Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE IRISH ASYLUM system has come under sustained criticism in the past twelve months. Since December 2012, the legality of the way in which asylum and subsidiary protection applications are determined in Ireland has been undermined by the Irish High Court in the MM case which found that the Irish system did not meet the requirements of EU law.
The way in which Ireland treats its asylum-seeking community has drawn high-profile criticism from the former Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly, who had significant concerns about the direct provision system. Direct provision is the system by which the State provides accommodation and board to asylum seekers while they await the determination of their cases in the State. Minister Alan Shatter was himself a vocal opponent of the system while he was in opposition.
On an international level, the High Court of Northern Ireland recently granted an order to a Sudanese family of asylum seekers residing in Belfast, preventing their removal from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.
The court found that the best interests of the children in the case would not be served by removing them to Ireland due to the deficiencies of the Irish direct provision system. The judgement quoted from two Irish Supreme Court judgements which included serious reservations about the humanity of the system. The Irish High Court has granted leave to three families to challenge the system of direct provision in Ireland. The case is likely to be dealt with next year.
Against this backdrop of uncertainty and criticism, the Department of Justice suspended the processing of subsidiary protection applications until such time as revised procedures in compliance with EU requirements could be put in place. For hundreds of asylum seekers this meant that their lives came to a standstill for several months while changes were made to the Irish legislation.
NGOs and immigration practitioners viewed this as an opportunity for the Minister for Justice to finally introduce a ‘Single Procedure Mechanism’ which would allow for asylum seekers to have all their claims for protection heard concurrently, rather than engaging in a three-step structure whereby asylum seekers must wait for the determination of one application before being permitted to pursue the next application.
One very obvious fault with the three-step structure is that an asylum seeker who knows they do not fit the strict requirements of the legal definition of a refugee under Irish law but believes that they could well be considered a person eligible for subsidiary protection – a status with different legal requirements – could not apply for subsidiary protection until their application for refugee status was heard and refused – a process which could take months.
The single procedure mechanism has widespread approval from NGOs, private practitioners, human rights bodies and state officials and is the norm in all other EU States. The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010 proposed to reform the system by introducing the Single Procedure Mechanism, and State bodies such as the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner were prepared for the introduction of the Single Procedure Mechanism. The IRP Bill 2010 still has not been passed, and the Minister has indicated that a new bill will be introduced next year which is expected to contain the Single Procedure Mechanism.
In short, Irish institutions have been both expecting and gearing up for the Single Procedure Mechanism for the past several years. The MM case gave the Minister the ideal opportunity to introduce the Single Procedure Mechanism in advance of the Bill. This would have given the Minister the opportunity to separate out an already widely approved aspect of a mammoth piece of legislation and iron out any kinks before the introduction of the next IRP Bill.
On the 13th November the Minister published the statutory instrument which put in place interim procedures to comply with our obligations under EU law. To refer to the statutory instrument, in its current form, as a ‘missed opportunity’ is an understatement. The Minister for Justice has bypassed the opportunity to introduce a humane and expedient way of processing applications in favour of a new unwieldy system which will lead only to further delays.
The new statutory instrument keeps the three part structure but adds additional processes. To comply with the MM judgement, applicants for subsidiary protection will be given the opportunity to have an oral interview and a right of appeal afterwards, which we welcome. However they will continue to have to wait until their application for refugee status and any appeals arising from this are heard before it is possible to get to this stage.
The already deplorable delays in the system can only be exacerbated by this new regime. For those with no choice but to live in direct provision, the concessions the Minister has made by providing an oral hearing and a right of appeal will be cold comfort. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Fiona Hurley is the Legal Information and Capacity-Building Officer at Nasc.
We’re interested in your ideas and opinions – do you have a story you would like to see featured in Opinion & Insight? Email opinions@thejournal.ie
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Well where can we see them?z.?
Another f*ckin Father Ted headline/ruling!
We’re actually becoming more backward and more conservative as a country I swear to God!
#embarrassing
The model licked her finger? Well colour me shocked……..
It’s generally the “bigger boned” lady that complains about these things! Green eyed monsters!!
That’s not fair or accurate. The aesthetically challenged usually complain also.
Jebus wait till they see the Hunky Dory add with the man in the bath,Who seems to ejaculate a blow up toy, parodying the 90s flake add funny as…..sorry,I mean perverts objectifying men like, disgusting!
That advert is lovely .. very tasteful, very elegant, beautiful music & beautiful women … The jewellery on the other hand is horrible wouldn’t spend my money on it … Each to their taste i guess … But get over the advert prudes nothing wrong with it in my view !!
Its fine apart from the gratuitous boob shot and the fact that ladies look slightly off their face on something. But yeah, awful jewellery.
If this is the offending advertisement, it looks pretty tasteful to me:
http://www.newbridgesilverware.com/eshe/
What sort of prudes are we at all?
Where can I see them?! Anyone?!
There’s a thing called Google…
I found em in 3.6 seconds and I’d be slow…..I guess we can’t post the link here so find it yesrelf and stop expecting to be hand-fed.
Here ya go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_SGfpQ5TLM#t=89
I don’t get how the complaint says that its focused on sexualising the woman…you can clear see from the camera work and the direction that the focus was on the jewellery. No doubt that the ad features a very attractive model.
So pontius I take it you have searched for the video and found it within seconds or u just making assumptions?
Don’t Look at it if you don’t like it… simple. .. This isn’t Saudi Arabia
Religious police comes to mind.
Would they prefer the over fed tash wearing ladies showing off the new range of newbridge silver ‘Mum’ rings ?? #MoaningVagMonsters
I find the jewelry pretty awful personally. Draping it in a fine looking woman doesn’t make me think my woman will look like that whilst wearing it. I ain’t stupid – most men aren’t! I reckon this is aimed at women not men.
As for the ad itself – pretty harmless stuff.
I’ve signed up to “He for She” and I’m taking a stand now.
This jewellery ad objectifying women is offensive and I object.
I urge you too to man-up and demonstrate some sense moral outrage.
Evil prevails when good people remain silent.
Hear hear for Emma and her speech at the UN.
Sure. I appreciate your only objection is it’s boring. The advertiser is insulting men by suggesting we will be suckered in with such advertising… and by others making clever remarks they are inadvertently colluding with the advertisers method.
You mean “man-up”. Not sure if I’ve used that then in the right context.
I mean it as a “stand up for what you believe” and not make a sneer for the common cheer.
This advertisement is for jewellery. It’s not aimed at men. It’s aimed at women.
And I don’t believe in infantilising women and placing women’s rights above everyone else’s. maybe if it was an issue that affected women exclusively, I would, but it doesn’t.
HeforShe and campaigns like it are exactly why so many are falling out with modern feminism, why not OneforAll or something like that, why the focus on men “standing up”, and changing their behaviour to suit women, why not stress the importance of not abusing your partner to girls and what about the estimated 40-50% men who are also suffering from domestic violence. Do they have change as well, should they say sorry, and should we ignore them.
Anybody who is against or at least sceptical of modern feminism is so not out of hating women but out of hating sheer intellectual dishonesty and the blatant misconstruing of facts.
But anyway I better before I burst an ulcer.
Peace out people xx
Dead right Doey.
The most annoying folks I come across though are not the feminists. They’re the defenders of feminism who don’t know the first thing about it. They automatically identify when feminism because they see it as the liberal left-wing thing to do, but the have no idea what they are supporting. They’re easy to spot, all you have to do is start talking about things today’s mainstream feminists believe, like patriarchy and rape culture. The response you get is an accusation that you’re conflating extremists with all feminsts. It’s just a default response from those who aren’t big on thinking.
Anyone reading this who fits that description should spend a few minutes researching it. Here are 3 batshit crazy elements of modern mainstream feminism to get you started:
Patriarchy Theory
Rape Culture
Critical Theory
I think it’s quite obvious that the only thing advertisers are selling anymore is sex.
What a load of me arse. The jewellery is gaudy, and the video is so pretentious, I nearly vomited.
Can’t locate the video, but the photographs looks completely tarty. Clearly Newbridge are moving away from they’re more elegant and classy ads for sluty and distasteful. Well done
You’d think it was Saudi Arabia by the music in the ad!
The girl is better looking than the jewelery but her acting is terrible! She looks a bit sedated/ bored….and the lips…was she at the dentist before the shoot? I thought she was going to drool her drink….
have your say