The Eagle: Trinity Law Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1

Eduard Vlad Vlas talks about Romania’s 2017 graft debacle INSIDE THIS ISSUE Career in the Bar: Ciarán Toland SC speaks to Aisling Marren and Orla Murnaghan about the bar, the EU and Brexit A Semester in Atlanta, Georgia: Caoimhe Daly shares her Erasmus stories from Emory University Social Section: Nadine Fitzpatrick brings us up to date with all of the events that took place this semester The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1 · 1

Foreword With each passing year we endeavour to improve upon our publication, making it bigger and better.

Now, in its fourth year, it can be difficult to decide what more can be improved on. At the beginning of the semester, we decided to focus on two things, creating a website and reaching out to alumni. I am glad to report that we have been successful in both of these endeavours.

First, we have managed to launch our own website, regularly updating it with current content. Suzanne Flynn, our P.R.O., has been instrumental in this, as well as everyone else who has contributed to it. It is our hope that it will continue growing throughout the years. Regarding our second goal, The Eagle will be sent in the alumni newsletter. We believe that the sense of community cultivated in Trinity and in our Law School is something that does not end when we complete our degrees. To date, the robust social section has illustrated that not only are we a community, but that there is something for everyone here.

Editor-in-Chief Nina Milosavljevic Deputy Editor Diarmuid O’hUallachain Editorial Board Eoin Hennessy Hristina Ignatova Beth Devlin Oisin McGrath Kate Lenihan Aisling Marren Mary Murphy Suzanne Flynn Avril Holton Jack Counihan Nadine Fitzpatrick Peter Kelly Orla Murnaghan Photographer Alexander Brüggener Designer Sulla Montes 2 · The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1

Of course none of this would be possible without support from the Law School, especially Dr. David Fennelly, Dr. Neville Cox and Dr. Oran Doyle. Also a huge thank you to our very kind sponsors, Philip Lee Solicitors, Arthur Cox and McCann Fitzgerald, without whom The Eagle would not be possible.

Without further ado, welcome to Volume 4 Issue 1 of The Eagle: Trinity Law Gazette!

NINA MILOSAVLJEVIC

Contents Romania: the 2017 graft debacle and since 03 Fake News, Clickbait and The Law of Defamation in Ireland 04 The EU’s Response to Catalonia: Why the Silence? 06 #IrishWeinstein: The Compensation Seeker’s Dream 08 Deus Ex Machina: Technocracy 10 Alumni Catch-Up: Mr. Ciarán Toland SC 12 Erasmus Update: Studying in Atlanta, Georgia 14 The Social Section 14

All the opinions expressed are that of the authors and not of The Eagle.

Romania: the 2017 graft debacle and since On January EDUARD VLAD VLAS JS LAW

On the 11th of December 2016, the Social Democratic Party (PSD), dogged by years of corruption scandals, received a 46% majority in the Romanian legislative election. Soon thereafter, PSD party member Sorin Grindeanu was designated as Prime Minister of Romania. Grindeanu was widely seen as a stand-in for party leader Liviu Dragnea who was ineligible for the post himself due to a voting-fraud conviction.

On January 4th 2017, Grindeanu assumed office and the 126th Government of Romania was formed.

Many commentators noted that much of the new cabinet consisted of politicians mired by corruption allegations. Among them, new Minister of Justice Florin Iordache. Just three years prior, Iordache was associated with ‘Black Tuesday’: the Social Liberal Union’s (USL) attempt to pass an amnesty law that would have released from prison, among others, politicians convicted of graft.

On his first day as Minister of Justice, Iordache commented that although amnesty laws were not supported during the electoral campaign, it would be favourable to discuss them in Parliament. Iordache’s comments were received with widespread hostility and were denounced by Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, who said he would vigorously oppose the enactment of such laws. Iohannis also drew attention to the new Government’s questionable composition.

Less than a week after the President’s criticisms, Iordache made a case to the European Union that Romania’s Mechanism for Cooperation and Verification (CVM) should be lifted. In response, European Commissioner Paraskevi Michou said this would not happen in 2017. Romania has been monitored under the CVM since it’s accession to the EU in 2007 with regard to judicial transparency, accountability, and governmental corruption.

17th, Florin Iordache spoke of Romania’s prison overcrowding problem (150% occupancy rate) and the methods by which it may be resolved. Iordache explicitly stated that a law on amnesty should not be considered but pardon should and added that the pardon would not benefit those in prison for corruption or violent offences. Considering his flirtation with the idea of an amnesty law in prior weeks, this stance was greeted with enthusiasm. The next day, Emergency Ordinance 13/2017 was published. The ordinance included the pardons that Iordache had advocated the previous day and a change to the Penal Code.

The pardons were uncontroversial and widely accepted. The Penal Code amendment was not. The change decriminalised graft in cases where the sum of money was less than 200,000 RON (approximately €44,000); it would also apply retrospectively and thus release dozens of corrupt politicians from prison.

Liviu Dragnea was on trial at the time Emergency Ordinance 13 was publicised; unsurprisingly, his trial would have been put to an end by the new law.

It is estimated that 4,000 protesters in Bucharest marched from University Square to Victory Square on the date Ordinance 13 was publicised.

On the 22nd of January, President Klaus Iohannis joined 30,000 protesters in Bucharest. The protests continued and on the 29th of January hit numbers not seen since 1989. Despite the clear dissatisfaction of its people and international condemnation, the Romanian government enacted Ordinance 13 on the 31st of January.

At this point, the EU found it necessary to warn Romania against backtracking on its promise to fight corruption. One commentator compared Romania’s boldness in resisting the EU’s desires to that of Poland, dubbing the Government ‘cocky leftists’.

‘In Romania we have a working rule of law and enough guarantees that a mechanism of cooperation and verification is not necessary.’

– Florin Iordache, 12.01.2017 The events of the subsequent three weeks resulted in the largest protests the country has seen since the 1989 Revolution.

The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1 · 3

The Romanian People responded by protesting for thirteen consecutive days between January 31st and February 12th. The protests continued even after Ordinance 13 was repealed on the 5th of February.

The same day, the largest protests in the country’s history took place: an estimated 500,000 – 600,000 people took to the streets nationwide. Their message was different now: ‘resign’ not ‘repeal’.

On February 9th, Florin Iordache resigned as Minister for Justice but remains an MP. Sorin Grindeanu refused to do the same but was ousted in a PSD no confidence vote in June; many members apparently unhappy he hadn’t done more to relax anti-corruption laws. Prior to Grindeanu’s ousting, the Romanian Parliament rejected a toned-down pardon bill that excluded provisions on corruption.

Since, severe steps have been taken to reduce the overcrowding of prisons. Law 169/2017 was enacted on October 19th and reduces sentences by 12 days for every 60 days spent in inappropriate conditions.

The first group of prisoners released totalled 529; thousands are expected to follow. As of November 13th, the figure stood at 650. This radical measure applies to all prisoners; previous proposals had excluded the corrupt and violent offenders. Some Romanians still think the new law is just another

route for PSD to release political allies from prison.

Others worry crime rates will rise as no mechanism for the reintegration of those released early exists.

Despite a turbulent year, there are many positive signs. Romania’s GDP has grown by 8.8%, the fastest rate in Europe, and unemployment is at 5.4%, lower than the EU average. Many put these improving economic conditions down to PSD’s policies: Since 2015, they have cut VAT from 24% to 19%, doubled the minimum wage, and increased public sector wages. The country still looks on track to join the Schengen Area and have its CVM lifted before it assumes presidency of the EU Council in 2019.

The National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) continues to work diligently; Chief Prosecutor Laura Kövesi has attracted much praise as a fierce opponent of corruption. On the 13th of November, following two investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the DNA indicted Liviu Dragnea on charges of embezzling €21m worth of European Union funds.

If Romania continues to progress in fighting corruption, a stable political and legal environment may be just around the corner. Such an environment, in tandem with a quickly improving economy, may finally see the country flourish.

Fake News, Clickbait and The Law of Defamation in Ireland ROSE LATTIMORE SF LAW

According to Google Trends, the use of the phrase “fake news” has increased exponentially since the inauguration of the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. The concept of fake news, or yellow journalism as it is known in the industry, is no new phenomenon. The legal infrastructure of Ireland has long recognised the issue of the deliberate spreading of misinformation under the guise of authenticity and has, to varying levels of success, prevented its publication and proliferation.

There are many juxtaposing opinions regarding what exactly constitutes fake news. However, there is a general consensus that a level of malice is required; that the author knew the information to be false or misleading and published it anyway. In Irish law, this is encompassed by the tort of Defamation. This area 4 · The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1

of law is primarily governed by the Defamation Act of 2009 which classifies defamation as “the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one person without lawful justification”. If someone believes that they have been a victim of defamation, or indeed fake news, they have the right to take a civil case to the Irish courts in order to seek restitution. This may seem like a retrospective action, which would do little to deter the publication of fake news. This could be the case were it not for the fact that in Ireland, defamation cases are heard in front of a jury.

The fact that juries hear defamation cases has a huge implication on the prevention of the publication of fake news. As it is juries rather than judges who decide the damages in these cases, astronomical sums of money are often awarded to the victims of defamation. Judges operate with constraint, but juries do not hold the same concerns. The Supreme Court does have the power to set aside the damages awarded by a High Court jury under Section 13 of

reasonable reader reads the entire article, not just the headline. While this may have been accurate with traditional print media it is certainly not the case now and this discrepancy between the law and the reality of the modern day creates an environment in which clickbait and fake news can spread.

the Defamation Act 2009, but in practice this rarely happens. The awarding of high damages is permitted as it proves the statement’s falsity to the general public and it also vindicates the victim’s constitutional right to a good name. Most awards in defamation cases are in excess of €50,000. This is perhaps the biggest deterrent to the publication of fake news in Ireland.

While the legal framework surrounding defamation does a lot to deter the publication of fake news, it does not completely halt its proliferation. As previously mentioned, defamation law will serve to rectify wrongs that have already occurred rather than preventing the spreading of fake news. Irish courts are loathe to grant injunctions where damages are equally, or more, appropriate. It is much easier to receive compensation for a wrong that you have suffered than to obtain a court order to prevent the wrong from happening in the first place. Thus, one cannot say that the Irish law completely prevents the publication of fake news.

The inertia of the law in the face of rapid technological evolution is another reason for the rise of fake news in Ireland. The existing law on media and defamation predominantly deals with print media. In reality, we know that the vast majority of contemporary media is consumed via digital sources. This has resulted in a phenomenon known as “clickbaiting” whereby a media source purposefully uses an overdramatised headline or title in order to entice people to open the full article. Clickbaiting and fake news go hand in hand, although they are not synonymous. It is possible to have an entirely factual and ethical article with a clickbait title. However, it is also possible for people to only read the title rather than the full article and as a result false information is being spread and accepted as truth. There have been a number of viral internet hoaxes which demonstrate this. Under defamation law it is presumed that the

It is unquestionable that Ireland’s legal regime in the context of defamation puts more emphasis on the right to a good name and the right to privacy than the right to freedom of speech. While the legal infrastructure does a lot to deter the publication and proliferation of fake news, it cannot be said to prevent it completely. The law of defamation will only protect those who are identifiable by the publication, and in many instances of fake news this does not occur. False and malicious articles can be used to attack and discredit a large classification of people, a political movement, or an ideology. There is no chance of a successful defamation lawsuit where there is not an easily identifiable, injured party and this legal requirement can often lead to the further propagation of fake news. “ It is unquestionable that Ireland’s legal regime in the context of defamation puts more emphasis on the right to a good name and the right to privacy than the right to freedom of speech.

Whether the complete prohibition of fake news is even desirable is debatable. The ease at which we can research and access information makes it simple to fact-check for ourselves. A simple Google search will corroborate or disprove any questionable story.

A complete prevention of fake news could impeach on borderline areas of journalism such as satirical political commentary and fictional columns.

It appears that fake news is here to stay and that it will become the duty of the reader to further investigate and not to take every post on the internet as fact.

This results in a number of complex but interesting potential developments in Irish defamation law.

How much research should the “reasonable reader” undertake before believing a defamatory article?

Would the “reasonable reader” ever fall victim to news outlets such as Waterford Whispers or The Onion? How could a news outlet ensure that a court-ordered apology reached the same level of engagement as a defamatory post that went viral unexpectedly? With the ever-increasing influence of online media, it is clear that the defamation law of Ireland is in dire need of review.

The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1 · 5

At Arthur we we areare looking for for At Arthur Cox we Cox areCox looking forlooking At Arthur ambitious thinkers who want to be At Arthur Cox we are looking for ambitious ambitious thinkers who want to be want thinkers who to be challenged from the start.

Our ambitious thinkers who want to be challengedchallenged from the start. fromOur the start. Our trainees are the future of the firm challenged from the trainees aretrainees the future firmof the firm start. Our are of thethe future and our Trainee Development trainees are the future of the firm and our Trainee Development and our Trainee Development Programme is completely dedicated and our Trainee Development Programme is completely dedicated dedicated Programme is completely to your professional Programme is completely dedicated to your professional to your professional training and development. to your professional training and development. training and development. training and development.

To find out more about ourour To find outTo more our about findabout out more Summer Intern Programme To find more Summer Intern Programme and outand Summer Intern Programme andabout our Trainee Development Programme, Summer Intern Programme and Trainee Development Programme, Trainee Development Programme, visit www.arthurcox.com/trainee.

Trainee Development visit www.arthurcox.com/trainee. visit www.arthurcox.com/trainee. Programme, visit www.arthurcox.com/trainee.

To learn more, contact: To learn more, To contact: learn more, contact: To learn more, contact: Ruth Pollard Ruth Pollard Ruth Pollard Trainee Development Programme Trainee Development Programme Manager Ruth Pollard Manager Trainee Development Programme Manager traineeprogramme@arthurcox.com traineeprogramme@arthurcox.com traineeprogramme@arthurcox.com Trainee Development Programme Manager traineeprogramme@arthurcox.com

ArthurCoxTraineeProgramme ArthurCoxTraineeProgramme ArthurCoxTraineeProgramme

ArthurCoxTraineeProgramme @ACoxTrainees @ACoxTrainees @ACoxTrainees

www. arthurcox.com/trainee www.arthurcox.com/trainee www. arthurcox.com/trainee

@ACoxTrainees

www.arthurcox.com/trainee

• LONDON • NEW YORK • SILICON VALLEY FAST • NEW • SILICON • YORK • NEW VALLEY DON BELFAST LONDON YORK • SILICON VALLEY

DUBLIN • BELFAST • LONDON • NEW YORK • SILICON VALLEY

The EU’s Response to Catalonia: Why the Silence?

WILF KING SS LAW

On the 1st October, the world watched as Spanish police violently shut down polling stations and protests across Catalonia. Various NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International condemned the “excessive force” used during the referendum vote. Politicians around the world called for dialogue. Yet the European Union, a community built on so-called values of liberal democracy, the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law, remained startlingly quiet.

The European Commission, the executive arm and the most powerful institution of the EU released a short 162-word press statement in which it stressed that the referendum vote had not been legal under the Spanish Constitution and repeated that this was an internal matter for Spain. Several MEPs 6 · The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1

also expressed concerns about the use of violence and called for calm. Yet on the whole, there was a remarkable lack of condemnation and criticism from any of the EU institutions. Many critics pointed out that had this been in one of the many states

trying to enter the EU, such as those in the Balkans or Turkey, there would have been universal outcry from Brussels. Others noted that the Spanish PM Mariano Rajoy’s Popular Party is part of the ruling coalition in the European Parliament with Angela Merkel and European Commission President JeanClaude Juncker also part of this bloc, making direct criticism politically undesirable.

A Spanish Internal Matter As stated already, the European Commission and Mr. Juncker have repeatedly stated that this is a Spanish internal matter and not one for the EU to get involved in. This may seem politically convenient (and it is) but as Natalie Nougayrède pointed out in a recent Guardian article, there appears to be some truth behind this statement. Article 4.2 of the Treaty of the European Union (part of the Lisbon Treaty) states that: “the Union shall respect the […] Member States’ […] national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security.”

It is clear from this article that it is illegal for the EU to interfere in Spain’s internal matters. The EU has always sought to maintain the difficult balance between sovereignty and the protection of fundamental rights. It was thus highly ironic when prominent EU critic and pro-sovereignty MEP Nigel Farage lambasted the EU and Mr. Juncker for failing to intervene. Likewise, it is politically convenient for the EU to not be drawn into this high stakes situation.

Thus they chose to avoid making any sweeping decisions which could further raise tensions. But should they have given the Spanish government such freedom to act?

Much of the criticism aimed at the Spanish government has fixated on the fact that they denied the Catalan people a right to vote. This may be so but one cannot argue with the fact that Carlos Puidgemont and his Catalan government flagrantly broke Spanish Constitutional law and disobeyed the Spanish Supreme Court by holding an illegal referendum. This left the EU in a difficult position.

While the EU seeks to promote democracy and fundamental rights including the right to vote, many EU politicians are wary of encouraging other separatist regions around Europe such as the Lombards and Venetians in Italy, the Flemish in Belgium and the Scots.

With Spain and many other European countries only beginning to recover from the 2008 recession, it would be undesirable for the EU to encourage any movements which might affect economic growth and stability. Since the start of October, more than 2,400 companies have moved their legal headquarters from Catalonia. This is partly due to the fact that if Catalonia were to secede from Spain, they would automatically leave the EU and have to re-apply for membership. This is a result of the socalled Prodi doctrine, although not laid down in the treaties, it has been followed by the Commission since 2004 and would be a significant headache for Catalan leaders. Even then, accession requires unanimity from the EU bloc and thus Spain could effectively veto any proposal. So what can be done by the EU to avoid this scenario?

The Long and Winding Path to Catalonia First, dialogue must be opened and it must be transparent. The crisis has escalated thus far due to neither side backing down. The EU should, and hopefully, will play a part in this process. It remains to be seen whether or not the Catalan separatists would accept the mediation of the European Commission but an offer should at the very least be put forward. Police violence and political prisoners will only heighten tensions and could lead to tragic consequences.

If Catalonia is to secede and wishes to become part of the EU, it must do so through a constitutionally valid referendum. At present, there is no mechanism for this in the Spanish Constitution. Constitutional reform requires a national referendum and thus the decision lies with the Spanish people and their elected representatives. This process will obviously take longer but if Catalonia wants to be recognised internationally, it must achieve its independence in a democratically legitimate way. Until this constitutionally valid referendum, the EU should remain neutral and encourage Catalonia to adhere to the Spanish Constitution.

With regional elections to be held on December 21st, we are reaching the tipping point for Catalan independence. Defeat in those elections could sound the death knell for the separatists and their cause but victory could escalate the crisis even further. Throughout the next few months the EU should look to act upon those core values that it is founded on: “Respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.”

The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1 · 7

SHARP MINDS PRECISE RESPONSES From our trainees to our partners, we place a premium not just on legal knowledge but on the ability to push, prod and provoke.

7/8 Wilton Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland T: +353 (0)1 237 3700 F: +353 (0)1 678 7794 info@philiplee.ie philiplee.ie

Get in touch Nicola McKenna, HR Manager nmckenna@philiplee.ie

#IrishWeinstein: The Compensation Seeker’s Dream GREGORY MURPHY JS LAW

Sexual assault by powerful individuals is nothing new for those of us who haven’t lived under a rock in Ireland for the last twenty years. The unveiling of these crimes decades after the incident in question is nothing new either. However, the recent spate of allegations against high-profile perpetrators on social media, is new. Facebook and Twitter appear to have become the go to place to now expose sexual abusers. This has brought with it numerous benefits including an overdue worldwide discussion on the abuse of power and the importance of consent- but it has also raised a lot of issues. Arguably most serious among them is that an accusation of sexual assault against an innocent person destroys their reputation and good name. In other words, it is a defamatory statement.

8 · The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1

The recent allegations against Harvey Weinstein were more than the catalyst in exposing the sexual assault culture in Hollywood. It also affected the foundations of the entertainment industry worldwide. Within days sexual assault allegations began to fly across the globe throughout various social media platforms.

These allegations manifested in Ireland with the hashtag ‘IrishWeinstein’. Ciara Kelly, a well-regarded Newstalk presenter, may have unwittingly provided a platform for intensely defamatory statements to be made when she asked her Twitter followers if they knew who the #IrishWeinstein was, and if so, to contact her. Hundreds of Twitter users flocked to answer her request and openly contemplated the identity of a figure in the Irish entertainment industry who allegedly had a 40-year history of sexual abuse of women. This Twitter feed saw many high-profile names being published beside hashtags such as ‘rapist’ and ‘IrishWeinstein.’ Such a statement could run the risk of breaching the Constitutional right to a good name under Article 40.3.2°, and is possibly defamatory under the Defamation Act 2009.

Section 6(2) of the 2009 Act defines defamation as ‘the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one [other] person.’ There is a widespread misconception that expressing one’s views via social media is not akin to saying them out loud or publishing them in a newspaper, and therefore defamation through social media is not possible.

This is explicitly contradicted in Section 2 of the 2009 Act which states that a ‘defamatory statement’ includes a statement ‘published on the internet’.

In the era of Trump, it is perceived that one can say and do as they please on social media with no fear of legal consequence. Individuals making allegations need to remember the 2009 Act and the ramifications of making fallacious statements. Defamation is hard to defend, and is treated with the utmost seriousness under Irish law as seen in the history costly damages awarded to defamed parties in recent years, rising to as much as €10 million in 2010.

In 2015, Twitter was ordered in the High Court

by Mac Eocaidh J to disclose the identity of an anonymous Twitter user who had published a defamatory tweet about a whistleblower during an RTE ‘Primetime Investigates’ programme. Twitter complied with the court’s request and defamation actions were brought against this Twitter user. The idea that social media provides immunity to the law of defamation is erroneous, and has been clearly contradicted in judicial decisions.

Defamatory statements regarding sexual assault have rightly been treated with special care, as seen in 2012, when X Factor judge and Irish celebrity, Louis Walsh, was awarded €500,000 in Walsh v

The Newsgroup Newspapers Limited. This case concerned the publication of a defamatory article alleging Walsh sexually assaulted a man in a Dublin nightclub toilet. The newspaper’s defence was that the article was published in the public interest, and was fair and reasonable. Recent publishers of the names of alleged sexual abusers have also said their publications are in the public interest as it encourages more victims of sexual assault to come forward and expose their assailants. While this may be true, such publications run the risk of ruining the good name, reputation, and potential livelihood of innocent people accused of such a despicable crime. The Latin maxim, ‘Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat,’ presumes innocence until proven guilty, and the age of mob rule has been long extinguished.

Social media should not be allowed to reignite it.

The question must be asked: what will happen to social media users who have made defamatory statements? One would hope they will be brought to court and ordered to issue a recantation. In this case, the recantation of the mistaken allegation ought to be given the same exposure as the original statement.

Nobody can deny that sexual assault is a heinous crime which can affect victims for the rest of their lives. However, social media is not the right platform to fight it. Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence”. Sexual assault is a crime and thus the correct step is to inform the suitable authorities; in Ireland, this is the Gardaí… not Mark Zuckerburg.

The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1 · 9

DEUS EX MACHINA Technocracy: A Case Study ORLA MURNAGHAN JF LAW AND POLITICS

Science. Politics. Two polar opposites- one steeped in unequivocal facts and grounded on empirical data, the other a myriad of varying opinions. Their external appearances are so starkly dissimilar that we often forget that the two words have a clear point of convergence, where they inevitably overlap and intersect to produce a hybrid theory: technocracy.

While an infant in comparison to the antique democracy, technocracy’s origins can be traced back to the writings of Henri de Saint-Simon in the nineteenth century. Though not well-known to the average citizen, the concept is very simple: technocracy is, according to Merriam-Webster, “the management of society by technical experts.”

“Technical” in this context refers to highly-educated individuals in scientific and engineering fields.

However, today this archetype has been somewhat loosened and unravelled to encompass lawyers, economists, statisticians and even businessmen.

Thousands of years ago, Plato, original critic of the Ecclesia, proposed an alternative form of rulership to Athenian democracy: the “philosopher kings”.

The Guardians were the perfect candidates to guide the masses with their learned wisdom. Yet his pupil Aristotle responded with the infamous question, “Who will guard the Guardians?”

It is a fair, and certainly perplexing, question. These technological experts are at the top of their gamesthey are their own highest authority. Is it right that we should vest so much power and faith in one exclusive societal niche, to allow them to orchestrate the strings of the state, and play proverbial God? Can we be certain that these scholars have the capacity to rule in the name of the common good?

Perhaps we can turn to the fascinating legacy buried in history for guidance. On inspection we can even examine a fortifying link between technocracy and socioeconomic morphism. Communism, for example, had previously married itself to the alluring concept. Stalinist Russia has been dubbed the world’s first real technocracy, with notable success. Interestingly, 89% of the Politburo was comprised of engineers, with men appointed for their technological expertise to oversee the state amidst an era of transformation. The Soviet Union’s 10 · The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1

methods upgraded the stagnant agrarian state, moulding it into an industrial powerhouse with such overwhelmingly zealous prowess they made even America quiver in apprehension.

Disillusioned by the Great Depression in the thirties, “engineer” Howard Scott spearheaded the technocratic movement in America. Founded in 1932, Technocracy Inc. aimed to rectify the wrongdoings of capitalism by preventing a wasteful and imbalanced economy. The cluster of scientists proposed replacing money with energy certificates in metric units like joules, distributing said energy equally among the population, and creating full employment. “The educated” would , of course, be in charge. The alternative movement quickly attracted many a disgruntled American, and at its apex, boasted half a million members in California alone, even sporting their own “uniform” and saluting Scott. However, the movement never fully flourished, collapsing dramatically after Scott was revealed to be a failed wax salesman. This was twinned with the movement’s unnerving proclivity towards fascism.

Arguably the most important factor was the nation’s smooth transition back to normality, with the end of the Great Depression and capitalism reclaiming its dominance. People returned to the old reliable. The resurgence of its rival theory ensured technocracy remained nothing but a somnambulistic dream.

Nonetheless, Technocracy Inc. has withstood the test of time and still endures today.

Italy has also had its flings with technocracy. One poster child of Italian technocracy was Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, who had an inexhaustible list of economic and academic credentials. The law graduate eventually took over the mantel as Governor of Bank of Italy in 1979. After a referendum to rewrite electorate laws, he was appointed Prime Minister in 1993 for his non-partisan nature and expertise. His technocratic cabinet enjoyed some successes- said laws were indeed amended, and a budget was ushered in to address enormous public debt. Ciampi’s government was a temporary measure to keep a periled economy from collapsing until the 1994 general elections, and his policies were generally regarded as “fair”.

However, due to its ephemeral nature, we can only speculate how such technocratic governing would

have fared the long term.

Two decades on from the Ciampi technocracy, in 2013 the Italian Monti government collapsed. After the disasters of the Silvio Berlsuconi’s government in 2011, the temporary technocratic government was introduced in order to revitalise an economy on its knees. Once the austerity measures kicked in, the technocrats were kicked out. Italy was subjected to a rigid labour system, where jobs were either for life or accompanied by little rights. The failure to make the declining market more flexible and create alternative jobs, ensured that the government, led by the 64-year-old Turin University economics professor, was ousted by an alliance led by the Democratic Party. This is a classic manifestation of one of technocracy’s biggest criticisms- the obvious lack of understanding between the rulers and the ruled. These geniuses who lead do not necessarily reflect the interests of the citizen. Can an aged economics professor place themselves in the shoes of the modern-day young mechanic or nurse, and adapt to their needs? It certainly looks like too vast a chasm to bridge, which may result in an undesirable breakdown in communication.

Thus rises the pertinent question: do technocracies risk birthing a new elite class in the sociological hierarchy- one where the intellectual rulers are those who were fortunate and resourceful enough to receive doctorates? The “traditional” politician, grounded in his grassroots, should be more favourably weighed in this respect. At least the mainstream politician’s agenda is familiar to the public, clearly identified

by its political fidelity. And this leads us to the next concern of technocracy- the primordial fear of the unknown. By nature, technocracies have no political bias. But we are not robots, we are sentient humans.

In the end, subjectivity cannot be cast aside like a rag doll- everyone has preferences, and technocracy, not matter how hard it maintains the illusion, can never be freed from this. With technocracies we walk blindly into the dark, essentially giving creative control over to irresolute people, who may exercise the freedom to rewrite state laws based on statistics rather than defined agendas. The traditional technocratic leader is framed as a calculating, pragmatic individual; but certainly some degree of humanity and assiduity is necessary to allow society to flourish too?

On paper, technocracies sound quite enticing.

However the theory calls for a degree of introspection: are we really educated enough as meagre citizens to make informed decisions? Well, it seems the answer is yes. Looking at the evidence, in true analytical fashion, it is blatantly obvious that, in the long-term, technocracies are nothing but a fanciful ideology.

A “true” stabilised technocracy has never existed in an enduring sense- mainly because this ideology thrives on austerity. To draw on a medical metaphor, technocracies are the butterfly stitches of the political multiverse, momentarily patching up an economy’s wounds and holding it together in a dire crisis. Sore and tedious as they are, sewing temporary threads and lacerating the taxpayers’ pockets, their severity ensures the state endures, at least until the heart of democracy can beat functionally again.

The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1 · 11

Alumni Catch-Up:

Mr. Ciarán Toland SC Aisling Marren and Orla Murnaghan speak to Ciarán Toland SC

Tell us about your experience as a Trinity Law student, and how has this changed in recent years?

It certainly has changed. The lectures weren’t compulsory, and there were certain ones where the lecturers were stunning, with men like William Binchy. I think probably the biggest thing with law school graduates is that they lack the case law and the skills for research, because it seems that Trinity has moved away from an intensive study of case law.

College is about developing social skills. Your club and society life are crucial to your development.

They made, I thought, more difference than one or two percent in a degree. But I understand things are different today. Students are taken on by big firms and there is much more intense competition. And also with the economic environment people needed to distinguish themselves more. So while I can understand the competitive pressures on students today, there should be time where you aren’t killing yourself with work and find the ideal balance.

Let me give you an example. I applied for a job in a legal publisher and all the interviews for the job was only for a solicitor, for which I was not qualified at all. So I went in and I engaged with the publishers.

And I remember I got a phone call the next day. They weren’t able to offer me the job, however, they were creating a job for me. And it was off the back of all my extra-curricular work, because I had run the Dublin branch of the Alliance party, been elected onto committees, and overseen Balls. So what I’m saying is that getting involved gives you an opportunity to learn outside the study of law, and it also enhances your CV.

being a solicitor. I had worked for Arthur Cox in the summer of my third year. While Arthur Cox was a great firm, I didn’t like the idea of not being able to design legal argument and put these ideas forward, and a barrister seemed like a more interesting career.

However when I took up working in Butterworths and when I was doing Kings in the evenings, I got involved in a political campaign in Europe. So I entered a period in my life for two years where I was involved in that, as well as working in Butterworths.

I spent a lot of time in England so I was flying back and forth a lot.

For that period, and really the next couple of years, I began to think that maybe the Bar was something that was too hard to succeed in. I thought, here’s a job I can actually do well in, I got three promotions in about four years and at the very end I was offered a permanent promotion which would effectively required me to relocate. And it just seemed like an appealing career, because in this profession you can achieve interesting things and actually not kill yourself.

But what enticed me to come back to the Bar, was that there was a challenge there that I felt I had shirked. It’s just part of my personality, and I felt that its something unique that you can’t do anywhere else. I wanted to rely on my own wits for my own purposes. It doesn’t always work out like that but certainly there’s a degree of freedom here that you don’t have in any other job.

What inspired you to become a barrister as opposed to a solicitor?

You have undertaken a lot of voluntary work over the course of your career, as well as completing internships: are both necessary, in you opinion, or is one more beneficial than the other in terms of pursuing a particular career?

I suppose the absolutely cynical answer for me was that in the 2000’s you could go to the Inns as a graduate students without your exams. But I’d always wanted to be a barrister and had never considered

I think discerning what you want to do, you should have experience. I think you should absolutely do internships, and ideally shadow someone in the Bar too for a couple of weeks in July. Those are the type

12 · The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1

of things that are necessary to get an understanding of what the job is about. Voluntary work at a later stage will help with your CV. The voluntary work I did, I didn’t do for career reasons. Some barristers use their spare time to give lectures and earn lots of money, some use it to write articles, some use it to relax! But if you do that, it’s not a career path to success, or happiness.

What I did was what I love doing, which is politics.

The things I involved myself with were those that I considered essential to public life in the EU.

Why did you pursue European law as a speciality above any other discipline?

While I’ve always had an interest in European politics, I didn’t strategically set out to be a European lawyer. But my political interest led me to a particular master. The master, unknown to me until I started devilling for him, exclusively did EU law. Through him I started getting involved in cases that obviously involved EU law.

In terms of my career progression, I didn’t systematically set out to do it, but it happened. The Bar is a little bit like being an actor: you can be typecast. But there’s something else as well, in terms of public service and my interest in current affairs that comes from growing up in the North in the eighties and nineties. I was heavily involved in the Alliance Party as a researcher in the talks process when I was your age.

“

The Bar is a little bit like being an actor: you can be typecast.

For many people in the North, their identity, if it is not to be that of a British nationalist in Ireland, is to be that of an Irish nationalist, and these were thought to be exclusive identities. I think there many young people who certainly were brought up between the traditions. What defined their experience best was the label or the identity that had been subscribed to, was that of being a European. That helped in terms of my interest.

“Sunningdale for learners”. John Hume famously stood on the bridge in Strasbourg and commented about standing between two different countries.

Whilst the identity of the Alsatians remained the same, their sovereignty had switched several times over the last couple of hundred years. But it doesn’t matter what their sovereignty is, what matters in getting along with each other.

The European Union constantly obliged that. It was the model of the peace process we engaged in.

Why? Because of the structure. Locking people into structures and forcing them to talk to each other, that’s the whole point of the European community.

Have recent European political developments, specifically Brexit, impacted on your field of work?

Not really, it won’t for a while. In reality, Brexit is still a matter for discussion. There won’t be a need for lots of legal advice until things, on the British side, begin to become a bit more concrete. Whether that happens depends on the Conservative Party.

They have to, in a very short period of time, come up with concrete proposals on Northern Ireland and concrete proposals on money.

If you’re leaving the EU, you must know how you’re leaving, whether you’re in the customs union and the single market, or just the customs union, or neither.

If you don’t know that, then you cannot begin negotiations on a trade relationship because your trade relationship depends on that.

Putting Northern Ireland on the table is basically a way of forcing them to come to a defined decision as to whether or not they really are in favour of their stated position, which is out of the customs union and out of the single market. They cannot be in favour of that and at the same time say they want a soft border.

It is illogical. So what Ireland and Brussels are trying to do is flush them out and get them to say exactly what it is that they’re looking for.

The Conservative Party, now then, has to decide, as a Unionist party, whether it throws Northern Ireland under the bus or whether it throws its overall negotiation strategy under the bus. Until the last few weeks, I’d be pretty sure that nobody in there has prioritised Northern Ireland in their thoughts. It’s only when they realised how hardball the Taoiseach and Brussels were going to play this, that they realised they were going to get flushed out of the system. And that’s going to be particularly contentious.

The settlement of 1998 was famously referred to as The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1 · 13

Erasmus Update: Studying in Atlanta, Georgia CAOIMHE DALY JS LAW

I am currently studying abroad in Emory University in the heart of Atlanta, Georgia. I had arrived here in August, slightly disgruntled that my summer had been cut short. I was also slightly alarmed at the intense humidity that came with living in Atlanta in August, only to realise that the heat was here to stay. In our initial weeks in the city, Hurricane Irma arrived. The city completely shut down for 2 days.

Once Irma hit, we immediately lost power, and as dusk began to set we were mildly content that we could no longer do our readings. Our neighbour knocked on our door and invited us in for a game of monopoly in her slightly more lit and furnished house. We gratefully accepted her kind invitation and that was our first experience with the inherent kindness of the people of the South.

I am studying here for one semester, from August to December and I regret to say that my time here is coming to an end. Atlanta, Georgia is one of the most fascinating cities I have ever been in. It could be described as a slower-paced New-York. The city is filled with mesmerising skyscrapers but everything moves at a much more bearable pace. Atlanta is a city that is rife with culture and diversity. This is unsurprising when you explore its history. Through visits to Martin Luther King’s birth home and his church, the Centre for Civil and Human Rights and the Carter Centre; they all tell the tale of the journey Atlanta has embarked on.

Emory is equally beautiful and academic. Law school in the US is a graduate degree, so I am currently doing graduate classes. I have focused the majority of my studies on transactional law, an area of the law which is not overly discussed in Trinity. Contract Drafting and Negotiations have been thoroughly enjoyable and a welcomed change from doctrinal readings. The classes are more seminar based with 10-12 people in some classes.

Emory Law School is a very close knit community which makes it easy for any international students to settle in. In terms of extra-curricular activities, there is a society for every aspect of law that you could imagine; from Health Law to Entertainment law, every career facet is covered. In my opinion, it would open up a realm of opportunities in Trinity if there was a wider range of Law societies available to students.

14 · The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1

Donald Trump is a daily conversation topic. Emory is quite democratic however, Atlanta is very diverse and Georgia as a whole is Republican. In a recent talk I attended at Emory – “The Trump Review: One Year On”, various organisations spoke about how resilient the American people are, how volunteers and lobbyists have reached new records in the amount of people who came out following the election in a fearful bid to do whatever they can to restore their country.

In conclusion, studying at Emory has been a wonderful experience. It has broadened my horizons immensely. I have truly loved getting to know the people of Atlanta and my classmates. It is a very interesting time to live in the United States with so much change happening in the country.

The Social Section Note from the Social Editor We’ve had an amazing semester of social events this Michealmas term in Trinity. In particular, FLAC welcomed an array of distinguished speakers, including Professor Phil Scratan, who gave an insightful talk on the notion of ‘Posttruth’. The Law Soc Junior Mock Trial was a huge success, with immense time and effort put in by all contestants. Congratulations to Kate Kinsella and Emma Young who were victorious in the final. TCLR and Politics Soc co-hosted a very successful panel discussion on Brexit, featuring guest speakers Gina Miller and David Kurten.

The annual FLAC & TCDSU sleep-out, in aid of the Peter Mc Verry Trust, was a huge success. It’s amazing to see students so keen and willing to raise awareness of the ever-increasing challenge of homelessness in Ireland. On a personal note, the huge variety of social events has taken me totally by surprise, and there really is something for everyone. I look forward to the social events in the New Year and wish everyone a wonderful Christmas.

- Nadine

Perspectives on Direct Provision with Trinity FLAC On October 17th Trinity FLAC hosted a discussion of the ‘direct provision’ system of accommodating asylum seekers in Ireland with Mr David Stanton (Minister of State for Justice with special responsibility for Equality, Immigration, and Integration), and Professor Patricia Brazil of the Law School.

Mr Stanton noted the new, consolidated decisionmaking system which should speed up the process of deciding asylum claims. It is hoped that under the new system, claims will be decided within a year.

He said that the government is careful to ensure that those whose claims for asylum are rejected can be safely returned to their countries of origin.

Mr Stanton welcomed the recent Supreme Court decision in NHV v Minister for Justice regarding the right of asylum seekers to work if they are left in direct provision for a considerable period of time.

However, he noted that with the projected speeding up of decision-making, this decision might become moot.

The Ombudsman and the Children’s Ombudsman are now permitted to take complaints from asylum seekers, and the Reception and Integration Agency now carries out independent inspections. He spoke of the increasing strain on centres in terms

of numbers. The government is currently seeking properties to develop as direct provision centres, but is having difficulty locating them – a problem the Minister attributed in part to the controversy around the direct provision system. Professor

Brazil highlighted the lack of personal resources, and the fear experienced by many asylum seekers.

She welcomed the new oversight measures and the expedited single application system, but sounded a note of caution – since there are already over 3,000 legacy cases in the old system, ‘we’re running just to stand still’.

Professor Patricia Brazil gave an overview of the origins of direct provision from her perspective as a legal practitioner. She questioned the logic of the 2010 decision to implement the subsidiary protection regime, which is required under EU law, as a separate procedure to the determination of refugee status, rather than deciding both questions in a single process. This has caused massive delays in assessing applications, greatly lengthening the process. This has contributed to the current situation, in which some individuals have been in direct provision for many months or years.

A lively Question and Answer session followed, during which students questioned Mr Stanton regarding the Government’s back-up plan if numbers of asylum seekers continue to increase, the potential use of compulsory purchase orders to obtain suitable properties for direct provision, and the presence of private companies in direct provision centres.

Perhaps foreshadowing the ‘Off Our Campus’ campaign by Aramark, one student asked whether private catering companies operating in direct provision centres were ‘profiteering’ at the expense of residents. Mr Stanton responded that under EU tendering laws the government selects the provider who can provide a service at the best price, and said that companies will not do this unless they can make a profit. However, he noted that residents are given food tokens which they can spend at the shop as an alternative to catered meals. Stanton also highlighted the role of centre managers in overseeing this.

Throughout the discussion Mr Stanton repeatedly emphasised his desire to engage with ideas and suggestions for improving the direct provision system. The interest and engagement demonstrated by the attendees proved that students are passionate about the issue. It is to be hoped that this passion will be channelled into concrete improvements to the direct provision system.

- Blánaid ní Bhraonáin

The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1 · 15

Trinity FLAC/TCDSU Student Sleep Out for the Peter Mc Verry Trust On the November 2nd, Trinity FLAC, in association with TCDSU, held their annual student sleep out under the front arch of Trinity College.

Approximately 40 students took part in the event, which aimed to raise money for the Peter Mc Verry Trust homeless charity, while raising student awareness of homelessness.

Participants gathered at front arch from 7pm, shaking buckets and settling down for the evening.

Trinity Senator David Norris came to the sleepout to show his support. Senator and Law Professor Ivana Bacik and Fianna Fail T.D. Jim O’Callaghan were also in attendance. Participants continued raising money

for the Trust until 12pm, when everyone began to settle down to sleep.

Although it was a cold night, everyone was very thankful that it wasn’t raining. The next morning, participants again shook their buckets for a short time, before clearing the way for the Med Day bucket collectors.

Following the event, it was clear that most participants found the experience very sobering and difficult, but an extremely worthwhile and insightful one. Trinity FLAC is extremely grateful to all those who took part and donated to the sleepout. The committee were delighted with the success of the event and the funds raised for the Trust. Hopefully the Trinity FLAC and TCDSU student sleepout will continue for many years to come.

- Caoilfhionn Sheil

Masquerave 2017 The aptly named night of dance and merriment with overtones of Halloween themed intrigue, ‘Masquerave’, took place this year on the 27th of October. For those lucky enough to get their hands on a ticket they were most definitely not let down.

Dressed in their finest black tie, (or whatever they could find that vaguely resembled black tie), they descended on the Pav for refreshment before taking the hour and a half long bus down to the mystery location, Charleville Castle in County Offaly, for the event.

For many events the bus journey can sap the fun out of the occasion. If anything, the opposite took place

on the buses bound for Masquerave! With anthems sung and names exchanged all arrived at the castle in high spirits and ready to dance the night away.

By god they danced! With DJs Kean Kavanagh, Rob O’Donohoe and Rory Hughes fuelling the dancefloors in the main hall and dungeon, the revellers did indeed revel.

If the dancefloor felt too like your monthly FlyeFit session then there was plenty of space indoors to sit on comfortable armchairs and snuggle up to blazing fireplaces and discuss how we’d definitely win the bid for the Rugby World Cup, (gone are the days of blissful optimism!). Alternatively you could stretch your legs outside and indulge in some freshly baked pizza kindly provided by Law Soc. Sadly, all good things must come to an end. This year, Masquerave was no different. On the bus home you could hear a pin drop. You could feel the exhaustion around you, but you could also feel the satisfaction at a great night.

Bring on Masquerave 2018.

- Diarmuid O’hUallachain

16 · The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1

TCLR Distinguished Speakers Series: Cass Sunstein On Friday, November 11th, Trinity College Law Review welcomed Professor Cass Sunstein to give a talk at the GMB as part of its Distinguished Speakers series. As pointed out by Professor David Kenny in his opening remarks, a man who is deemed by Glenn Beck to be “the most dangerous man in America” is one who needs no introduction. Sunstein is well known to the American public as administrator of the Office of Regulatory and Information Policy during the Obama Administration, although he is first and foremost a world-renowned academic scholar. Over the course of ninety minutes, Sunstein broke down the more prominent findings from his decades of research and how they were implemented, and also engaged with the floor in a final Q&A segment.

One of the most engaging aspects of Sunstein’s talk appeared less to be about the content, but more in the delivery of it. Following a technical hitch which left Sunstein without the use of a projector, he took up a more casual position on the podium and informed the audience he would be taking the talk in an ex tempore fashion. It was this approachable style of Sunstein’s which made the talk even more fascinating than if delivered by means of academic article (although I’m sure his are as thought-provoking and insightful as one could hope). Sunstein brought the audience into the topic at hand by means of dissecting Beckett; establishing a connection between Waiting for Godot and the Obama Administration’s method of applying behavioural economic principles is a remarkable thing to achieve.

Sunstein’s observations at a micro level with regard human interaction and thought were met with nods by most of the audience; most were aware of the reality of people not always operating rationally. However, it was the next aspect – employing these principles and applying them on a macro scale that made clear the importance of Sunstein’s findings. Indeed, it seemed that many administrative institutions were just as unaware of the power of the discussed default rule which formed the basis of much of Sunstein’s talk.

The accessible format of Sunstein’s address allowed virtually everyone in attendance to grasp the concepts being discussed. Taking such a broad range of topics – present bias, rational actor theory, loss aversion and others – and breaking them down in such a way that made each subsequent subject feel like the most natural progression, was taken to the

point of art by Sunstein. Just as the topics discussed

by Sunstein extended into subjects other than law, so did the attendees hail from a diverse range of disciplines.

With the conclusion of his speech, Sunstein moved into a Q&A session. Members of the audience were able to probe some of the points made by Sunstein, and topical issues such as opt-out organ transplantation were brought up. By the end of the event, it was difficult to argue that all in attendance were not better off having been granted the fantastic opportunity of hearing first-hand the thoughts of one of the world’s leading legal voices.

- Eoin Forde

Recent Developments in Child Law, Trinity FLAC, 26th October 2017 Trinity FLAC hosted an event on 26th October regarding recent developments in child law, at which Dr. Anne-Marie Hutchinson, OBE, QC, spoke about the ‘in camera’ rule and Edel Quinn spoke about the Guardian Ad Litem.

Dr. Hutchinson described the issue as a ‘balancing act’. She acknowledged the importance of open courts, mentioning how a lack of public knowledge meant a lack of public interest, which further resulted in a lack of incentive for the government to initiate policy change, even when desperately needed.

Furthermore, the closed nature meant many families were entirely unfamiliar with the process, alienating them from services for which they may have dire need. However, the benefits of openness could only be achieved by sacrificing an individual, and often vulnerable, child’s right to privacy.

Edel Quinn, Senior Legal and Policy Officer at the Children’s Rights Alliance, discussed the upcoming regulation of the Guardian Ad Litem and Child Views Experts services in Ireland. In the case of Child Views Experts, who are used in private law proceedings, legislation provides that it must be paid for by parents, which puts lower income families at a disadvantage. No particular qualification is needed, there are no specific guidelines for when or when not to use them.

Given this, we would imagine that a recent bill seeking to regulate guardian ad litem services would be a good thing. However, Miss Quinn raised some concerns. Firstly, she raised that it seems like the government’s priority was reducing costs, rather than protecting children’s best interests or giving The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1 · 17

their voices a platform. Tusla will act as a paymaster for the service, which creates a conflict of interest, as they will often also be taking the case to remove a child from their home. This reigns back the system which had evolved in Irish courts, where the guardian ad litem could cross examine both witnesses and Tusla representatives, and otherwise advocate for the child’s best interests.

Following both incredibly informative speeches, the audience participated in an edifying questions and answers session.

- Mary Murphy

Blasphemy and the Irish Constitution with the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin and an expert TCLR and Trinity FLAC On the 4th of October, the Trinity College Law Review’s first Distinguished Speakers Series in collaboration with Trinity FLAC attracted an audience filling the Swift theatre. The focus of the event was on Article 40.6.1(i) of the Irish Constitution concerning blasphemy. Four panellists offered their varying opinions on the contentious matter of Blasphemy in the Irish Constitution.

Chair of Atheist Ireland, Michael Nugent, criticized the controversial article of the Constitution, claiming that “it is both ridiculous and dangerous.” He set out the four dangers posed by this article - it silences the media and causes it to self-censor; it incentivises outrage; it treats religious beliefs as more valuable than secular beliefs and the laws are used to infringe on human rights across the world. Atheist Ireland suggested at the Constitutional Convention in 1996 that the article be replaced by a positive statement about freedom of expression based on Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Reverend William Richardson, who is the Promoter of Justice with the Dublin Metropolitan Tribunal of

in Canon Laws, outlined the Catholic stance on blasphemy, and distinguished the ‘simple invocative blasphemy that takes place casually in every age’ from its abusive form. In the early church, before the time of Constantine, blasphemy was usually linked with heresy and apostacy. However, blasphemy is not something which concerned canon law in this country and hasn’t for many hundreds of years.

Dr Ali Selim, a professor of Arabic in the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Studies at Trinity College Dublin and also the spokesperson of the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland, defended the Blasphemy laws in the Constitution, saying that thanks to the Article in the Irish Constitution, “Ireland believes in freedom of expression but also guarantees and protects respect with regards to others.” He believes the challenge is to exercise the right of freedom of expression in harmony with other rights.

Dr. Neville Cox, Professor of Law and Dean of Graduate Studies in Trinity College Dublin was the final speaker of the evening. He said Article 40.6.1(i) should be removed from the constitution.

He demonstrated that the impact of the blasphemy laws in Ireland have been primarily symbolic. Cox ascertained that blasphemy laws always exist because they target speech, which from the standpoint of the soul of the nation is ‘simply unsayable.’ However, a blasphemy law cannot be justified in a nation whose public morality does not take the view that that speech is unsayable, as is the fact in Ireland’s case.

The evening was closed by Editor in Chief of TCLR, Caoilfhionn Sheil - Caoilfhionn Sheil.

18 · The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1

TCLR & TCD Politics Society Brexit Event On November 21st, Trinity College Law Review (TCLR) and TCD Politics Society co-hosted a panel discussion on Brexit. The GMB chamber was packed with students, staff and other interested members of the public.

TCLR was excited to welcome its high-profile first speaker, Gina Miller, the main litigant in the recent case R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Miller, a British businesswoman and transparency campaigner who was involved in the Remain campaign, successfully challenged the Government’s authority to trigger Article 50, and thus the process of leaving the EU, without a Parliamentary vote of approval. She said that the personal criticism heaped upon her by the media discouraged other potential litigants, and that nobody ‘stepped in when they saw what I was going through’.

Miller explained her decision to take the case as a result of her concerns about the undermining of democracy. She alluded to the use of Henry VIII powers and the proposed use of the royal prerogative, and the dangerous precedents this would set: ‘it would have set us back 400 years’ Miller said she was one of the few from the ‘Remain’ side to campaign outside London. Following visits to town hall meetings and seeing ‘how hurt people were, how neglected they feel’, by February she was ‘convinced we were going to lose’. She tried to persuade the Remain campaign to switch their slogan to ‘Remain and Reform’.

The second speaker was David Kurten, a UK Independence Party (UKIP) representative on the London Assembly. Kurten first became involved in politics in 2012 as a result of his alarm at the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). He noted that people from across the political spectrum were united against the Investor-State Trade Dispute Settlement mechanism, which allows international companies to sue states in special tribunals, rather than in national courts.

He became convinced that the only way to stop TTIP was to leave the EU. Kurten also addressed immigration, and picked up on Miller’s point regarding the disconnect between the London ‘bubble’ and the rest of the country. He noted that deprived communities have ‘a different experience of immigration’ to professionals in the

London elite, and argued that increased immigration has strained public services and caused wages to fall.

Kurten criticised the lack of tolerance shown to those who complain about immigration: ‘they’re slurred, called bigots or racists’.

Stephen Donnelly T.D., the final speaker of the night.

He identified Brexit as ‘a story of loss’ and criticised the ‘facile’ argument that the UK will be better off if it can make its own trade details. He pointed to higher interest rates, jobs leaving the UK, and Northern Ireland and Scotland being dragged out against their will as negative consequences of Brexit. Taking an Irish perspective on Brexit, Donnelly laid out the bleak consequences for Northern Ireland, including job losses and loss of agricultural subsidies. He sounded a note of caution regarding the possibility of border controls in the event of a hard Brexit, particularly since the UK has refused to give an undertaking that there will be no hard border. However, it was not all doom and gloom for Ireland: he suggested that we can push to mitigate the damage to our trade with the UK, while simultaneously taking greater steps into the rest of the EU marketplace. ‘Economically, we can turn Brexit into the best thing that has happened to this country in decades’.

Despite the drastically different views of the panellists, the tone of the event remained cordial throughout. Gina Miller received a big laugh from the audience when she noted, ‘One of my big wins was getting lawyers to work for nothing’. David Kurten also drew laughter with a vivid description of the notorious ‘Battle of the Thames’, a surreal naval confrontation between Brexiteers aboard a flotilla of fishing boats and a yacht commandeered by Bob Geldof and other Remain campaigners.

- Blánaid ní Bhraonáin The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1 · 19

why do we choose our trainees so carefully?...

...Because we’re not just choosing trainees i f you’re lo o king for the very best legal training available in Ireland, consider this. Almost every graduate who joins us as a trainee remains with us after qualification. And the large majority of our partners originally began their own legal careers with the firm. So when we ask you to join us as a trainee, we’re seeing you as a future colleague.

That’s why we invest so heavily in planning, resourcing and delivering our in-house training programme – and in continuing professional development post-qualification, right throughout your career with us.

We want to enable your progress, because we know that’s the best way for us to enable ours.

To find out more, contact our Graduate Recruiter Lisa McGoldrick at +353 1 511 1612 or email lisa.mcgoldrick@mccannfitzgerald.com.

Summer Internship Programme 2018 – applications open early January. d u b l i n20| ·l The o n dEagle o n | nGazette e w y o rVolume k | b r u4sIssue sels 1 mccannfitzgerald.com

McCannFitzGraduates

@McCannFitz

The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1 · 21

22 · The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1

The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1 · 23

The Eagle: Trinity Law Gazette

24 · The Eagle Gazette Volume 4 Issue 1 Volume 4, Issue 1