A WORLD OF HUMAN RIGHTS
  • Home
  • Migration & Trafficking
    • Refugees, Asylum seekers & Migrants
    • Human Trafficking & Slavery
  • Security, Peace & Justice
    • Death Penalty, Arbitrary Detention and Torture
    • International Criminal Justice
    • Rule of Law
    • Humanitarian crises
    • Human Rights Defenders
  • Children's rights
  • Civil Rights & Liberties
  • Economic, social & cultural rights
    • Food & Water
    • Sanitation
    • Adequate housing
    • Health
  • Sexual and reproductive health
  • Discrimination
    • Women, Girls & Gender equality
    • Race and national origin
    • Religion
    • Indigenous People
    • LGBTQ
    • Health & Disability
  • Environment
  • Business & Tax
    • Tax Justice & illicit financial flows
    • Business & Human Rights
  • Take action!
  • Free courses
  • About us
    • About our press review
    • Privacy Policy
  • Bibliography
  • Home
  • Migration & Trafficking
    • Refugees, Asylum seekers & Migrants
    • Human Trafficking & Slavery
  • Security, Peace & Justice
    • Death Penalty, Arbitrary Detention and Torture
    • International Criminal Justice
    • Rule of Law
    • Humanitarian crises
    • Human Rights Defenders
  • Children's rights
  • Civil Rights & Liberties
  • Economic, social & cultural rights
    • Food & Water
    • Sanitation
    • Adequate housing
    • Health
  • Sexual and reproductive health
  • Discrimination
    • Women, Girls & Gender equality
    • Race and national origin
    • Religion
    • Indigenous People
    • LGBTQ
    • Health & Disability
  • Environment
  • Business & Tax
    • Tax Justice & illicit financial flows
    • Business & Human Rights
  • Take action!
  • Free courses
  • About us
    • About our press review
    • Privacy Policy
  • Bibliography
A WORLD OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Picture
A WORLD OF HUMAN RIGHTS IS A PRESS REVIEW DEDICATED TO THE STATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS WORLDWIDE

Ireland Votes Overwhelmingly to Repeal Abortion Ban

5/28/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Aisling Reidy
The first vote I ever cast was in one of the six referendums that Ireland has had on abortion. Today, I watched with tears of joy as it became clear that two-thirds of Irish people voted to repeal the 35-year constitutional ban on abortion and to allow parliament to regulate abortion access in the future. Voters had turned out in historic numbers. I am both proud and relieved.


I was too young in 1983 to vote in the first referendum that led Ireland to change its Constitution, adding what is known as the eighth amendment, banning abortion in almost all circumstances, even though it had already been criminalized in the country for over a century.


Under the constitutional ban, while “due regard” was given to the right to life of pregnant women and girls, the state’s responsibility was to “vindicate” the right to life of the “unborn.”  When I was a university student, anti-choice activists successfully used the ban to make it illegal for doctors and family planning clinics to offer patients information about abortion services outside of Ireland. Student union officers were prosecuted for distributing such information. Magazines from abroad turned up in Ireland with blank pages, which would otherwise have contained advertisements with information on abortion services in the UK.


Over the years, the ban led to an injunction against a 14-year-old rape victim to stop her traveling to England for a termination, and, as recently as 2014, to a forced caesarean on a young asylum seeker, who despite being raped had not been allowed to travel for an abortion. Some women, like Savita Halappanavar, died because of the eighth amendment. The European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committeeruled on multiple occasions that the ban violated women’s rights, and told Ireland time and again to change its laws.


I voted in three referendums that won small but important gains: the right for a suicidal pregnant woman or girl to obtain a life-saving abortion; the right to information about services abroad; and the right to travel for these services. Between 1980 and 2016, more than170,000 Irish women and girls “travelled” (as it euphemistically became known) to have abortions: rape victims, women with diagnosis of fatal fetal anomalies, women who needed to end pregnancies  to undergo life-saving treatment, and those who, for myriad personal reasons, could not continue their pregnancies. It’s likely everyone in Ireland knows family members or friends who “travelled” – often alone and in secrecy. I do.
​

After years of women making this lonely and often agonizing journey, listening to the brave individuals who came forward to break the silence, watching the commitment of the indefatigable pro-choice campaigners, and seeing the thousands who travelled #hometovote, yesterday’s vote was particularly poignant. The emphatic nature of the ‘Yes’ vote gives me hope that it will mark the start of a new, honest, rights-respecting era for women and girls in Ireland.
Activists in Poland, Malta, Italy, and in other regions such as Latin America -- where women and girls continue to fight for access to abortion – watched  as Ireland voted. I hope today marks a day where women’s struggle to secure or protect their basic reproductive rights wherever they are, is bolstered.

Published on HRW on May 28, 201
8
0 Comments

Ireland: Asylum seekers’ work ban unconstitutional, says Supreme Court

5/30/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
A Burmese man who spent eight years in direct provision has won his Supreme Court appeal over the legal ban preventing him from working.

In a significant decision on Tuesday, the seven-judge Supreme Court unanimously found in favour of the man, but adjourned the matter for six months to allow the legislature consider how to address the situation.

The court found that, “in principle”, the ban in the Refugee Act on asylum seekers seeking employment, is contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment.

The decision could have major implications for other asylum seekers.

Giving the court’s judgment, Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell said the man was eight years in the asylum system before getting refugee status.

While the State can legitimately have a policy of restricting employment of asylum seekers, Section 9.4 of the Refugee Act does “not just severely limit” the right to seek work for asylum seekers, but “removes it altogether”, he said.

If there is no limit on the time for processing an asylum application, that could amount to an absolute prohibition on employment, no matter how long a person was within the system, he said.

He could not accept that if a right is in principle available, that it is an appropriate and permissible differentiation between citizens and non-citizens, and in particular between citizens and asylum seekers, to remove the right for all time for asylum seekers.

“The point has been reached when it cannot be said the legitimate differences between an asylum seeker and a citizen can continue to justify the exclusion of an asylum seeker from the possibility of employment,” he said.

“This damage to the individual’s’ self worth and sense of themselves, is exactly the damage which the constitutional right [to seek employment] seeks to guard against.”

The evidence from the man of the depression, frustration and lack of self-belief at being unable to work “bears this out”, he added.

He said, in principle, he would be prepared to find, in circumstances where there is no temporal limit on the asylum process, the “absolute prohibiton” on seeking of employment in Section 9.4, and re-enacted in Section 16.3.b of the International Protection Act 2015, “is contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment”.

Because this situation arises because of the intersection of a number of statutory provisions, and could arguably be met by alteration of one or other of those, and since that was “first and foremost a matter for executive and legislative judgment” , the court would adjourn consideration of what form of order to make for six months, he said.

After that period elapsed, the court would hear submissions from the sides as to what form of order should be made “in the light of the circumstances then obtaining”.

Represented by Michael Lynn SC, the man’s case was brought against the Minister for Justice, with the Attorney General and Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission as notice parties. 

The man had argued, while living in direct provision on a €19 weekly allowance, he suffered depression, “almost complete loss of autonomy” and being allowed work was vital to his development, personal dignity and “sense of self worth”.

Shortly after coming here in late 2008, he was refused refugee status, but appealed. After the High Court found errors in how his applications were decided, there were re-hearings before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal which last September granted him refugee status.

Because that meant he could legitimately seek employment, the State argued the Supreme Court should dismiss as pointless his appeal against the Court of Appeal’s 2/1 rejection of his case.

Lawyers for the man and IHREC urged the court to address the issues and, in its judgment on Tuesday, the court said it had decided to do so for reasons including the case raised a point of law of general public importance.

In dismissing the man’s case last year, a majority Court of Appeal ruled the open-ended nature of the ban on work did not mean Section 9.4 is unconstitutional and rejected as “too broad a proposition” non-Irish citizens enjoy the same general rights as Irish citizens.

Mr Justice Gerard Hogan disagreed.

He ruled the man has a personal right under Article 40.3 of the Constitution to work here and Section 9.4. unconstitutionally struck at the “very substance” of that constitutional right.

Published on The Irish Times on May 30, 2017.

0 Comments
    Picture


    Tweets by aworldofhr

      GET OUR WEEKLY UPDATE HERE

      Every Wednesday. Concise. Impactful. Ad free :) 
    Subscribe to our Weekly Update

    Categories

    All
    Abortion
    Abortion Ban
    Access To Clean Water
    Adolescents
    Afghanistan
    Africa
    African Child Policy Forum
    African Committee Of Experts On The Rights And Welfare Of The Child
    Age Discrimination
    Algeria
    Anti-terror Laws
    Anti-trafficking Laws
    Arbitrary Arrest
    Arbitrary Detention
    Argentina
    Argentine
    Arms Embargo
    Arms Trade
    Art Censorship
    Artificial Intelligence
    Asylum Seekers
    Australia
    Bahrain
    Bangladesh
    Barbuda
    BNP Paribas
    Brazil
    Brexit
    Britain
    British Red Cross
    Burma
    Business And Human Rights
    Cambodia
    Campaign Against The Arms Trade
    Canada
    Censorship
    Chad
    Chemical Weapons
    Child Brides
    Child Labor
    Child Marriage
    Children
    Children's Rights
    Child Safeguarding
    Child Slavery
    Child Soldiers
    China
    Citizenship
    Civil Rights
    Civil War
    Class-action Lawsuit
    Clean Water
    Climate Change
    Collective Intellectual Property
    Collective Land Ownership
    Consent
    CoreCivic
    Corruption
    Crime Against Humanity
    Criminal Justice
    Death Penalty
    Democratic Republic Of Congo
    Deportation
    Detention
    Developing Countries
    Dictatorship
    Digital Surveillance
    Discrimination
    Domestic Violence
    Egypt
    Elections
    Enforced Disappearances
    Environment
    Environmental Laws
    Eritrea
    Ethiopia
    Ethnic Cleansing
    Ethno-nationalism
    E.U.
    European Union
    Extrajudicial Executions
    Family Reunification
    Famine
    Food Security
    Forced Labor
    Forced Migration
    France
    Fraud
    Free
    Freedom Of Expression
    Freedom Of Religion
    Freedom Of Speech
    Free Media
    Free Speech
    Gambia
    Gang
    Gender Equality
    Gender Pay Gap
    Georgia
    Gilgit-Baltistan
    Girls' Rights
    Guantánamo Bay
    Guantánamo Bay
    Guatemala
    Haiti
    Health Care
    Honduras
    Hong Kong
    Horn Of Africa
    Humanitarian Aid
    Humanitarian Crisis
    Human Rights Abuses
    Human Trafficking
    Hun Sen
    Hygiene
    ICE Detainees
    Ill-treatment
    Immigration
    Impunity
    Incarcerated Women
    India
    Indigenous People
    Indigenous Textiles
    Indigenous Women
    Indonesia
    Industrial Pollution
    Inequalities
    Internally Displaced People
    International Family Tracing
    International Justice
    Internet Freedom
    Iran
    Iraq
    Ireland
    Israel
    Japan
    Joseph Kabila
    Journalism
    Journalists
    Juvenile Criminal System
    Kachin
    Kazakhstan
    Land Rights
    Latin America
    Lawyers
    Lebanon
    LGBTQ
    Libya
    Liu Xia
    Liu Xiaobo
    Lybia
    Madagascar
    Malawi
    María De Jesús Patricio Martínez
    Marriage
    Marriage Equality
    Mass Incarceration
    Mass Surveillance
    Mauritania
    Maya Women
    Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders
    Media Freedom
    Menstrual Hygiene
    Mexico
    Microsoft
    Migrants
    Migrant Workers
    Misuse Of Government Funds
    Modern Slavery
    Money Laundering
    Mozambique
    Myanmar
    Nationality
    Nationality Deprivation
    National Service
    Nepal
    New Zealand
    Nicaragua
    Nigeria
    Nobel Peace Prize
    Northern Ireland
    Northern Triangle Of Central America
    Norway
    Nuclear Arms
    Occupation
    Orphanage Tourism
    Pakistan
    Palestine
    Palestinian Refugees
    Papua New Guinea
    Paraguay
    Peaceful Assembly
    People With Albinism
    Philippines
    Poland
    Police Abuse
    Poverty
    Press Freedom
    Press Law
    Prior And Informed Consent
    Prison
    Privacy
    Private Prison Company
    Race Discrimination
    Racism
    Rakhine State
    Rape Videos
    Refugee Quota
    Refugees
    Refused Asylum Seekers
    Right To A Nationality
    Right To Education
    Right To Protest
    Rohingya
    Rule Of Law
    Rwanda
    Rwandan Genocide
    Same-sex Marriage
    Sanitation
    Saudi Arabia
    Scotland
    Seafood Industry
    Segregation
    Self-censorship
    Senegal
    Sexual And Reproductive Rights
    Sexual Violence
    Shi'a Community
    Slavery
    Smuggling
    Social Media
    Social Security
    Solar Energy
    Somalia
    South Asia
    Southern Poverty Law Center
    South Sudan
    Spain
    Special Rapporteur On The Negative Impact Of The Unilateral Coercive Measures On The Enjoyment Of Human Rights
    Special Rapporteur On The Right To Adequate Housing
    Special Rapporteur On The Right To Development
    Special Rapporteur On The Right To Food
    Special Rapporteur On Toxics
    Stateless
    Supply Chains
    Sustainability Development Solutions Network
    Sustainable Development Goals
    Sweden
    Syria
    Syrian Civil War
    Taiwan
    Tanzania
    Thailand
    Thomson Reuters Foundation
    Tobacco
    Torture
    Transitional Justice
    Transparentem
    Travel Ban
    Trinidad & Tobago
    TripAdvisor
    Turkey
    U.A.E.
    Uganda
    U.K
    Unaccompanied Children
    U.N. General Assembly
    U.N.H.C.R.
    U.N. High Commissioner For Human Rights
    U.N. Human Rights Council
    U.N.I.C.E.F.
    United Arab Emirates
    United Nations
    Universal Periodic Review
    Unlawful Detentions
    U.N. Office For The Coordination Of Humanitarian Affairs
    UNPO
    U.N.R.W.A.
    UNSMIL
    U.N. Special Rapporteur On Racism
    U.N. Women
    U.S.
    Venezuela
    Vietnam
    War Cimes
    War Crimes
    WASH
    Welfare System
    Women
    Women's Rights
    Yazidis
    Yemen
    Zimbabwe


    Archives

    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014


    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly