Center for Reproductive Rights: In May, the U.N. Committee against Torture reviewed the Republic of Ireland’s initial periodic report. The Committee’s concluding observations reiterated the European Court for Human Rights’ concerns expressed in its judgment in the case of A, B, and C v. Ireland , to which the Center for Reproductive Rights, and their partner, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief.
- Posted: 09/20/2011
- |
- Category: Global: Sanctity of Life
- |
- Source: reproductiverights.org
- Tags: Country: Ireland, Global: Sanctity of Life, Group: Center for Reproductive Rights, Topic: Abortion, Topic: United Nations, ZZ: A B and C v Ireland
Christian Science Monitor: “People’s retirement savings are a convenient source of revenue for governments that don’t want to reduce spending or make privatizations. As most pension schemes in Europe are organised by the state, European ministers of finance have a facilitated access to the savings accumulated there, and it is only logical that they try to get a hold of this money for their own ends. In recent weeks I have noted five such attempts: Three situations concern private personal savings; two others refer to national funds.”
- Posted: 01/04/2011
- |
- Category: Global: Miscellaneous
- |
- Source: www.csmonitor.com
- Tags: Category: Global, Country: Bulgaria, Country: France, Country: Hungary, Country: Ireland, Country: Poland, Global: Miscellaneous, Topic: Economics, Topic: Economy
Baptist Press: “[Roger Kiska], legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) in Europe, said in a written release, ‘[I]t’s regrettable that Ireland lost on the third count despite such a lack of judicial record, physician consultation, or recourse to Irish courts.’”
- Posted: 12/22/2010
- |
- Category: Uncategorized
- |
- Source: www.bpnews.net
- Tags: ADF: Media Clips, ADF: Roger Kiska, Category: Global, Country: European Union, Country: Ireland, Court: European Court of Human Rights, Global: Sanctity of Life, Topic: Abortion, ZZ: A B and C v Ireland
Maebh Harding, The Right to Marry in Irish Law: Three Different High Court Approaches (September 7, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1729237
“Article 41.1.1 of the Irish Constitution gives constitutional protection to the institution of marriage in Irish law. In recent Irish High Court decisions this constitutional protection of the institution of marriage has been used to deny the right to marry to same sex couples and transsexual individuals. This paper will explore the interaction between the right to marry in Irish law and the constitutional protection of the institution of marriage. Three contemporaneous Irish High Court judgments will be examined to show the lack of consensus on the ambit of the right to marry and the force of Irish constitutional protection of the institution of marriage – O’Shea v. Ireland, Foy v. An t-Ard Chlaraitheoir (No.2) and Zappone v .Revenue Commissioners.
The paper will draw parallels between the Irish discourse and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in cases such as Goodwin and Wena & Anita Parry v. UK to examine whether the goal of protecting a traditional definition of marriage is a valid justification for restricting the right to marry.”
- Posted: 12/22/2010
- |
- Category: Global: Marriage and Family
- |
- Source: ssrn.com
- Tags: Country: Ireland, Global: Marriage and Family, Topic: Homosexual Agenda, Topic: Legal Periodicals, Topic: Marriage
|
Latest Posts
-
hosted.ap.org
02/09/2012
News from The Associated Press: The Virginia state Senate passed legislation Thursday allowing private adoption agencies to deny placements that conflict with their religious or moral beliefs, including opposition to homosexuality.
-
www.lifenews.com
02/09/2012
LifeNews.com: The liberal women on The View, Wednesday, shrieked at the “totalitarian” decision by a Texas judge to uphold a law requiring women to look at an ultrasound before having an abortion.
-
balkin.blogspot.com
02/09/2012
Jason Mazzone at Balkinization: By finding Proposition 8 to violate the Equal Protection Clause solely on the ground that it withdrew the right of marriage that gays and lesbians previously possessed in California (as a result the earlier state supreme court’s decision), Perry v. Brown produces a curious result. It appears to leave Proposition 8 partially intact.

|