists have failed to advise us when this position of the Husband was overturned or abolished in law. It happened in the UK in the Children Act, 1989 but there has been no equivalent legislation enacted in Ireland. One must presume that it has not changed.

Why then is the Attorney General being so coy and requiring an undefined person called ”the Householder” to be liable for not submitting the census form when in law it will be the Husband who the State will sue and imprison? The Supervisor asserted that both the Husband and Wife would be fined and/or sent to prison. Is this true?

It would appear that the Attorney General and your office do not fully respect the position that the Family founded on Marriage commands in Irish society and which the Constitution requires allegiance to by the State.

Another example is concerns Question 5, “What is your current marital status”.

I pointed out to your operatives that option 4 was ridiculous for the Attorney General to approve. It states that you should tick that box if you are remarried following an annulment. I pointed out to your operatives that an annulment makes any Marriage null and void and so following an annulment you can not be “remarried”. Following an annulment persons are correctly classified as “Single”. Your operatives could not understand what I was saying. The Attorney General is incompetent if he believes this is OK.

Option 5 asked people to tick the box if they were “separated” including being deserted. Again the Attorney General is incompetent if he believes that a deserted Spouse is lawfully the same as a separated Spouse.

He is refusing to acknowledge the law of the Family and the case of Re Doyle, An Infant: State (Doyle) v Minister for Education and the Attorney General: Supreme Court 1955 No.47 where this inalienable and imprescriptible authority was confirmed and acted which established that no person or body of persons could hold and educate a child in opposition to a Married parent and also that parents continue to have joint power and duty even where living apart, but that there could be circumstances where one parent might abandon their responsibilities as a Family member, which would then leave the Family authority vested in the remaining acting Guardian.

In re Doyle, Maguire CJ stated,

“Article 42.2.3′ appears to us expressly to secure to parents the right to choose the nature of the education to be given to their children and the schools at which such education shall be provided and this right must be a continuing right.”

Later in the judgement with regard to the contention by the Attorney General who made the argument that the Article of the Constitution does not apply in the case of a broken or disrupted family, the Supreme Court approved of the manner in which O’Dalaigh J dealt with this argument [in the High Court] when he said,

“Here recital of these provisions is enough to demonstrate that desertion on the part of a mother without just cause leaves the authority of the family unimpaired and in no way diminishes the parental right with regard to the education of the children. It is true that in many cases the family authority and parental rights will be asserted by the parents jointly; but the assertion of that authority and of those rights cannot be less effective because of desertion on the part of one of them.”

Clearly the Supreme Court acknowledged that a deserted Spouse retained fully the Constitutional rights of the Family founded on Marriage acknowledged in Articles 41 and 42.

The Attorney General appears to be refusing to accept that he lost the argument in 1955 and appears to be again claiming that a Family where one Spouse has deserted does not retain all its Constitutional rights. He is in fact asserting that a deserted Spouse is equivalent in law to a Spouse who has willingly abandoned the duties they promised to endure by opting for a separation.

To further demonstrate the error by the Attorney General, Mr Justice Walls, Head of the Family Division in England, recently said, “Separation is, of itself, a serious failure of parenting.” He means that where a Spouse voluntarily puts their interests before those of the Family as a whole they are acting selfishly and will cause certain harm to their children; it is in the children’s best interests to be in the Family founded on Marriage.

A Deserted Spouse by definition does not willingly put their interests before the Family as a whole. They remain faithful to their duty to put the Family’s interests before their own personal interests and as such the Supreme Court acknowledges they retain all the Constitutional rights of a Married Family. They are in law classified as Married.

On the other hand the deserter has wilfully abandoned by the Family and can no longer consider themselves as retaining the Constitutional rights that accrue to a member of the Married Family. So Deserters should be classified as “Separated”.

The operative manning the free phone telephone claimed that I was talking nonsense and that all the CSO was interested in by posing question 5 in its format was to ascertain how many people called themselves separated. One must wonder what this is about.

It would appear that either the Attorney General, the CSO and your office are incompetent or else they are using this Census to engage in social engineering by forcing people into categories of answers which suit their agenda.

A lawful question to ask regarding Marital Status that would provide the most information and not be an act of social engineering could contain options as follows:

1.      Single (never Married)

2.      Single (following annulment)

3.      Widow or Widower

4.      Divorced (not remarried)

5.      Married (but deserted)

6.      Married (but deserter)

7.      Married (but voluntarily legally separated – Judicial Separation or Separation Agreement)

8.      Married (following a Divorce)

9.      Married (following widowhood)

10. Married (still just Married – despite everything being against it!)

Question 13 gives rise to yet more fuel to the supposition that this Census is an act of social engineering. It asks “how many children have you given birth to?” I personally have given birth to six children but this question comes with the condition that it is “for women only”.

Anyone who doesn’t know that it takes two people to give birth to a child, to bring a child into this world – a father and a mother – is quite frankly not a competent person. So why do the census people not want to know anything about fathers?

The operative on the phone said it was about measuring fertility rates of women. Fertility rates are calculated by adding up the number of children born in any one year and dividing by the number of fertile women. This question doesn’t ask anything about when the children were given birth so his is not a true answer. Even if the census people wanted to know something useful about motherhood why do they not want to know anything useful about fatherhood. If my children are not in their Family home on the night in question they will never be linked with me. If they are not here but my Wife was here they would still be linked with her. What is going on?

This question again stinks of social engineering where the agenda is to officially describe a family as consisting only of the mother and children.

Can you explain what this question is for and why the census people do not want to have data which would link children, absent on the night, to their fathers and the Husband of the Family?

It can not be denied that this Census is systematically refusing to acknowledge the position of the Husband and father in the Family founded on Marriage. The word “Marriage” is derived from the French word for “Husband” so the concept of a married Family without a Husband is ludicrous – except of course if the State is intending to not only eliminate Husbands but also Married Families. The census is also attempting to push people into believing that when a Spouse is deserted they are no longer truly Married and that they must assume the same tainted status as those spouses who have given up on their marriage and have chosen to separate. Worse still is that the deserter is given the same status as the deserted spouse. This is a gross insult. This census gives an insight into the State’s attitude and explains and provides evidence to the claim that the courts, as an arm of the State, is allowing deserters to act as the Applicant in family law cases. Please confirm that the state could never allow a deserter to bring an application to court for any Family Law relief.

Until I receive answers to my questions I am being deprived of the right to fill in the Census form so please give me the answers by return and by email to familymen@eircom.net.

Thank you.

Roger Eldridge

Classroom crucifix ban overturned

Friday March 18 2011

A ruling banning religious symbols in classrooms has been overturned by human rights judges.

Victory for the Italian government came in an appeal against an earlier verdict by the same court in which a mother won her case that the display of crucifixes in Italian state schools breached religious freedoms enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights.

 

If upheld on Friday, the decision would have affected religious schools across Europe.

But a “Grand Chamber” of the European Court of Human Rights completely reversed the original result, declaring that the judges could find no evidence that the crucifix placed on classroom walls influenced pupils.

The National Secular Society (NSS) said the final outcome was a severe blow to the rights of parents not to expose their children to promotion of a particular faith.

NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood said: “This is a severe blow to the concept of state neutrality in relation to religion, and to secularism. It flies in the face of Europe’s increasing plurality and diversity and risks damaging the (human rights) court’s previous reputation of treating all citizens equally.”

But the UK Independence Party’s Paul Nuttall welcomed the result, saying: “It was the right judgment but in the wrong court.

“The European Court of Human Rights should never have attacked the rightful autonomy of the Italian state, nor undermined the religious freedom, culture, history and identity of its people.”

The original, unanimous, court decision in 2009 was a victory for Soile Lautsi, a non-Catholic mother who complained that her children, aged 11 and 13, were exposed to crucifixes in classrooms at their school in northern Italy.

But Friday’s 15-2 majority verdict decided that, “while the crucifix is above all a religious symbol, there is no evidence before the court that (its) display on classroom walls might have an influence on pupils”.

Press Association

Who: Amnesty Intl Youghal Where: The Gate, Youghal, Co. Cork When: Friday  May 14th from 10pm Why: Keeping Amnesty Intl. Ireland Financially Sustainable

Amnesty’s International campaign continues with a music night in Youghal on Friday May 14th 2010. Local bands as well as musicians and artists from Cork and Waterford will play at the The Gate Bar, Youghal, as a fundraiser for the organisations ongoing campaigns.
Photo: Michael Hussey REDTV.IE

Some of the performers who will play at the event include DeBurca, Dodge n ‘ the Urban Druids, Pot of Jam, The Birds, The Steve Whelan Band, Niall McCarthy n Friends, each band will perform for 30 mins. Plus DJ Chris Rocks in the smoking area.

Click on the video below to watch Youghal and East Cork based band, Dodge and the Urban Druids, singing “Harsh Times” , they will be performing at the Amnesty Gig at the Gate. - Warning video contains strong language.

Our main campaigns at the moment (a) to maintain a UN Peace Keepers Presence in Eastern Chad where refugees escaping ethnic cleansing in Darfur are living in makeshift camps. Refugees from Chad’s civil war are also seeking shelter there, as are refugees from the Central African Rebublic.

In Ireland, we’re campaigning on mental health. Individuals with mental health problems are facing extremely high rates of unemployment, housing difficulties and discrimination. Things must change.
Our newest campaign is on LGBT issues which is evolving at the moment. If you would like to help with any of the campaigns, please email amnesty.cork@gmail.com

Contact;

Jay Flavin

087 8128236

Amnesty Cork in partnership with Trocaire are delighted to present the award winning film ‘Iron Wall’ on Monday the 16th February in the Victoria Hotel, St. Patrick’s Street, Cork. Admission is free and the event begins at 8pm.

This award winning film gives an insight into the suffering of the Palestinian people and the issue of Human Rights. It documents the building of Israeli settlements and the separation wall on Palestinian lands and their impact on the peace process and on the Palestinian people.
There will also be two brief speakers, one from Trocaire and one from Amnesty International and an opportunity provided for each attendee to express their views. Read more

Amnesty Cork Group will hold a street action outside Debenhams in Patrick’s St. Cork this Saturday afternoon(10th Jan.) between 1pm and 4pm. Cork Amnesty Group Co-ordinator Jay Flavin said the group will be requesting people to show solidarity with the civilians caught up in the conflict in Gaza and Israel. For further information please contact Jay Flavin, Co-ordinator Amnesty Cork Group -Tel: 0868128236  or Lorna English, PRO – Tel 0861514901   www.amnesty.ie

Amnesty International has urged the UN Security Council to demand that Israel, Hamas and Palestinian armed groups observe an immediate truce in Gaza to allow desperately needed humanitarian assistance to the beleaguered civilian population, evacuation of the wounded and safe refuge for civilians wishing to flee the conflict zone.

“Civilians in Gaza are trapped in an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe, and need immediate respite,” said Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Programme. Read more

Jay Flavin, Amnesty Ireland’s Cork Group Co Ordinator has welcomed reports of a new approach adopted by the Irish Government on the issue of extraordinary renditions. These reports indicate that the Government intends to review and strengthen legislation governing the search and inspection of suspected rendition flights and comes less than two months after Cork City Council passed a motion declaring the city a ‘Rendition-Free Zone’.

Amnesty International Ireland Executive Director Colm O’Gorman said: “This is a welcome victory for human rights in Ireland. Years of lobbying and campaigning by Amnesty members and other human rights activists across the country appear to have finally paid off. It is less than two months since hard work by Amnesty members in Cork saw it become one of the Read more

Amnesty Cork requests Participants for the Mini Marathon

Are you free on September 28th? If you are, then help those who are not.
Amnesty International Cork is looking for participants to run or walk this year’s Ladies’ Mini Marathon. Amnesty International in Ireland are currently campaigning on Better Care for Victims of Trafficking, Mental Health and also to Stop Violence Against Women.
On an international level Amnesty International are Read more

Photo: Michael Hussey ( YoughalOnline.com)

Maria Guilly, Walter Raleigh Hotel & Jay Flavin Amnesty International, Cork

The Walter Raleigh Hotel is hosting an Amnesty International Petition For TIBET.
Concerned citizens are requested to call in and sign the Petition outlining Amnesty concerns about the protection of Human Rights in China.

If you would like to help or host a Read more