In the midst of the recent statutory rape debacle it was noted that Michael McDowell was quite keen on protecting himself, stating that he would be proven to have acted correctly once the dust had settled.
In today’s Irish Times McDowell again asserts his righteousness and claims that the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Mr. A case was justification of his stance, the stance of his Department and that of our Government. Like all things in politics, however you should pay attention to what the politicians are not saying more than you pay to what they are.
McDowell claims that after the Supreme Court ruling he undertook a process of drafting a new law; he then says that this was difficult considering the “rising media-driven and opposition-led for emergency legislation”, he then goes on to say that “no media coverage of any kind was given to the points I made in the Seanad in relation to the State’s appeal which was then still awaiting its hearing in the Supreme Court on the following Friday.”
It’s quite easy to get paranoid when everyone is against you, but a quick search finds that The Irish Times for one did cover McDowell’s speech in the Seanad, odly enough in it’s Seanad Report section on the 1st of June 2006; the day after McDowell spoke there;
Minister for Justice Michael McDowell said it was planned to introduce emergency measures before this weekend to restore the protection of persons under 17 in terms of statutory prohibition of the offence of unlawful carnal knowledge.
It was proposed to meet the Supreme Court’s concerns about the 1935 Act on admitting arguments of mistaken belief about the age of victims. He had been contacted last week by the Ombudsman for Children who had argued against a change in the law.
The rest can be read here (subs req.).
There is no doubt that there was a media-frenzy to some degree however McDowell is purposely paying attention to the tabloids and ignoring the more sensible approach of other media outlets, including the one that has given him another platform.
It is also interesting to note that McDowell hangs himself to some degree, criticising the opposition and media-led calls for emergency legislation, which were cries that he very quickly conceeded to. Has he not got the integrity to withstand such opposition if he knows it is for the good of the country? Of course not; again he saw the potential for a de-motion and did the popular thing (that is if your definition of popular is what is being shouted the loudest), not the right thing.
McDowell proceeds with a list of myths that he wants to dispell;
That the Law Reform Commission warned of the unconstitutionality of the law in 1991. Not true.
I don’t know who said it was unconstitutional but as McDowell well knows only one body can make that claim, the supreme court; all others can only allude to this fact. An LRC report actually stated “The absence of any defence to any of the relevant offences of reasonable mistake as to the age of the girl is capable of producing serious injustice, particularly where the age of the girl is close to the age of consent.” and “The law can be said to be unfairly discriminatory between the sexes, since only males can, for example, be convicted of gross indecency or of unlawful carnal knowledge under s2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935 where the girl is over 15 but under 17″ and “The age limits by reference to which certain offences are defined or penalties fixed appear to be arbitrary and merit careful re-examination”. It should be pointed out that this was infact in a consultation paper from 1989 (which came before the full report) by the Law Reform Commission and its warnings of potential “serious injustice” is about as far as it can go on matters such as this.
That its report was ignored. Not true.
Perhaps someone could enlighten us as to what was done in that case?
That emergency legislation could have prevented the “CC” case or the “A” case. Not true.
Only fools assumed that, however had the Department of Justice and AG’s office acted when it was warned again in 2002 then it would have prevented both Mr. A’s brief release and the need for the CC case to have gone to the Supreme Court; both cases occoured after 2002.
That emergency legislation could have kept perpetrators in jail. Not true.
I refer to my last point.
The fact is that McDowell, like other Justice Ministers before knew about the problem and failed to act, most likely because volunteering such an ammendment to the law would have been highly unpopular. This is no excuse however and while others could have acted before (namely in 1991) McDowell was also given sufficient warnings which he failed to heed.
As I said earlier it is worth looking for what is not mentioned rather than what is; in this attempt to shield himself from further criticism McDowell omits the failure of his department and himself to deal with the issue in good time, he also fails to take responsibility for pushing through a law which is legally unsound. He blames the media and the opposition and he claims that he has done no wrong but McDowell knows that he has failed, he just doesn’t want his ego to get any more of a beating than it has already in recent weeks.