Transparency2040.files.wordpress.com



From: [ REDACTED ] Seamuseen O’Date: 21-March-2018To: The Taioseachcc: The Attorney General of Irelandcc: The 200+ followers of Transparency Ireland 2040My Ref: Taoiseach-Aarhus-Violation-1Dear Taoiseach,I am hereby informing you on an **URGENT AND EVEN EMERGENCY BASIS** that I believe that you (the Irish government) and possibly also the EU, may be irreparably infringing the rights of the Irish people as we speak: as I read it, Ireland would be violating the Aarhus Convention (to which it is a signatory) by accepting ‘refugee quotas’ from the EU, or if it otherwise arranges, or continues in an arrangement, to take a number of refugees into Ireland which could be of concern to the public, or similarly any mass movement of unskilled migrants, unless Ireland does a full ‘public participation’ IN ADVANCE on the issue.I believe that doing this without full and transparent ‘public participation’ violates Articles 6 and 7 of the Aarhus Convention.On a similar vein, I am informing the EU Commission today in a letter I am copying you on, that I believe that legally, its program of imposing or even arranging refugee quotas on ANY member states of the EU, without first doing a ‘public participation’ on the question to the EU PUBLIC as a whole, would also be a violation rights of the EU public established under the Aarhus convention. (In their case, Articles 6, 7, would be violated if they merely arranged quotas, and also 8 if they mandated the quotas or used some other normative instrument to establish them.)If such programs are underway already, I believe that they must be suspended immediately, until such public participation is done, to comply with the public’s rights.The Aarhus convention grants the public the right to transparency and public participation on any public programs which may have a significant effect on the environment. For a program creating population increase, we can even confidently say that it shall have a significant effect on the environment, as opposed to merely ‘may’ have a significant effect on the environment. It is difficult to identify a common environmental event which will generally with total predictability have a more significant and profound effect on the environment than human population increase. New people consume more at all levels, drive up energy usage and expenses and therefore increase various kinds of pollution, put stress on housing supply, require the building of more housing, waste disposal, and put stress on and expansion of all other forms of infrastructure and roads and most of the elements mentioned in the Annex I to the Aarhus convention.According to Article 6, 1(b), public participation must be done on programs which may significantly affect the environment, not just ones which are designated as affecting the environment, or intended to affect the environment:Aarhus Convention (my emphasis)Article 6PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISIONS ON SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES1. Each Party:(a) Shall apply the provisions of this article with respect todecisions on whether to permit proposed activities listed in annex I;(b) Shall, in accordance with its national law, also apply theprovisions of this article to decisions on proposed activities not listed inannex I which may have a significant effect on the environment. To this end,Parties shall determine whether such a proposed activity is subject to theseprovisions; and….. etc.Public participation means that at a minimum, PRIOR to making, or accepting arrangements, with the EU or otherwise, to take in refugees or mass migration in significant numbers, you must do a full public participation on the issue at a national level.This means that for public participation on a refugee or mass migration program you MUST, at a minimum, in accordance with established guidelines and case law on transparency and public participation:Transparently describe the plan in detail.Circumscribe the limits of the plan in magnitude and time.In practice, this means stating a reasonable time frame (not too long), and a maximum magnitude (number of refugees/migrants) during the time frame.I would propose that 2 or maximum 3 years is a good time-frame. The public participation would have to be repeated to continue the program after the stated time-frame.Transparently and prominently put your proposal in front of the public of Ireland, with limits and scope so circumscribed according to item 2 above. For an issue as big as this, I would say publication in the national newspapers, radio, and television notification on prime-time is warranted.It should go without saying that propaganda, manipulation and misrepresentation, including but not limited to the common media pictorially representation of migrants as being largely families with children during a time when they are overwhelmingly adult males, should be avoided entirely.Provide for public meetings on the issue. Provide security so that the meetings are orderly. Making sure that such public meetings are orderly is a responsibility of the government. There is a risk that such meetings would be subverted by thugs.Provide also for the receipt of written submissions/responses, electronic and hardcopy from the public.Publish all submissions/responses – if you do not, you violate transparency, and create an information asymmetry where you know public opinion and the public does not. Also, members of the public would be deprived of knowledge of other members of the public.Publish your summaries of submissions/responses (if you do not do this, you are not accountable, because we do not know the view you take of what the submissions say, nor do we know if those who summarized the submissions were fair and accurate).Take all of these responses into account and THEN and ONLY THEN, make your decisions.Could you respond to me that you agree with what I say Aarhus requires of you in this context? Or if you disagree, I would love to hear your legal reasoning. If I do not hear from you by three weeks from now, April 11, 2018 either expressing your agreement, or if you disagree, giving legal reasoning which satisfies me, I will be taking Ireland to the Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva. I have made a similar statement with the same date, to the EU, and copying you on it.Please respond by email.Of course, please keep my actual identity confidential. A redacted version of this letter is being sent in due course to all members of the Oireachtas and other parties. That version shall not reveal my identity. ONLY the letter(s) sent to the Taoiseach’s office itself and copied to the AG, reveal my actual identity.The identity-redacted letter and your responses to it and all related letters are being blogged. You can find me on the Facebook page ‘Transparency Ireland 2040’ which has over 200 followers so far, as I write this, while it is only just over one week old; it has been ‘shared’ well over 100 times. Lawful immigrants to Ireland are strongly OVER-represented in my followers. Many of these people from outside Ireland have experience which makes them responsible adults, not virtue-signalling and bullied children, on the issue of ethnic conflict; the know what balkanization is, what can cause it, and they responsibly want to curb it. As Transparency Ireland 2040 says on the page, only things it itself says should be attributed to it – commenters to the site are speaking for themselves alone. Politics makes strange bedfellows—while most of those who follow us on Facebook are decent, a minority of those who support Transparency Ireland 2040 are predictably unsavoury, just as a minority who support you (Fine Gael) are unsavoury.A wise political word in your earOn a political note, while the legal issue my letter brings up may be undesired or inconvenient at this time and may be something that your government wants at first to ‘make go away’, please consider everything carefully as it may actually be a blessing in disguise and your political friend in the long run. I can see that you are in a difficult political position with these mass unskilled migration issues. I was heartened and impressed that you recently publicly at least identified ‘uncontrolled mass migration’ as a major challenge, and saw you get unwarranted politically-correct blowback for that on Twitter: How nice, from the Immigrant Council of Ireland! Irish Taoiseach is not allowed to draw attention to legitimate concerns without being shamed! You may find yourself in a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ situation. Because you are. And I can help you get out of it.All you were doing is trying to open a responsible, transparent dialog, and you get politically attacked. There are those who may want to try to (figuratively not literally speaking) hang you if you don’t open the borders, and there are certainly those who will be successful in hanging you in the long term if you do open the borders (you would be well aware of course of the massacre of political careers in Italy right now, where a full half of the cabinet actually lost their seats in parliament, and the related slow political death of Angela Merkel).Therefore it might be to your political advantage, as opposed to disadvantage, that you (and the Attorney General) come to the same conclusions as me, regarding what the Aarhus Convention requires of you in this case. And that you stand firm on that opinion even if the EU Commission does not like that opinion. And further, it may be to your political advantage that you agree with me about what the Aarhus Convention requires of the EU in this case.It is not difficult to sell transparency and public participation to the public at large even if the ‘open borders’ people do not want it in this case. The people with the ‘open borders’ mentality can give an excessive impression of their political strength and numbers, owing largely to their over-representation in the twittering classes, the media and academia, relative to their representation among the voting public. However, be assured that their power is both illusory and decidedly declining. We are in the middle of a huge, destructive, mass mobbing or psychological bullying phenomenon, irrational, not unlike that of the medieval witch scares or the Salem Witch Trials, in which people are afraid to say what they think and want, even when it is entirely legitimate. The ‘open borders’ or pro-immigration people are stoking the mob mentality to their advantage (as indeed that tweet above was an example), shaming those who step out of line and drawing the mob’s ire towards them. Therefore, what many people actually think and want may not be what it seems. Using the public participation requirement, you can maintain the high road of democratic rights, while appropriately slowing down those who want to irresponsibly open the borders (including possibly powerful elements in the EU Commission) in their efforts to carry out plans which would I say would CERTAINLY destroy you in the long-term if you acquiesce with them on your watch. Therefore, yielding to the fact that Aarhus requires public participation on these issues, is in the long term a good strategy for your political survival, as well as best for the Irish people.And you may be sure that in the long run, the Irish people, not unlike the Germans and the Italians, but maybe even more quickly, will not reward those who harm them. In a case when people are not allowed to say what they think, the politicians who cannot read minds, and instead read media, academics, vapid celebrities and rock stars, are marching slowly but inevitably to political destruction.I am copying you (and the Irish AG) on my related letter to the EU Commission today, also attached in the same email in which this letter was sent to you today.The other thing about a possible misguided wish to ‘make this go away’, is that your government actually cannot make me ‘go away’ on this question. I’ll be doing an EIR (Environmental Information Request) shortly on your migrant or refugee-related plans, and on asking for your plans on any public participation you intend to do on those plans. A legitimate response to this EIR might be ‘our plans in this area are suspended and will not be continued until or unless a public participation is done first’. If you do not comply with this coming EIR, it is appealable to the High Court, under an EU-mandated cost protection regime. Also, I have spoken to the Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva before, about two years ago; I am not bluffing that I will take you to the Aarhus Compliance committee if your response is not satisfactory.So in short: think about the phrase ‘if you can’t beat him, join him’. Often the earlier you make a correct decision like that, the better.One final note: it is well known and undisputed that we can keep ‘refugees’ in safety outside our countries for a fraction, maybe around 1/20 to 1/40 of what it costs us to keep them in safety here. The ‘take in refugees’ mentality at the higher, strategic levels is NOT actually for the benefit of the refugees, quite the opposite, because keeping ONE in safety in our own countries sucks up resources that would keep around TWENTY TO FORTY in safety outside our own countries. What is going on in Germany and Sweden is not about ‘people fleeing war’—I don’t know what exactly is behind it, but compassion and humanitarianism are not the main drivers at the higher levels. There is no sense in which going along with the ‘open borders’ mentality is a high road of ANY kind.Everything said about ‘refugees’ here also applies also to unskilled migrants of any kind; any mass movement which increases population.Is mise le meas, [REDACTED] Seamuseen O’ ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download