Politics

Vivisection

The opponents to vivisection are more prominent than the proponents of vivisection. The former are known as Anti-Vivisectionists whereas the latter are probably better known as scientists or businessmen.

Anti-Vivisectionists have been around for a long time, and have shared interests, historically, with the anti-slavery movement.

According to the Irish Times, the Green Party has published a Bill to ban laboratory testing on primates in Ireland.

This is an interesting subject: is the issue political or not?

The courts of the UK have decided that the issue is a moral issue, conditionally.

The condition is that it becomes a political issue when the opponents of vivisection pursue their purposes by political means.

Like the Green Party.

In principle, therefore, people would identify “politicalâ€? with “party politicalâ€?. The Green Party may or may not feel that is right to see the issue as party political just because it is being mediated through their party. They might feel that a moral issue should not be diminished with the label “party politicalâ€? merely because it is supported by them or receive their approbation.

There is reason to think that, prima facie, people might be wrong in that judgement; the judgement, that in our legislation, “politicalâ€? usually, if not always, means “party politicalâ€?.

We have seen that, for the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, the moral issue is not, it would appear, the relevant consideration. It appears it is the mode by which, or forum in which, the issue is publicised.

As noted HERE “political purposeâ€? has been very fully defined in Section 49 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001.

It reads:

‘political purposes’ means any of the following purposes, namely—

(i) (I) to promote or oppose directly or indirectly, the interests of a political party, a political group, a member of either House of the Oireachtas or a representative in the European Parliament, or

(II) to present, directly or indirectly, the policies or a particular policy of a political party, a political group, a member of either House of the Oireachtas, a representative in the European Parliament or a third party, or

(III) to present, directly or indirectly, the comments of a political party, a political group, a member of either House of the Oireachtas, a representative in the European Parliament or a third party with regard to the policy or policies of another political party, political group, a member of either House of the Oireachtas, representative in the European Parliament, third party or candidate at an election or referendum or otherwise, or

(IV) to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the interests of a third party in connection with the conduct or management of any campaign conducted with a view to promoting or procuring a particular outcome in relation to a policy or policies or functions of the Government or any public authority;

(ii) to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the election of a candidate at a Dáil, Seanad or European election or to solicit votes for or against a candidate or to present the policies or a particular policy of a candidate or the views of a candidate on any matter connected with the election or the comments of a candidate with regard to the policy or policies of a political party or a political group or of another candidate at the election or otherwise;

(iii) otherwise to influence the outcome of the election or a referendum or campaign referred to in paragraph (i)(IV) of this definition;

On this definition an effort, collective or otherwise, to deprecate or oppose the government of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe would, if in receipt of more than €125 in a year, oblige the recipient to register with the Standards in Public Office Commission. (Mugabe is a “third party” and his government is a “public authority”)

This does not accord with commonsense. To extend the meaning of a word – in this case “politicalâ€?- is to impoverish the language.

It can also undermine important concepts such as the separation of powers. It is an implied element in that concept, that the courts will not review political issues. All of legislation it is accepted, in Ireland, is, under the Constitution of Ireland, open to, or subject to, Judicial Review. Therefore, arguendo, the law is not, per se, a political issue.

In this context of funding, ironically, the High Court has struck down Section 3 of the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847 as unconstitutional for criminalising begging and thereby infringing the right to freedom of expression and the right to communicate.

A beggar is, clearly, a “third partyâ€? under the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001.

The “political purposeâ€? definition includes : “… to present, directly or indirectly, the policies or a particular policy of … a third partyâ€?. This is a reasonable description of the activities of a beggar.

Should beggars register with the Standards in Public Office Commission, subject to collecting in excess of €125 per annum?

Or is the function of the Standards in Public Office Commission another impediment to freedom of expression and the right to communicate?