freedom of expression Archives - Irish Council for Civil Liberties

ICCL calls for immediate legislation for safe zones around abortion clinics

Dublin, 8 January 2019

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) today welcomed the announcement by Minister for Health Simon Harris that he intends to legislate for safe zones around abortion provision centres and called for him to move to enact such legislation immediately.

Speaking today, ICCL Executive Director Liam Herrick said:

“ICCL attaches great importance to the right to peaceful protest. However, the right to protest is not absolute and does not include a right to intimidate, harass or prevent women from accessing health care, including abortion services. Recent protests at health clinics appear to have been targetting women with the intention of deterring them from accessing health services.

The Irish government is obliged by international treaties to which we are party, as well as by our own Constitution, to protect the right to privacy. It is also obliged to protect access to healthcare and to ensure that healthcare professionals working in these settings have the right to work in a safe environment.”

Under human rights law, the right to protest may only be interfered with in specific circumstances, including in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others. Protecting the right to access healthcare and the right to privacy can be considered legitimate grounds for interfering with the right to protest, as long as the measures taken are necessary, proportionate and provided for by law.

Existing provisions in Irish law for responding to protestors using intimidation and harassment do not provide adequate protection for individuals seeking to access abortion services because they rely on the discretionary use of powers by Gardaí.

Mr. Herrick continued:

“Where there is evidence of a pattern of orchestrated and organised interference with individual rights, such as the right to access healthcare, general measures to protect individual patients and healthcare workers may be necessary. The creation of exclusion zones that prohibit such behaviour within a specified area around healthcare premises would help to fulfil individuals’ right to privacy and right to access healthcare. ICCL looks forward to the publication of legislation in this area, and we will examine it carefully to ensure that any proposal provides a proportionate balancing of rights.”

The use of such exclusion zones has been found in other jurisdictions to constitute a proportionate and necessary interference with the right to protest. Máiréad Enright of Lawyers for Choice has provided a detailed analysis of the legality of exclusion zones and how they might be provided for in Irish law here: https://lawyers4choice.ie/2019/01/05/a-note-on-exclusion-zones-rogue-crisis-pregnancy-agencies-possibilities-for-reform/

ENDS/

Notes for editors:

The right to protest plays a crucial role in democracy and can be a significant driver of positive social change. The right derives chiefly from the right to freedom of assembly and the right to freedom of expression. It involves the exercise of a range of other rights including the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to participation in cultural life. As such, the right to protest attracts significant legal protection under the Irish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (EHCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (ICCPR), to which Ireland is a State Party.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) requires States Parties (which includes Ireland) to fully realize the right to health. Access to health services forms one of the pillars of the right to health. The UN Treaty Body charged with interpreting the ICESCR has held that “health facilities, goods and services must be within safe physical reach for all sections of the population, especially vulnerable or marginalized groups”. The government is therefore required to prevent third parties from hindering access to healthcare.

The right to privacy and confidentiality is one of the personal rights protected by the Irish Constitution, and is explicitly protected under the ECHR and the ICCPR. The government must ensure that third parties do not interfere with the right to privacy of individuals when accessing health care services.

Under existing Irish law, protestors who are considered to be breaching the public peace without lawful authority or reasonable excuse or to be causing harassment, alarm or distress may be restricted. The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 gives the Gardai a broad power to ‘move on’ individuals when there is reasonable concern for the maintenance of the public peace. A person commits an offence if he or she, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, willfully prevents or interrupts the free passage of any person in any public place. The Gardai can also potentially use powers under The Criminal Justice Act 2006 to issue a behaviour warning in response to behaviour which causes or is likely to cause harassment, significant or persistent alarm, distress, fear or intimidation. The fact that the Act applies to behaviour “likely to” cause alarm etc. means that there need not be an actual victim.

For media queries:

Sinéad Nolan: sinead.nolan@iccl.ie 087 4157162

Open letter to An Taoiseach calling for Electoral Act reform

20 December 2018

An Taoiseach Leo Varadkar

Dept of An Taoiseach

Government Buildings

Merrion St Upper

Dublin 2

20 December 2018

Taoiseach,

Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) are essential for our democracy to function. However in Ireland we are facing increasing restrictions that limit our ability to engage in democratic activities and to raise funds.

The Electoral Act limits the size of Irish donations for ‘political’ purposes and bans donations from international donors. The initial purpose of the law was to prevent foreign interference in elections and referendums – something we all agree with.

However, by defining ‘political’ so broadly as to cover any comment on any issue of public policy, the law is now being used to effectively silence the work of civil society organisations and urgently needs to be amended.

The gagging effect of the Electoral Act means many important voices are not being heard by decision makers and politicians. There’s a risk that increasingly only the wealthy and those who do not need to seek donations to make their views known will get to have their voices heard.

Ireland has been a proud advocate for the role civil society plays defending and promoting democracy and human rights on the international stage. We respectfully call on you to address the problems with the Electoral Act so that civil society in Ireland is free to carry out its own work in defending human rights, deepening democracy and advocating for social justice and equality.

Please find here: a) a link to a petition signed by 1226 individual signatories to this letter and b) link to a list of 60 organisations which support Electoral Act reform. Please also find a statement from the Coalition for Civil Society Freedom on why reform is necessary.

Liam Herrick

Executive Director, Irish Council for Civil Liberties

Open letter Varadkar PDF

Protecting civil society while regulating political advertising

Our democracy depends on voters being able to present and receive correct information about politics. The State should protect that. The State should also protect people when they work together for the common good. Government should facilitate the participation of community and voluntary organisations in political life, including when they fundraise and including when they lobby politicians.

While ICCL welcomes the government initiative to regulate online political advertising, we caution against defining the political so broadly that it impinges on the ability of people who are organised together to advocate for social change. Our democracy depends on voters being able to speak to politicians openly even (in fact especially) when they are organised and working in association.

Read our submission to the government’s Public Consultation on the Regulation of Online Political Advertising here:

ICCL Submission – Public Consultation on Regulation of Online Political Advertising in Ireland

Sign up to the People’s Voice campaign for Electoral Act reform

The Coalition for Civil Society Freedom has been actively and loudly campaigning for Electoral Act reform. We will be bringing the People’s Voice campaign to government next. There is an open letter to the Taoiseach which you, as an individual or organisation can sign here. We hope to present this letter to government officials at an expert seminar on 28 November.

We are also inviting organisations to join the People’s Voice campaign platform. The more of us who call for Electoral Act reform, the more likely we are to be heard. You can sign up to the platform here. Please do so before Friday 23 November.

Sign up to the campaign for Electoral Act reform here

Here are just some of the reasons why we are campaigning:

Education Equality were forced to return €5,500 seed funding they received from the Humanist Association. SIPOC threatened them with legal action under the Act, simply for engaging in their normal advocacy work.
EQUATE were put under so much pressure following a campaign of complaints against them to SIPOC (who also informed their funder) that it contributed to their decision to wind down.

At “The People’s Voice” event we held recently, we heard from other civil society organisations who had similar frightening stories to tell. We heard from Amnesty International on the real and long story behind the case that hit the headlines during the abortion referendum. We ourselves spoke of difficulties we faced when individuals contacted our funders, spuriously claiming we were operating illegally under the Electoral Act. Many more organisations spoke, under condition of anonymity, about their experiences of being threatened with legal action or of reconsidering donations and advocacy work because of the law.

The bottom line is: the Electoral Act prohibits civil society from fundraising for our everyday advocacy work. The way in which it is applied is haphazard, but it can be abused by individuals who take issue with some of the more radical work we are engaged in. Organisations working on rights have been particularly targetted up to now, but who knows who it might be in the future?

ICCL welcomes blasphemy vote, calls for hate crime legislation

Dublin, 27 October 2018

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has welcomed the Yes vote in the referendum on blasphemy as an important step for free speech and the modernisation of our democracy. ICCL campaigned for a Yes vote in this referendum and we have consistently advocated this change over many years. This positive result brings Ireland into line with international best practice in human rights, as called for by the UN Human Rights Committee.

Echoing the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention, we are now calling on the government to repeal sections 36 and 37 of the Defamation Act 2009 which define the criminal offence of blasphemy.

We are also calling on the Government to take immediate action to coordinate state bodies’ responses to hate- and hostility-based crime and to bring forward legislation to protect from hate- and hostility-based crime.

Executive Director of the ICCL, Liam Herrick, said:

“During our campaign for a Yes vote, our guiding principle was respect for freedom of expression. However, we have also argued that the right to free speech is not absolute and should be limited to the degree necessary to protect people from hate- and hostility-motivated crime. Hate crime is something which is entirely different to blasphemy as it is directed towards individuals or groups, rather than ideas or institutions. There is no legislation in place to deal with hate crime in Ireland at the moment.”

Ireland is obliged by European and international human rights law to have in place a robust framework to respond to and prevent hate- and hostility-based crime. In April ICCL released a report which showed that Ireland is seriously deficient in addressing hate crime when compared to other EU member States. The Lifecycle of a Hate Crime: Country Report for Ireland shows that from the point at which a victim reports a crime to An Garda Síochána to the point at which a judge sentences an offender, the hate element of a crime is filtered out of the criminal justice process.

ENDS

For comment or queries:

Sinéad Nolan: sinead.nolan@iccl.ie 087 4157162

The Life Cycle of a Hate Crime report is here: https://www.iccl.ie/hatecrime/

Emergency Laws, Counter Terrorism and Human Rights

On 21 November ICCL and INCLO will host the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Professor Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, for a public event on counter-terrorism measures and their impact on human rights.

Prof Ní Aoláin is a leading global authority on emergency law and human rights, and is the only Irish UN mandate holder. She will give an overview of her work at the UN – which has included work on transparency and accountability in the global counter-terrorism architecture and ensuring counter-terrorism regulation is human right rights compliant. The latter has specifically included a focus on the rights to freedom of expression and association, intelligence agency oversight and integrating gender perspectives in countering terrorism. Prof Ní Aoláin will also touch on issues closer to home, including the ongoing use of emergency powers in ordinary law and special courts in Ireland.

To introduce the lecture, Prof Ní Aoláin will host a drinks reception and the Irish launch of two separate reports by INCLO and Privacy International detailing the need for regulation of global intelligence sharing. Both reports show that many countries, including Ireland, have little or no domestic legislation, oversight, or public disclosure regarding intelligence sharing agreements between states. As a result, key human rights are threatened, including the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of association.

Registration is free but essential: https://counterterrorismandhumanrights.eventbrite.ie

ICCL statement on Minister for Justice, Charlie Flanagan’s statement regarding the recording of Gardai on duty

17^th September 2018

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) is seriously concerned by the Minister for Justice’s suggestion on the radio this morning that he supports legislation to outlaw the photographing of Gardai acting in the course of their duties.

While the criminal harassment or intimidation of Gardai is unacceptable, the general outlawing of photographing Gardai while on duty would be a grossly disproportionate response to the incidents that arise where technology is misused. A blanket restriction on freedom of expression, which would criminalise ordinary members of the public for sharing information about public events, is not the answer to the challenges that Gardai are called to deal with on a daily basis.

Only a week ago, we witnessed the importance of public access to images of Gardai on duty. The circulation of photographs of masked Gardai at the scene of a housing rights protest prompted widespread public debate about how An Garda Siochana goes about the policing of protest. The photographs led to a statement by the new Garda Commissioner that the Gardai had not acted in accordance with their own policies, and to the Garda Commissioner requesting a report on the incident. The events of last week demonstrate exactly why the Minister is wrong to suggest that this crucial mechanism of transparency should be outlawed.

As the ICCL has stated before, the rights to peaceful protest are fundamental to our democracy. These are the rights to freedom of belief, expression, association and assembly, and they are protected not only by the Irish Constitution but also by European and international human rights instruments to which Ireland is party.

An Garda Siochana is obliged to protect and facilitate individuals’ use of their rights to peacefully protest. Gardai are also obliged to police protest in a manner that only uses force to the degree that is absolutely necessary and proportionate.

The ability to record police operations during public protest is an essential safeguard to ensure that the Gardai comply with their human rights obligations. Transparency also protects police, in that it provides them with an avenue to demonstrate how they acted to uphold the law in difficult situations.

Time and time again, both in Ireland and abroad, we have witnessed how recordings of police behaviour during protests has helped to shine a light on violations of human rights obligations by police actors, and indeed violations of the law by private individuals where they occur. In many countries, police representatives are now required to wear body cameras themselves in order to ensure that they are accountable, and indeed protected, in their actions.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has published Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly which explain States’ obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights as established in ECHR case law.

The OSCE Guidelines state that:

The photographing or video recording of the policing operation by participants and other third parties should not be prevented, and any requirement to surrender film or digitally recorded images or footage to the law-enforcement agencies should be subject to prior judicial scrutiny.

During public assemblies the photographing or video recording of participants by law-enforcement personnel is permissible. However, while monitoring individuals in a public place for identification purposes does not necessarily give rise to interference with their right to private life, the recording of such data and the systematic processing or permanent nature of the record created and retained might give rise to violations of privacy. Moreover, photographing or making video recordings of assemblies for the purpose of gathering intelligence can discourage individuals from enjoying the freedom to assemble and should, therefore, not be done routinely.

Law-enforcement agencies should develop and publish a policy related to their use of overt filming/photography at public assemblies.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has issued several reports calling attention to the increasing problem of arrests, censorship and violence towards ‘citizen journalists’ around the world. Reminding States of their obligation to respect the right to freedom of expression, the Special Rapporteur has stated:

Imprisoning individuals for seeking, receiving and imparting information and ideas can rarely be justified as a proportionate measure to achieve one of the legitimate aims under article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

… protection of national security or countering terrorism cannot be used to justify restricting the right to expression unless the Government can demonstrate that: (a) the expression is intended to incite imminent violence; (b) it is likely to incite such violence; and (c) there is a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the likelihood or occurrence of such violence.

Additionally, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that the right to freedom of expression includes expression of views and opinions that offend, shock or disturb. Moreover, as the Human Rights Council has also stated in its resolution 12/16, restrictions should never be applied, inter alia, to discussion of Government policies and political debate; reporting on human rights, Government activities and corruption in Government; engaging in election campaigns, peaceful demonstrations or political activities, including for peace or democracy; and expression of opinion and dissent, religion or belief, including by persons belonging to minorities or vulnerable groups.

The Special Rapporteur has further stated about citizen journalists that:

The importance of this new form of journalism cannot be underestimated… citizen journalists contribute to the creation of a richer diversity of views and opinions, including information about their communities and groups in need of particular attention.

INCLO welcomes historic win against UK mass surveillance regime

Strasbourg, 14 September 2018

In a landmark win for seven INCLO members, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that the United Kingdom’s mass surveillance practices violate privacy and freedom of expression.

Led by Liberty, seven INCLO members joined a coalition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Strasbourg, France to challenge the legality of British and US intelligence agencies intercepting private communications en masse.

We initiated this case after Edward Snowden’s courageous 2013 revelations of the full extent our governments are willing to spy on us without reasonable suspicion.

Today, we celebrate the court’s historic findings that the UK’s system of communications interception was an unlawful breach of privacy. The UK’s regime for authorising mass interception was incapable of keeping their privacy “interference” to what is “necessary in a democratic society.”

INCLO parties in the case

The INCLO members joining a coalition of NGOs included:

Liberty, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU), Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL), Legal Resources Centre South Africa (LRC).

Megan Goulding, Lawyer for Liberty, said:

“This is a major victory for the rights and freedom of people in the UK. It shows that there is – and should be – a limit to the extent that states can spy on their citizens. Our Government has built a surveillance regime more extreme than that of any other democratic nation, abandoning the very rights and freedoms terrorists want to attack. It can and must give us an effective, targeted system that protects our safety, data security and fundamental rights.”

Patrick Toomey, staff attorney, ACLU National Security Project, said:

“In a significant victory for privacy and free expression, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the UK government’s mass surveillance activities violate fundamental human rights standards. The decision sends a clear message that similar surveillance programs, such as those conducted by the NSA, are also incompatible with human rights. Governments in Europe and the United States alike must take steps to reign in mass spying and adopt long overdue reforms that truly safeguard our privacy.”

Michael Bryant, Executive Director for the CCLA, said:

“CCLA is proud to share this victory for privacy and free expression rights with our colleagues around the world. Today’s decision at the ECtHR confirms that mass surveillance is incompatible with fundamental rights that are at the heart of strong democracies. Although the case addressed activities in the UK, this is a global issue that affects every nation and every person who communicates online. Canada now needs to look carefully at our own new national security legislation to ensure that our laws uphold the vital privacy and free expression principles at the center of this decision.”

Stefania Kapronczay, Executive Director for the HCLU, said:

“As a member of an international human rights network, the HCLU is thrilled to celebrate this milestone in privacy rights. Ever since Edward Snowden made visible the secretive nature of communications interception by government intelligence agencies, INCLO has been steadfastly advocating against this opaque practice. The court decision today is a vindication of all INCLO members’ efforts – and for privacy activists around the globe.”

Elizabeth Farries, Information Rights Project Manager for the ICCL, said:

“Why should we have to hide from snooping governments? Recognised under numerous instruments, treaties and international norms, privacy is our foundational right upon which many of our associated freedoms operate. The decision in Strasbourg recognises in part what INCLO’s Unanswered Questions – International Intelligence Sharing report also observes: Across INCLO member countries there are inadequate rules guiding the operation of state intelligence agencies.”

Tsanga Mukumba, Openness & Accountability Researcher for the LRC, said:

“Communications from an LRC email address were intercepted by the GCHQ in breach of our privacy rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The LRC represents some of the most vulnerable clients in South Africa; their right to confidentiality was violated. We applaud the Strasbourg ruling that UK laws enabling mass surveillance are a violation of Article 8 and look forward to using this important precedent to advance the right to privacy across Africa.”

ENDS

For media queries: Sinead Nolan sinead.nolan@iccl.ie 087 4157162

Outcome of Amnesty case highlights flaws in Electoral Act

This op-ed by Liam Herrick appeared in the Irish Times on 31 July 2018

For community and voluntary organisations across Ireland, yesterday’s settlement of the court proceedings between Amnesty International Ireland and the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPOC) brought great relief.

At the High Court, SIPOC withdrew its demand for Amnesty to hand back a grant received in 2015 from the Open Society Foundations, conceded that it had treated Amnesty unfairly, and agreed to close its investigation into Amnesty’s human rights work.

This outcome is a vindication for Amnesty but the case does provide a clear indication that certain provisions of the Electoral Act are deeply flawed, and raise serious concerns about how the law is applied to civil society by the statutory regulator.

Here at ICCL we are aware of cases other than Amnesty’s, where SIPOC’s enforcement of the Electoral Act has shut down civil society advocacy, and where the groups were too small to fight back.

At a press conference we held earlier this month, Education Equality, a voluntary group working to reform education policy, told the story of that organisation’s experiences with SIPOC.

Having received a starter grant of €10,000 from the Humanist Association of Ireland, Education Equality was informed by SIPOC that its aim of ending of the ‘baptism barrier’ to entry to primary schools was deemed “political” under the Electoral Act. As a result it was forced by SIPOC to return funds received.

These are two voluntary organisations trying to contribute to public policy in an open and transparent manner, who were threatened with prosecution for activities that had nothing to do with any election or referendum campaign.

The original purpose of the Electoral Act was to prevent inappropriate corporate or foreign funding of candidates and parties. However, the law was poorly drafted and contains an overly broad definition of ‘political purposes’ and the types of activities to be covered by the funding rules. The definition includes not just electoral campaigning but also all efforts at “promoting or procuring a particular outcome in relation to a policy or policies or functions of the Government or any public authority”.

In plain language, that means that the rules apply to any effort to take part in public debate, whether you are a community organisation campaiging for better local amenities, or a national charity calling for better provision of health care or housing. Ironically, a law introduced to clean up politics is now being used to shut down organisations that hold politics to account on behalf of the public.

SIPOC has many questions to answer arising from this case, particularly on how it deals with civil society organisations that are not political parties, and how it processes complaints from the public. In yesterday’s settlement SIPOC accepted that its enforcement attempts against Amnesty’s ordinary human rights work did not follow basic fair procedures. As a statutory body regulating an essential area of our public life, these cases should prompt a comprehensive review of how it interprets and applies the law in this area.

There is also a glaring issue of contradiction between Ireland’s international position on this issue and the situation under domestic law. Globally, Ireland takes a lead on the issue of protecting civil society space, with our diplomats at the UN recently driving a Human Rights Council resolution on the issue and Irish Aid actively providing ‘foreign’ funding to civil society organisations in other countries. At the same time, the EU Fundamental Rights Agency has criticised Ireland for operating funding rules that are similar to those used by repressive governments in other European countries to shut down human rights organisations.

The EU Fundamental Rights Agency has criticised Ireland for operating funding rules that are similar to those used by repressive governments in other European countries to shut down human rights organisations.

Over the past year, we have raised the issue with both the Department of Housing and Local Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and we have had positve and constructive engagement with both Departments. In fact, we were assured by the Tanaiste Simon Coveney that “A key priority for Ireland is to ensure coherence between the promotion and protection of human rights in our foreign policy and our domestic implementation of our international human rights obligations.”

We firmly believe that Ireland’s international position is a true reflection of the values of the Irish people and of the parties in the Oireachtas. We have a vibrant community and voluntary sector and Government should support the widest possible involvement of these groups in public policy making. We believe it is possible to provide an encouraging environment for such groups while retaining the integrity of our electoral system. Hopefully yesterday’s settlement will act as a catalyst for change.

Sr. Stanislaus Kennedy on the importance of charities’ ability to advocate for change

Sr. Stanislaus Kennedy is the founder of Focus Ireland. She spoke at a press conference organised by ICCL on 6 July 2018.

This is a very important debate in Ireland today. I want to speak about the area known as charities.

Focus Ireland is regarded as a charity, but Focus Ireland is much more than about providing services. It’s fundamentally about challenging the political choices that can lead to homelessness, that can enable people and indeed make people fall into homelessness. The other organisation that I’m also involved with is the Immigrant Council of Ireland. That’s a human rights organisation and a law centre, and while it does work with immigrants it does a lot of work in trying to reform the immigration system.

We look back at the history of Ireland and practically everything that’s happened – education, health, youth services – you’ll find they all have their roots in the voluntary sector. They weren’t just providing services, they were also lobbying for changing the system that was causing the problems they were trying to resolve. Richard Titmuss, a leading thinker on social policy, said: the way a society organises itself can diminish or increase the altruism of that society. He wasn’t just talking about services. It was very clear he was talking about the role of civil society in enriching democracy.

Take housing: all the changes that have taken place in housing – all the reforms – have been the result of a concerted campaigning for change. The first Housing Act was in 1988 and that for the first time defined homelessness. And that was a very important thing because up to that point there was no thought given to it – but the Act didn’t only define it in terms of people who were actually homeless, but also people who were at risk of homelessness, and that gave rise to further change. It was the result of prolonged political campaigning by Brendan Ryan, supported by the organisations at the time – Simon, Focus and Threshold. That was really a breakthrough because it defined homelessness, but it also addressed the responsibility of the state to do something about homelessness: to provide housing. Up to that the only thing that existed was shelters, hostels and dinner centres. As a result of that Act, funding was made available for housing for homelessness, and the first housing was provided in 1991 by Focus Ireland in Stanhope Green. That Act came about because of campaigning and since has been the basis of the further campaigning that has been going on.

We can look at the Children’s Act. That ended widespread street homelessness among children and young people. Again it came about as a result of consistent campaigning and lobbying by child care services and people involved in homelessness. The various amendments were also as a result of campaigning. Look at aftercare of children in the state – there was no provision for aftercare. Young people left care at 18 with no services whatsoever. As a result of 15 years of consistent campaigning by Focus Ireland the changes took place, and for the first time the state had legal responsibility for people leaving care.

If we look at the Immigrant Council of Ireland: a number of changes have taken place as a result of its work. One has to do with victims of domestic violence. Women victims of domestic violence – many of them had no status except they were dependent on the status of their spouse. This meant they couldn’t leave the house – it would have been illegal and they could have been deported. ICI lobbied for change and they were enabled to apply for independent immigration status, which gave them much more authority and more opportunity to have their cases heard.

Similarly in more recent times there was a coalition of voluntary bodies – a large coalition spearheaded by ICI about the protection of victims of prostitution. That took 6 years and the result was the Sexual Offences Act came into law last year.

Many if not most of the reforms which modernised Ireland and made it better and more humane have been as a result of action by civil society organisations. But much more needs to be achieved. If civil society is prevented from being a wellspring of vision for a better society and a force for transformation, where will change come from? I think it won’t come. And society will stagnate, and the injustice will increase and there will be no effort to tackle injustice or inequality, and the powerful groups will predominate.
In saying this I’m very clear about the importance of the regulation of charities – trust and transparency. But many charities have taken a lead in this, long before it was legally adopted. And now they’re in the forefront in calling for mandatory legal regulation. I’m also aware of the importance of protecting the integrity of the electoral system and how trust was eroded so much by the donation system. But in clearing up the electoral system, this should not prevent a vibrant, active civil society flourishing and taking an active part in democratic debate. Scandals such as corruption, which so corrupted the planning system and left a legacy of poor quality overpriced and inadequate housing. But it would be an extraordinary and bitter irony if attempts to learn the lessons of this corruption silenced the organisations which are the voice of the people who are experiencing that legacy, of the injustice of poor quality, overpriced and inadequate housing.