|
Written by Louise Fitzgerald & James Kelly
|
‘Reality cheques’
The politics of hostage-taking and negotiation have always been fraught with difficulty. With each individual hostage situation comes new problems that have to be surmounted in attempts to ensure the safe release of victims. One of the key issues governments must face is whether or not to negotiate with hostage-takers. Governments of countries such as Britain and America adopt a firm stance refusing to make concessions of any sort. Although they are justified in not conceding to demands that are political in nature, such as the release of prisoners, in situations which are purely monetary, the principle of non-negotiation does far more harm than good.
The main justification used to defend their stance is the belief that payment of ransoms will encourage further hostage-takings. However this need not be the case. By following correct procedures and keeping the payment of ransoms secret which, given it is in the interest of both governments and hostage-takers alike, is a realistic endeavour, the safe release of hostages and the future safety of citizens can be ensured.
The reality is that, regardless of whether ransom payments are being made or not, hostage-taking will continue to occur. Although diplomacy should be considered paramount, once diplomatic avenues are exhausted governments must be prepared to consider the payment of ransoms and their point-blank refusal to do so has time and time again led to the prolonged suffering and tragic deaths of innocent citizens.
The plight of the British couple Paul and Rachel Chandler, who were taken hostage by Somali pirates over five months ago, is one such case. The refusal to pay the ransom has led to the Chandlers’ ordeal of being held for over 152 days in captivity in the Somalia desert and the violation of their fundamental rights to freedom, and resulted in both prolonged psychological and physical trauma. This must be considered an unacceptable injustice on the part of the British government, when they could so easily secure the release of the couple by the simple payment of a ransom.
Indeed the payment of ransoms has been proven as the most effective and successful method of ensuring the safe release of hostages. The prominent kidnap of five-year-old British citizen Sahil Saeed in Pakistan is most recent testament to this. The case of Sahil sparked international interest and speculation with false reports of his release, acquisitions of the involvement of his family in his kidnap and rumours regarding the payment of a ransom. However out of the speculation it emerged that the payment of a ransom of some £110,000 had led to the release of Sahil and the subsequent arrest in Spain of those involved in his kidnap. Fortunately in this case government principles were not allowed to be valued above the life of an innocent five-year-old.
Ultimately when deciding on whether ransoms should be paid, it comes down to how much a human life is worth. By refusing to pay ransoms, governments are quite literally gambling with human lives.
Louise Fitzgerald
‘Slippery slopes’
The recent Pakistani abduction of a British child, Sahil Saeed, by armed robbers from his grandmother’s home in Punjab has sparked worldwide interest. The abductors reportedly demanded £100,000 in ransom to be paid for the child’s safe return. The whole institution, if one could call it that, of ransom and kidnapping invite a very interesting debate. Should the ransom be paid? And if it should, who should pay it? This is not the first time this debate has surfaced and I am sure it won’t be the last but I have to argue that these ransoms should not be paid. It’s not a minority view, virtually all governments back the argument of not negotiating with abductors and they discourage third parties from doing so also.
The big picture needs to be looked at when discussing this issue. While it may seem cruel not to pay the ransom, by paying a precedent is set. For example, say an Irish citizen is abducted tomorrow and the ransom is a million euro, should the government pay? It’s a slippery slope because by agreeing to pay a ransom and deal with the abductors, a government is opening itself and its citizens to further danger. Suddenly every Irish citizen becomes a target because the Irish government has showed its willingness to pay ransoms, thus endangering a whole lot more people. So, while it may seem harsh by not paying the ransom you are taking a hardline approach to the abductors and showing them that the government is not willing to negotiate with what is essentially a form of terrorism. By not paying, potentially hundreds of lives and millions of euro could be saved.
In monetary terms, if the ransom were paid, the money would only go back into abductions or other unsavoury things, like international human trafficking or the drug trade. By paying a ransom, the government or third party are in some way endorsing what these abductors do and serving to further their cause. Another monetary issue is whether governments could actually afford the ransoms in the long run. If the initial ransoms are paid, it would only fuel abductors to ask for more and more money as abductions intensified. Ireland, for example, is probably in enough debt as it is and not to drag up the “economic downturn” line, but truly it would be prohibitively expensive to pay what would eventually end up as a series of ransoms.
From the point of view of the government, several political reasons exist for not paying ransoms. Central to this is that if a government initially pays ransoms but decides to stop when a limit is reached, there would be a severe backlash from the public. The government would be vilified for paying and then again when they decide to stop paying ransoms. Questions would begin to be asked about government actions, thus undermining government power.
The argument most people put forward in favour of paying ransoms is usually that if they were held hostage, they would want the government to do something. Sadly, this is not feasible. While people may hate to hear it, the bigger picture – the safety of all a country’s citizens must be taken into account and paying a ransom would cause many more problems in the long term than what it would solve.
James Kelly |
|
Written by Sorcha Pollack
|
|
Going to university is seen as the opportunity to broaden your mind, educate yourself on the works of Nietzsche, Rousseau and Marx. Before arriving in college you are vaguely aware of the wild social life that students lead, yet as a teenager you tend to link that with going out to clubs every night. I, for one, never imagined the wide-ranging pool of societies and activities which awaited me as I walked through Front Arch for the first time a few years back. Societies are what make a university tick. They’re where you meet the friends you’ll never lose contact with. They’re the places where you can finally act like the complete weirdo that you are, and no one will judge you for it. They are what make your four years in Trinity College. I wonder, though, how many students are fully aware of the amount of work that goes into the running of a society, and the number of societies which exist on campus? The CSC is the place for the answers to these questions.
Until this year, the Central Societies Committee was, for me, a group of people I heard of now and again in passing. It has only been in recent months that I’ve come to understand what their work on campus entails and more importantly how it affects the societies we all treasure so dearly. The main event of the academic year for the CSC is the awards season. Unfortunately I am not talking about the Oscars, Césars or Baftas, but the CSC do put together a pretty good show when it comes to rewarding the hard work of Trinity’s societies. I discovered this last week when I got the opportunity to tag along and see what happens on the night when everyone gives everyone else a pat on the back.
It was a revelation for me to sit in the packed Hilton Hotel dining room and look around at all the different people filing in for the awards. Of course, in black-tie they all looked slightly smarter than their usual bedraggled student selves, yet I was surprised to see many familiar faces of people I didn’t know were involved in society activities. It is easy to forget the huge amount of energy and labour which is necessary to hold a society together. With over one-hundred societies on campus I don’t know why I was surprised by the number of people attending the awards. Everyone was there; that girl who sits across from you in the library, that guy who always seems to be hanging around outside having a smoke, even that girl you met during your own Freshers’ Week and hadn’t seen since. With groups ranging from the Joly Geological Society to the Comedy Society, the mix of people was fantastic. It really was a true insight into the eclectic mix of people who make Trinity the great university that it is.
It made sense to start the night off with the awards, before the food or drink arrived. I can see this now in hindsight, looking back on the dancing queens who graced the dance floor with their moves the moment the DJ kicked off. Somehow I don’t think those shaking hips would have been hugely appreciated during the awards ceremony. And so the evening kicked off with the prize-giving. The Visual Arts Society jumped up first to grab the Best Small Society award, soon followed by the Photographic Society for Best Medium Society. However, it was the prize for Best Large Society which grabbed my attention the most.
I won’t deny that during my first two years in Trinity I was very active in this society, therefore some may feel that my view of this group of people is somewhat biased. Yet I like to think, having spent the last two years slightly more distanced from them, that I can objectively assess the work they do. This year DU Players has been very successful at becoming a more accessible, interesting, fun and diverse society. From an impressive Freshers’ Week calendar to nights with recognised faces such as Bill Nighy and Stephen Berkoff, I’m not surprised that Players scooped up this award. A lot of the credit must go to the chairperson of this society. Ross Dungan, who, quite unsurprisingly may I add, won Best Individual this year in addition to being chairperson of the Best Large Society. Although many of us may question whether his degree has survived this year, Ross has succeeded in turning DU Players back into one of the best societies on campus. All societies have their up and down years, and it seemed that recently Players had begun to fall a bit off the radar when it came to recognition from the CSC. But this year, under the chair of Dungan, they have jumped back into the spotlight.
One of the more entertaining moments of the night was when the winner of Best Fresher was announced. I think that most people will agree when I say that seeing that chair of Singers, Robbie Blake, bounding up with excitement and enthusiasm to collect this award was slightly bemusing. Hold on, isn’t Robbie Blake in second-year and wasn’t the winner of the prize called Cian McCarthy? It seems this problem was rectified later in the night, or so I am led to believe from the photo which is posted on the CSC website.
The main moment came after we had been fed and watered, when Best Overall Society was announced. Through the screams and shouts of congratulations, I was happy to hear that the winner was the St. Vincent de Paul Society. The members of committee were full of smiles as they were presented with their award to the sounds of a standing ovation from the audience. A short but sweet speech from Seán Flynn, the chair of the society, brought the prize-giving to a slightly noisy and excited end.
And so my first and unfortunately final experience of the CSC ball came to a close with some hardcore breaking it down on the dancefloor. Having written this column on various society events over this year, it was a great experience to find myself immersed amongst all the creative groups and clubs of our university. And of course, many thanks to the CSC for a wonderful night. As for the societies, keep up the good work. You’re made the past four years some of the most memorable of my life. |
|
|
Written by Orla Donnelly
|
|
Her name was Robin; she was five years old when she fell off the moon walk – a half moon climbing frame, a thrilling favourite in the school’s yard. Her leg was in a cast for six weeks. The school had to remove the playground – it is fair to say that I have never gotten over the emotional trauma of seeing the caretaker hack that wondrous see-saw to pieces. But the most painful thing to swallow; Robin wasn’t even supposed to have gone on the moon walk – she broke the rules in the first place. But even rulebreakers and trespassers have recourse under Irish law.
If you accumulated the monies paid out in 2008 by the Government, companies and private individuals to compensate claims for personal injuries, you could buy every player in Manchester United, every pair of shoes ever designed by Monolo Blahnik, twice, or some other item that costs in the region of €280 million.
When did a sincere “sorry” become insufficient? I am not referring to the true cases of injury; those described by the PIAB’s Book of Quantum as significantly ongoing injuries or serious and permanent conditions. I understand that loss of a substantial nature should be relieved in so far as possible, although in many cases of real suffering money is of little more assistance than a bandage to a corpse.
But the “trivial” claims, those regarding substantially recovered injuries, are brought more and more frequently – and not for the primary motive of ensuring no one else suffers the same fate. I myself considered taking legal action in an effort to redeem my own pain and suffering as I watched the third consecutive Tangle Twister fall from the stick to its doom outside the shop. Instead I settled for a letter begging HB to position the sticks through the centre of that strawberry, frozen-iced goodness. They gave me a free ice cream but more importantly a promise to try their best in the future. However to most claimants such a promise would be insufficient; those of the likes of Mr. McWilliams, who is claiming for approximately the 10th time (his memory it seems is as flawed as the coordination of his feet). They seek damages.
The notion of damages in Tort is as a means to put the injured party in the position they would have been in, had the incident never occurred; encompassing the reimbursement of medical expenses, loss of income (past, present and future), and the relief of pain and suffering. This last aspect can be abused; damages are becoming disproportionate, and more frequently a method to fund the family trip to Mallorca.
Frightened about the prospect of unemployment, terrified that your degree won’t be worth the paper it’s written on? Ireland today has the answer; earn a livelihood from clumsiness and fall over. The Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB), or Personal Injuries Board as it’s now known, will be happy to inform you what your leg, kidney or nose is worth in one simple click of the mouse.
We are bargain hunters by nature, but do these people claiming for an Ouchy or Boo-boo ever consider the real cost of their claims?
Obviously if you claim against a private individual the face of the person whose money you are taking will be abundantly clear, but what of the companies who are inundated by personal injury claims? Insurance premiums for the respondent company will inevitably rise, all because you didn’t notice that piece of paper on their floor and twisted your ankle. Against a large company that might not be viewed as the little man sticking it to the big bad corporation, they have more than enough money to go around. But smaller industries who are already struggling could go under as a result of such claims. Plaintiffs do not measure the effect their actions may have on the livelihoods of employees; is a broken finger worth some mother’s son’s job?
Many of these “substantially recovered” personal injuries claims are directed against the local authorities, aka the government, its servants or agents. Subsequently if you do get compensation along with that money I propose you then lose your right to complain that they are misappropriating funds!
Then there is the added cost to the public at large of making such a claim that is overlooked as claimants fill in the online form. Money makes its familiar migration from the taxpayers’ pockets to fund the running of the Courts and the Injuries Board, money that could undoubtedly be better spent.
Frivolous claims irrespective of whether it is a faceless corporation or the man over the back wall equates to court enabled robbery and it is shameful.
But I fear I may be alone in this thought as litigation fever infests deeper in our society. In Ireland today is it any wonder that more and more schools have banned running in their playgrounds? However if the “say sorry, shake hands and we’re all friends again” technique is responded to by the less blameless infant with a cry of “NEGLIGLENCE”, precautions must be taken.
Robin’s parents didn’t think about the rest of us; their child broke the rules and they profited. When other parents are teaching that forgiveness is key and accidents happen, perhaps they were of the now widely held school of thought in our pro-litigation society. A school that teaches:
“That Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall,/ and Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, /Tragically all the kings’ horses and all the kings’ men /Couldn’t put Humpty together again. But thankfully dear Humpty was blameless and now he owns half of the kingdom!” |
|
Written by Eamonn Hynes
|
|
The angry mob that has sprung up in response to Church paedophila needs to calm down, according to Eamonn Hynes.
There’s nothing like a good paedophile story to drum up the outraged, liberal-media-reading masses; most of whom have never experienced the horrors of child abuse, nor are they charged with cleaning up the mess left behind by a bunch of sick perverts. Cribbing and moaning from the sidelines and making snipes at the Catholic Church are the tactics of a coward and symptoms of their ignorance. It is in an air of calm that I write this piece in support of the Irish Catholic Church and in support of the Irish clergy in their mission to cleanse the institution and continue on the path of repentance, healing and renewal.
First off, we should calm down. Is one really that interested in the kind of slippery implication that one reads about in the holier-than-thou Irish media who bandy about terms such as “misprision of felony” and the 1937 Offences Against the State Act like bullies in a school yard. The fact is that in order for a person to be guilty of a crime (such as this Section 17 of the Offences Against the State Act that we hear about so often), proof of fault, culpability or blameworthiness in both behaviour and mind is required. Some of the stuff I’ve read in recent weeks would lead you to believe that Pope Benedict is the anti-Christ and Cardinal Brady one of his evil minions. But getting back to the issue that caused shock-waves of outrage across the nation, I say this: The then-Fr. Sean Brady never at any stage consciously acted to further harm an abuse victim with an accompanying level of mens rea. Yes, Fr. Brady was a man in a position of responsibility, but I do not believe for one moment that he purposely acted to expose more children to the care of a sex pervert. Brendan Smyth went on to abuse children after Fr. Sean Brady interviewed him, wrote his report and sent it on to his Bishop, but to say that this is because of an act or an act of omission on the part of Cardinal Sean Brady 35 years later is a farce. We’d better start building prisons, because if we’re going to hold leaders of all institutions to those kinds of standards, we need to round ‘em all up, drag ‘em all before the judiciary (themselves of course squeaky clean in matters pertaining to child abuse and child pornography) and imprison them in a dungeon. There are plenty of company directors in the construction sector who have seen people killed under their watch: a tragedy that cannot be undone. Any right-minded Christian will acknowledge that the death or serious injury of a worker is a tragedy and that seeking vengeance against those higher up the hierarchy is futile and counter-productive in the process of grieving and recovering from life’s setbacks. There’s a big difference between the justice demanded by the angry mob and the type that civilised society dispenses. We must also remember that there are different standards of accountability in society, in that those who work 40 hours per week can engage in their little perversions outside office hours, unlike priests who are on duty 24 hours a day and cannot be “sacked” no matter how grave their crimes.
The Church is an earthly institution run by humans with human failings and human temptations. It has been this way since the time of the Apostles. There have been terrible Popes in its 2,000-year history, not to mention lots of scandal. But that is not the real story of the Church: the Church is the largest charitable organisation in the world, has been responsible for the conversion of hundreds of millions in Africa, is the bedrock of the great European cultures, motivates and inspires over a billion people all over the globe to follow in the footsteps of Christ, has played a central role in the peace process of Northern Ireland and provides a moral blueprint for life in the family and life in the community. Modern capitalism, the culture of consumerism and globalised business do not take human factors into account when deciding how to maximise their profit margins – a nation full of dumbed-down, individualistic, intoxicated consumer types who live on top of one another in apartment blocks and are continually in debt is their goal: not happiness, family life and divine sustenance. Bourgeois society with all its pretensions of decency and morality is hypocritical when it comes to the matter of child abuse. So what’s all this got to do with perverted priests? Well, be very careful what you wish for: if one wishes for the ruin of the Church, what will it be replaced with? The model for society that we currently have, complete with public drunkenness, violent crime, teenage pregnancies, widespread sexual perversion, abortion, drug-taking, murder, rape and the birth of a social underclass who will never work a day in their lives? What those who knock the Church know full well and artfully suppress, is that any system that operates on such a scale will occasionally make mistakes, even bad ones, since all human institutions are manned by people with human weakness. We must strive for perfection, minimise mistakes and when mistakes do occur, they must be rectified. The bien-pensant Church-bashers fear their censure and crave approbation: they are quick to point the finger and not in the habit of examining themselves. They don’t have the mechanisms of accountability that currently exist in the Church, having been instigated several years ago from the highest levels of the clergy. The fact is that young childing are safer in the hands of the Church than any other organisation in the country as no other organisation has such a rigorous vetting scheme and child protection procedures.
The Pope’s letter to the Catholic people in Ireland which was read out in every Church across the land last Sunday gives us much to think about and highlights the current challenges and future work that needs to be done. While some will never be happy no matter what the Pope writes (ultimately, even if they had his head on a plate, they would not be satisfied), the opus Dei must go on. It is not often that a Pontiff addresses the island of Ireland in such a direct manner. Having one of the world’s greatest intellectuals write over 4,000 of the most humble and apologetic of words on this particular issue demonstrates just how serious this matter is in the minds of the most senior clergy in Rome. I don’t expect this post-Celtic Tiger society of ours to embrace the words of the Pope quite just yet: there are still a lot of closed hearts to be healed, but I do expect that at some point in the future, we will look back and see the direct intervention and solemn apology from Pope Benedict as a major milestone in the purification of the Irish Church.
Cardinal Brady’s moving St. Patrick’s Day homily made several references to his own failings, the plight of abuse victims and the Church’s duty to them. He equated the challenges currently facing Irish Catholicism with those faced by St. Patrick when he managed to lead a nation of pagans to the way of Christ. Brady openly acknowledged that he is a sinner, just like St. Peter who, when asked by God to become a fisher of men, replied: “Leave me Lord, I am a sinful man.” Cardinal Brady took office in 2007 and his primary duty since then has been in tackling the child abuse issue head-on in the spirit of Christ. This is no easy feat. The 71-year-old has taken on this task, probably the most challenging of his life, with a level of fortitude that most men half his age would balk at. He has managed to achieve all this in the most sensitive, soft-handed manner in which the recompense of abuse victims is central and the Gospel is his guiding light.
That said, his journey has not ended and there is much still to be done. This sinner wishes for Cardinal Brady to remain steadfast through these difficult times and expects that he will bring repentance and healing to the Catholic Church. |
|
