I’ll start by saying that I’m sorry for the lateness of this follow-up post. Halloween, college work and life in general all collided over the course of a few, fast-paced days, leaving me little time to devote to this article. But enough with the excuses and on to the results of the Irish Presidential election and referenda.

Firstly, the winner of the presidential election was Michael D. Higgins, who defeated six other candidates for the office, gaining almost 40% of the first preference votes. The runner-up was Seán Gallagher, who gained 28.5% of the first preference votes. This was a bit of an upset as Gallagher had been leading in the polls prior to the election. However, his poor performance in the last debate and his constant refusal to answer questions regarding irregularities in his personal and professional finances seem to have cost him a significant number of votes. Personally, I’m happy with this outcome as I both voted for Higgins and loathed Gallagher.

The outcome of the election was significant in several ways. The Fine Gael (The ruling coalition party) candidate received only 6.4% of the first preference votes. This most probably represents electoral dissatisfaction with the government, which seems to be publicly perceived as Fine Gael led. This point becomes even more interesting when you factor in that Michael D. Higgins is the current head of the Irish Labour Party, the other coalition party. It could be that people either perceived Higgins as above an untoward influences from his party, or that people are dissatisfied with only one of the coalition partners, or perhaps a mixture of both. In any case, it’s a very intriguing outcome.

Secondly, the outcome of the referenda. The Twenty-Ninth Amendment to the Constitution passed with around 80% of the electorate voting in favour of the amendment which removes constitutional restrictions preventing the government from lowering judges’ pay during their tenure. This, in my opinion, is a profoundly moronic move, which will most likely result in more corruption somewhere down the line. I believe the main reason why people voted for it was that when asked to voluntarily lower their pay, judges refused and that this is “payback”. No pun intended. As you may have guessed, I was one of the 20% who voted against its passage.

The Thirtieth Amendment to the Constitution failed, as 53% of the electorate voted against it. This Amendment, which would essentially give the Oireachtas (parliament) the power of subpoena, looked like it was set to become law. After all, almost every democracy in the world has some version of the proposed process. However, when the wording of the Amendment was published, it become clear that this was simply a power grab, as the wording would enable the Oireachtas to decide what was “fair” to investigate publicly with regard to an individual, rather than the courts. For this reason, I and many others voted against the passage of this Amendment.

Well, that’s all from the land of darkness at half-four in the afternoon. A Oíche Shamhna sásta go déanach!

I’ll begin by saying that the Presidential debate which I attended earlier today was very enjoyable. This was despite five of the seven candidates not turning up. Four of them simply didn’t agree to come, while one dropped out at the last second to give a television interview. Interestingly enough, of the two candidates that did show up – David Norris and Michael D. Higgins – both are former university lecturers and both repeatedly stressed the need for young people to be involved in politics. There’s a point somewhere in there, I think.

Due to the drought in candidates, the format of the meeting wound up being more akin to a presentation and exploration of ideas than a formal debate. This, in my opinion, was a welcome change from the media driven debates – read: scandal driven – that have taken place over the last few weeks. It also allowed for a more relaxed atmosphere, which I felt reflected well on both candidates.

Since Norris and Higgins are both liberals – and proud of it too, according to Norris, who lambasted the media for trying to turn it into a dirty word – there was substantial agreement on most issues. There were, of course, differences. Norris, being a social campaigner, focused more on social issues. He highlighted his success in bringing about the introduction of significant child abuse laws in the early 1990s, which placed the well-being of the child above every other consideration, and his more recent efforts to have same-sex – that’s the popular term over here – marriage legalised, resulting in the passing of a civil partnership bill.

Higgins, instead, focused more on the economic side of the issues. He attacked the Austrian economic model – by name: something which is rarely done – and it’s insistence on unregulated or lightly regulated financial systems. He pointed out that this model allows for people to be irrational, but insists that the market is always rational, which, as he said, leads to a ludicrous contradiction. Something which I agree with wholeheartedly. He ended this line of discussion by underlining the fact that we know that many of the problems today emanate from Austrian Economics and that this is being ignored by ideologues, which is exacerbating the problems and making them harder to solve.

Closer to many Planeteers , America featured rather prominently throughout the debate. When Higgins was speaking about the economics of the current financial crisis he mentioned the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act as an example of the deregulation which ultimately created the current crisis. When speaking of the vilification of the word “liberal”, Norris mentioned that the Democrats in the United States have become afraid of identifying themselves as liberal and that such cowering is what leads to people like George W. Bush being elected, culminating in war and financial crisis.

Closer to home, both candidates denounced the bailing out of non-systemic banks such as Anglo-Irish. Norris also told the audience to see through the myth that Germany is bailing out Ireland to the reality that Ireland is bailing out German banks.

There were also one or two questions raised regarding the constitutional powers of the President and other such matters, but I won’t get into them here.

Well, I was hoping to have more to talk to you about regarding this debate, but with two candidates showing up only so much can be said. I will, however, be posting an article or two before the election on the 27 October. If you’re interested, then I hope that you’ll read them.

Áras an Uachtaráin ~ Presidential Residency

Here in Ireland there will be a Presidential election on the 27 October. The campaign has been building up for the last few weeks and with seven candidates it should prove to be an interesting affair. On the same day there will also be two referendums, one to do with how judges are paid, the other to do with the investigatory powers of the Dàil (Lower House of the Parliament). I’m writing about this today because I will be attending a Presidential debate, which is to take place at my college on 20 October, and I intend this article to be a primer for another which will be about the debate.

Firstly, I’ll briefly explain how the Presidency in Ireland works and how a President is elected. The Presidency of Ireland is a mostly ceremonial role, not unlike that of the Queen in the UK. However, the President does have some discretionary powers. The President can refuse to dissolve Dàil and prevent a general election, if they wish. The President can refer government legislation to the people if petitioned to do so by either a third of the Dàil or a majority of the Seanad (Senate; the Upper House of the Parliament). There are a few other powers, but they are of little significance compared to these two. Basically, the President is the country’s greeter-in-chief.

To be elected, candidates must be first nominated by twenty members of the Oireachtas (Parliament), 4 city or county councils, or themselves in the case of former Presidents. A person may serve two terms as President, each of which lasts seven years. Candidates are elected under an AV voting system and are, as of this year, are only allowed to spend €750,000 on their campaigns. However, if there is only one candidate, they are deemed to have been elected by default.

Secondly, I’ll briefly go through the two referendums which are to be held. The proposed twenty-ninth Amendment to the constitution would remove a constitutional ban on the lowering of judicial salaries. The proposed thirtieth Amendment would grant the power of subpoena to Oireachtas committees. Personally, I’m voting no on the former, despite populist opinion, and yes on the later.

And now, the Candidates:

Irish Presidential Candidates

David Norris: A long-term senator and civil rights campaigner. If elected, he would be Ireland’s first gay President. An Independent candidate. (Top-right)

Mary Davis: Organiser of the 2003 Special Olympics World Summer Games in Ireland and a disability rights campaigner. If elected, she would be the third President in a row to be named Mary. An Independent candidate. (Bottom-left)

Sean Gallagher: A businessman and a former member of the Fianna Fáil National Executive. Best known for being a panellist on the Dragon’s Den. An Independent candidate. (Bottom-Centre)

Martin McGuinness: Current Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. If elected, he would be the first former member of the IRA to be elected in over 40 years. Best known either for being a former member of the IRA during the 1970s or for being a rather avid peacemaker nowadays. Opinions are, as always, divided. Sinn Féin candaidate. (Top-Second from right)

Gay Mitchell: Former MEP (Member of the European Parliament) and former TD (MP). Best known for… Well, I’d forgotten he existed. Fine Gael candidate. (Top-Left)

Michael D. Higgins: Former TD and current President of the Irish Labour Party. A well-respected figure in Irish politics, despite being constantly referred to as some kind of elf. Labour candidate. (Top-Second from left)

Dana Rosemary Scallon: Former MEP and 1970 Eurovision Song Contest winner. She has released over thirty albums, none of which I have listened to. (Bottom-Right)

A little detour:

This video kinda sums up current feeling towards Dana, despite it being over 15 years old.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEyoECdveM

At the moment I am unsure of who I’ll be voting for, but I definitely know who I won’t be voting for. These are the candidate who I won’t be voting for and some brief reasons why.

Sean Gallagher: He hasn’t really made an impression on me. I’m not sure why he’s running really.

Martin McGuinness: To put it mildly, I don’t trust him with even a ceremonial position.

Gay Mitchell: Who?

Dana Rosemary Scallon: She’s your stereotypical conservative Christian, right down to the holier-than-thou attitude.

Since I’ve excluded the above, this leaves me with three candidates to choose from. It is those who I’ll be focusing on when I attend the debate. I hope to be back soon with more information.

“See, it’s the highest honor they can give you. It means you belong to a family and crew. It means that nobody can fuck around with you. It also means you could fuck around with anybody just as long as they aren’t also a member. It’s like a license to steal. It’s a license to do anything.”

Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) in “Goodfellas”

Many Americans have thought, “What Fox News does should be illegal,” but the recent revelations in the UK about the Murdoch Family seem to unequivocally prove that it’s parent company, News Corp International, is in fact a criminal operation. Does the thug fall far from the “family” tree? Murdoch may not even admit the existence of a News Corp Mafia, he may explain to those he “puts a hit” on, “It’s nuthin’ personal, it’s just business,” but to any citizen of any nation that wishes to preserve their democracy, it’s pretty damn personal.

The fingers of the Murdoch Family reach directly into government and those in power, into 10 Downing Street and under Bush, into the White House. In the UK, they were considered both by themselves and their critics, kingmakers who dare not be crossed if one seeks to win political office. In the US, they were involved in decisions made by the Bush Administration such as going to war in Iraq and they even played a key role in declaring Bush President over Gore despite final election results not being determined (and eventually showing Gore won).

Add to that their attempt this cycle to play kingmaker/queenmaker by having under contract and promoting nearly all of the potential 2012 GOP candidates for the presidency they could envision (Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum). It was their blatant goal to have influence and control over the 2012 Presidential election and hopefully its President…you know, just like most “news” organizations attempt.

From all that’s been exposed in the UK, News Corp International appears to be a de facto criminal operation. According to reports, they conceived of, ran and financed an ongoing series of crimes to gain profit and power, just like all organized crime groups. They appear to have hired and paid criminals to perform crimes on their behalf, acting as gangsters with known criminals on their payroll. It appears that they either bought off Scotland Yard policeman to look the other way or used their criminal operation to spy on them and extort them to do so. They even succeeded in getting the original Scotland Yard investigation into their criminal phone hacking operation to be dropped, likely by using their powers of bribery or intimidation.

In the UK, politicians, police and other media entities feared the News Corp Gang and still do. It is represented as unusual and brave for politicians in the UK, even after all of this is known, to speak out against them. Yes, the tide seems to be turning but what is daunting is to consider how long their oppressive grip on UK government and society has gone on and how hard Murdoch and his crew are working to keep their “territory”.

Though at this time, there is no evidence that Fox News or other parts of Murdoch’s empire in the US participated in this criminal operation, News Corp still looks to have broken US law. Under American law, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) makes it a crime for American companies to offer corrupt payments to foreign government officials. Rupert’s son James who oversaw the UK Murdoch Crime Gang, may be in the crosshairs and even Rupert could have reason to be concerned.

If all of this happened in the US, one would expect RICO (The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) laws to be vigorously pursued, just as they’ve been used against others who have run criminal organizations. On one hand, it would be horrible to discover that such crimes were being perpetrated by The Murdoch Family in the US though on the other hand, it would not be surprising and it could cleanse our democracy and media to shut down criminals exploiting our freedom of the press to corrupt both.

What is indisputable from reports so far, is that News Corp International conducted a criminal operation in the UK with full knowledge and participation of its executives and under Rupert Murdoch’s oversight. Should Americans have a reason to expect anything other from The Murdoch Mafia’s other “family” set up in this country?

Each day, more explosive revelations come out of the UK about the criminal enterprise called News Corp International. To cap this article, especially for those who haven’t been following this as closely, here’s a bit of background about some of what’s come out so far including news that just came out today:

The hacking case broadened with revelations that the tabloid’s operatives are also suspected of hacking into the phones of victims of the July 7, 2005 terrorist attacks on London’s transit system that killed 52 people.

A phone-hacking scandal engulfing Rupert Murdoch’s media empire grew today with claims that Britain’s top-selling tabloid may have listened to the voicemail of relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

From the reporting of Robert Mackey at The New York Times:

Sally and Bob Dowler’s 13-year-old daughter, Milly, was abducted and killed in 2002. The revelation that Milly’s voice mail was hacked into and tampered with by The News of the World during the frantic search for her that year sparked widespread revulsion last week.

Sally Dowler recalled that, during the search, she had been given hope that her daughter was still alive when she discovered that voice mails had been deleted from her account. It later transpired that News of the World operatives had deleted the messages to free up space for more voice mail to be left, to provide the newspaper with more information for stories on the girl.

In a long interview with BBC News on Tuesday, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown was asked how he reacted, as a father, when Rebekah Brooks, who was at the time the editor of the News International tabloid The Sun, called to tell him that her paper had discovered that his infant son, Fraser, had cystic fibrosis, and planned to publish the information.

Mr. Brown said that he was “in tears – your son is now going to be broadcast across the media, Sarah and I were incredibly upset about it, we’re thinking about his long-term future, we’re thinking about our family. But there’s nothing you can do about it, you’re in public life and this story appears. You don’t know how it’s appeared, I’ve not questioned how it appeared, I’ve not made any allegations about how it appeared, I’ve not made any claims about how it appeared, but the fact is, it did appear, and it did appear in The Sun newspaper.”

Mr. Brown attacked News International, the British newspaper division of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, for hiring “known criminals” to spy on him and other targets:

“I’m shocked, I’m genuinely shocked to find that this happened because of their links with criminals, known criminals who were undertaking this activity, hired by investigators who were working with the Sunday Times. And I just can’t understand this: if I, with all the protection and all the defenses and all the security that a chancellor of the exchequer or a prime minister has, is so vulnerable to unscrupulous tactics, unlawful tactics, to methods that have been used in the way that we’ve found – what about the ordinary citizen? “

In a prior appearance by Ms. Brooks before the committee in 2003, during which she said: “We have paid the police for information in the past.”

The man sitting next to Ms. Brooks during that appearance in 2003 was her former deputy at The News of the World, Andy Coulson, who resigned in January as Prime Minister David Cameron’s media adviser and was arrested last week in connection with a new investigation into bribery.

After Ms. Brooks hesitated and said, “It depends,” during that appearance, Mr. Coulson interrupted her and told the committee: “We operate within the code and within the law and if there is a clear public interest then we will. The same holds for private detectives, subterfuge….”

Last week, Tom Watson, a member of Parliament, claimed that investigators working for The News of the World when it was edited by Rebekah Brooks, who is now the chief executive of News International, had interfered with a police officer’s investigation of a murder to protect a private investigator who worked for the tabloid.

Sue Akers, the deputy assistant commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police who is leading the new investigation of the phone hacking scandal, told a parliamentary committee on Tuesday that only about 170 of about 4,000 suspected victims of phone hacking have been alerted so far.

John Yates, acting deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (a/k/a Scotland Yard), telling a parliamentary committee on Tuesday that he is “99 percent certain” that his own phone was hacked in 2005 and 2006.

Two former journalists for The News of the World – the newspaper at the epicenter of the scandal, which the Murdoch family closed last weekend – said police officers had been bribed to use restricted cellphone-tracking technology to pinpoint the location of people sought by the papers in their pursuit of scoops.”

Scotland Yard also had a symbiotic relationship with News of the World. The police sometimes built high-profile cases out of the paper’s exclusives, and News of the World reciprocated with fawning stories of arrests.Within days of the raids, several senior detectives said they began feeling internal pressure. One senior investigator said he was approached by Chris Webb, from the department’s press office, who was “waving his arms up in the air, saying, ‘Wait a minute – let’s talk about this.’ ” The investigator, who has since left Scotland Yard, added that Webb stressed the department’s “long-term relationship with News International.”

That fall, Andy Hayman, the head of the counterterrorism branch, was in his office when a senior investigator brought him 8 to 10 pages of a single-spaced “target list” of names and mobile phone numbers taken from Mulcaire’s home. It read like a British society directory. Scotland Yard officials consulted with the Crown Prosecution Service on how broadly to investigate. But the officials didn’t discuss certain evidence with senior prosecutors, including the notes suggesting the involvement of other reporters, according to a senior prosecutor on the case.

Mr. Hayman, who was Mr. Clarke’s superior, joined News International, as a columnist for The Times of London, after his retirement from the police force. In 2009, after The Guardian first reported that the scale of the hacking had been far greater than initially revealed by the police, Mr. Hayman asserted in a Times column that the initial inquiry was not a “half-hearted investigation – we put our best detectives on the case and left no stone unturned as officials breathed down our neck.”

He also wrote:

“The Guardian has said it understands that the police file shows that between 2,000 and 3,000 individuals had their mobile phones hacked into, far more than was ever officially admitted during the investigation and prosecution of Clive Goodman.”

The Mirror reported:

A former New York cop made the 9/11 hacking claim. He alleged he was contacted by News of the World journalists who said they would pay him to retrieve the private phone records of the dead.

Now working as a private ­investigator, the ex-officer claimed reporters wanted the victim’s phone numbers and details of the calls they had made and received in the days leading up to the atrocity.

A source said: “This investigator is used by a lot of journalists in America and he recently told me that he was asked to hack into the 9/11 victims’ private phone data. He said that the journalists asked him to access records showing the calls that had been made to and from the mobile phones belonging to the victims and their ­relatives.

“His presumption was that they wanted the information so they could hack into the ­relevant voicemails, just like it has been shown they have done in the UK. The PI said he had to turn the job down. He knew how insensitive such research would be, and how bad it would look.

Welcome to Middle East Update. Enjoy a cup of tea, proper Turkish coffee, or shisha pipe while you’re here. Think of this as a café to discuss the latest goings on in the Arab Uprisings and beyond. We don’t have backgammon here, but there is occasional trivia.

The only rule is that I generally limit the topics to the Middle East and North Africa.

Basic reference material, such as maps and such can be added later here upon request, to assist familiarizing and helping you follow events.

Additional information may also be found in past articles by me:

• Arab Uprisings: Still Writing History
• Mubarak: Half sunk, a shattered visage lies
• From the Embers, Jasmine