Lynn Ruane
University of Dublin · Independent · Ireland
“The chairperson of the board of the Courts Service, Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly, said that the rise in drugs cases of a less serious kind had increased the workload of the lower courts.”
“I remember I could barely write when I started studying addiction. I was 16 when I applied for an addiction studies course. They would not let me on it because they said I was too young and it was for adults. I fought and fought. I did not know how to write an essay. I had not engaged in school since I was about 12.”
“The world is watching how Ireland has done the most extensive interrogation of drugs policy ever seen, and is waiting in hope to see what we do next to make sure that we move with the evidence. It is not just opinion.”
“I join Senator McDowell in thanking all the people we should thank for the efficient and smooth running of these Houses. He ran through them all. Even if we have had a few ding-dongs over rulings on amendments and stuff, other than that, things have moved well, as they always do. I thank the staff across both Houses.”
“There are not many things I will claim some level of expertise in, but this is one where I will claim it. I have been obsessed with it since I was about 16. I look forward to coming back in the new year, and not just for 90 minutes. We need a substantial time to discuss this report, whether three hours, four hours or six hours.”
“It will contain all incidents of prohibited AI practices under Article 5 of the AI Act; all serious incidents of high-risk AI systems in the State, reported under Article 73; high-risk AI systems that are employed in critical infrastructure; and any other AI-related incidents or notifications in the State required to be reported under the…”
The complete record
Every one of 599 lines we hold for Lynn Ruane, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 12.
“I am looking for clarification in respect of Government amendment No. 2. At paragraph (c), it states, "The Minister, on being satisfied that no application has been made under subsection (1) for a period of not less than three years, may, by order, appoint a day on which this subsection shall cease to have effect." Is my understanding correct that even through the time for a review will switch to three years, if nobody applies within a certain three-year period and there have been no applications, the educational fund ceases to exist? If someone does not apply for an educational fund within the given time stipulated by the Minister at paragraph (c) of amendment No.”
“For me, that statement in itself shows why such an amendment is so important. It is so that we can ensure that we are not further compounding the silencing and trauma of people who have already been silenced and traumatised for the majority of their lives. That is what waivers do. I do not believe this is what any of us want to do, but we need to accept and acknowledge that this is what it does.”
“If a person goes into mediation, inadequate child maintenance is decided and the person is unhappy with what was decided in that room, then he or she has recourse to justice. In the case of redress, the fact that the system is setting the criteria, the amounts - the €3,000 and the €15,000 cap - and this and that means that the State is setting constraints on the redress even existing. We are telling people that they signed a waiver, so if they realise they are not happy or have not had their needs met because this is an inadequate service, we have already taken away their right to take it further. We need to go back and clarify, and the Government needs to say that redress is not about replacing legal action. I ask the Minister to reconsider this amendment, if not now, then before Report Stage.”
“Some people felt like they were begging for what they needed. When people are in the courts taking cases, their points are heard and their histories are shared and what happened to them can be seen in a justice-led and transparent way. That is different to receiving redress. Justice and redress are completely different things and if we do not uncouple them, we are in serious trouble. We passed the NDA legislation last year because we recognised that the illusion of severance was being used to force people to sign NDAs so they could not talk about workplace abuse, harassment, sexual exploitation and racism. This is the very same practice. We cannot ever put out the idea that redress is about the replacement of legal recourse. Consider, for example, child maintenance.”
“I echo everything Senator Higgins said. In our minds, redress is about responding to the harms that the State, church or whatever institution has done. It is a response to a wrong that has been done. It is not another mechanism to silence. That is what a waiver does. With institutional abuse in this country, there was a forced silence at every turn where people could not speak about their experiences for fear of isolation, of shame, of their families finding out or whatever it was. A waiver that takes away a person's human rights in terms of recourse to justice is not only a mechanism to further silence the person, to further protect the State, to further take away the person's voice. When someone applies to a redress scheme, he or she applies through whatever application system is set up.”
“This is more of a question, so I can come back on Report Stage. If, between now and then, we have gone from €33 million to €50,000, which would hopefully imply that there was a greater ability to access the fund, did the cap continue to apply or were people able to actually access more than the €15,000? What I am thinking now is that there were people before a cap. I know that something like a prioritisation model was put in place at the time rather than applications being dealt with in terms of the needs at the time and the merit of the application. Did a different system exist at different points in time whereby different survivors accessed different sums because a cap existed or did not exist? That is more of a question in case I need to come back to it.”
“It would be helpful to know what now remains in that account since then. I know it was a struggle to make up that expenditure until then because people were finding it difficult to access money from Caranua. In the grand scheme of things, €33 million is not a lot when we consider the devastation in people's lives and what they need, but Caranua's main principles in setting up were to meet the ongoing needs. The sum €15,000 will never meet the ongoing needs of people who have endured what people endured to be able to apply for the funding in the first place. I just wanted to come back in on that. When Senator Boyhan mentioned what was in the fund, I remembered that I had put in an FOI request on that a few years ago. It would be helpful to know that information.”
“With regard to how much is left in the fund, I have gone back over freedom of information, FOI, requests I submitted in 2017 on the specific fund in Caranua and at that stage, there was €33 million. Therefore, it would be helpful to know what happened between 2017 - I think it was around April 2017 - and now. It was really difficult at the time for survivors to engage with Caranua. They were treated terribly at the time. Obviously, there was the €15,000 cap. I think it was in 2015 that internal auditors decided this would be the cap, and Caranua at the time was stating that survivors had decided that €15,000 would be the cap. There were discussions about that at the time, when representatives from Caranua appeared before the education committee. There was €33 million in April 2017.”
“Can I clarify or get on the record that the intent is to make sure that anything that unintentionally fell outside the scope will be included in that reporting mechanism and for it to be regulated fairly?”
“I thank the Minister of State. While the commission has remit over certain areas, currently, RTÉ online is not subject to any of that regulation. It is my understanding, but perhaps the Minister of State could clarify, that the Government is proposing reforms to the Act to make sure RTÉ online is captured. It is my understanding from my work on the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act previously that we do not even need to wait on amendments or legislation and that the Minister, through his powers, can expand the remit of the commission and give it additional functions. Is this being considered? I am sure it was envisaged anyway that RTÉ online would be captured under the commission's remit.”
“This matter has brought to the fore the fact that online reporting by RTÉ and presumably other linear and non-linear broadcasters is currently not subject to any regulation or bound by any particular code of conduct.”
“While refusing to formally investigate the complaint, RTÉ stood by its reporting and suggested the complaints were making generalised assertions. After the refusal by RTÉ to hear the complaint, Pals for Palestine submitted a complaint to Coimisiún na Meán, which was also rejected on the basis that newspapers, print and online magazines and online-only news publications do not fall within the commission's mandate. The Press Council of Ireland, being the independent body that oversees news publications, primarily focuses on print media, including newspapers and magazines, but its remit also extends to online news media. RTÉ is not a member of the press council, so another obstacle became apparent, despite the fact that RTÉ publishes news content through various platforms online.”
“The reporting that was online positively humanised, at 82% versus 18%, and personalised, at 100% versus 45%, the Israeli detainees more frequently than their Palestinian counterparts; referred to their well-being more often, at 64% versus 27%; prioritised them in the news stories more consistently, at 82% versus 18%; and on occasion speaking to their sociopolitical context, at 100% versus 9%. This group felt there was a need for a complaint to be assessed to see if there was bias towards the reporting of Israeli detainees versus Palestinian detainees. Upon receipt, RTÉ argued that as the complaint related to online news stories published on rte.ie , it fell outside the scope of the statutory complaints process provided for in the Broadcasting Act.”
“In April 2025, for example, a research group from Pals for Palestine, an apolitical collective of activists who organise in pursuit of human rights in Palestine, submitted a complaint to RTÉ under the broadcasting and other media regulation Acts in respect of biased reporting by RTÉ. I am not here to make an assessment of whether the complaint would stand up, but the fact is that the complaint actually could not be followed through. The research undertaken by Pals for Palestine uncovered a pattern in online reporting by RTÉ that demonstrated a positive bias towards Israeli detainees compared to Palestinian detainees.”
“The Acts that underpin Coimisiún na Meán and provide for the regulation of broadcasting, including the codes and rules applicable to both traditional broadcasting and on-demand services, are the broadcasting and other media regulation Acts of 2009 and 2022, principally the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022, which amended the parent Broadcasting Act to a significant extent. The ultimate purpose of the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act was to respond to the shifting landscape of media and content consumption in Ireland and to introduce new rules and safeguards for consumers to ensure that regulation that had historically been applied to traditional broadcasting media would then apply to media available online. However, this has come up as an issue in terms of complaints.”
“Where a person feels that materials published by television and radio broadcasters, newspapers, online platforms, and video-on-demand or streaming services contravene codes of practice in Ireland, for example, where concerns regarding the impartiality of news and current affairs coverage exist or where material is circulated that might cause harm or offence, a statutory complaint can be made directly to the broadcaster, the broadcaster's regulator or the Press Council.”
“I reiterate that I understand this will concern a small number of people. I know how many people it will concern currently. I do not wish to go too much into that because I do not want to identify particular cases or things that are in motion. The parole process was only set up a couple of years ago, so if this has only come up as an issue now, we need to make sure we put those extra layers of access to justice to ensure people are properly supported going forward in the parole process, that it is clear and transparent, that all avenues are covered and that everyone is protected during the process.”
“In some cases a special advocate would be appointed and would say this is a completely good use of this legislation and this information definitely should not be shared. This Bill definitely does not aim to try to open up information to being exposed, State secrets or other stuff such as Garda intelligence that is being unduly or inappropriately shared with anybody. It is just that extra layer which protects the Parole Board and the Garda in terms of the use of this function. This Bill also gives an extra layer of oversight to the individual where somebody else, independent of those factors, is there to assess this on his or her behalf, and if they say this is an appropriate use, it means all avenues are covered. I will not oppose the amendment today. I will accept it and engage over the next while in terms of the use of this Bill.”
“Are we saying this person has committed a crime as part of still having links to organised crime or are we just saying people still have links to organised crime? That is something we really should explore because it will be very difficult for some people to not have particular links to it. They would need to completely change their names, move country and no longer know their family, friends, loved ones, childhood pals or whatever. We can tease out those things in terms of how we think about these things. The questions that have been raised are important in terms of understanding. I did not want the Bill to be too restrictive in terms of the criteria the Minister would use to decide whether a special advocate would be appointed.”
“It will probably be for one or two people along the way. When it comes to people who are seen as having an organised crime aspect, Garda advice comes up a lot and often says this person still has links to organised crime. What are we saying that means? It is very difficult for a person who grew up in a particular community, and who maybe grew up within a particular family and may have an uncle or someone who is heavily involved in it, to not have links to organised crime. It is very difficult to not have links to organised crime if someone's whole existence and life has literally been embedded within particular situations. It is also to make sure we understand what we mean when we say "links".”
“If we are talking about how we support or protect a special advocate, it would be with the same processes we have in place for the Parole Board itself, which carries out that function, but without the extra layer of a barrister's oversight. It is not a criticism of the new board. I engage a lot with the board. It is not always very popular. I do a lot of work with men in the prison system, so I am constantly engaged at various levels of parole processes. This particular issue relates to a very small number of people in that wider parole process. The parole process, in terms of who is applying for parole, involves a small number of people so this legislation affects a smaller number within that small number. Regarding additional layers of burden, the process is not going to add too many layers for a large number of people.”
“He or she makes submissions or oral presentations to the Parole Board to determine the validity or the scale of that information and whether it is an adequate use by An Garda Síochána. It is not that the special advocate would, at the end of the decision-making process, decide that this information should be shared with the parolee or his or her legal representative. It is actually an extension of the parole process itself. With regard to confidentiality, and maybe I need to understand this more, my inclination is that we could also say that about Parole Board members because they are made privy to the information. We already have a situation where the Parole Board members are made privy to the information and it is then decided whether they think it is appropriate to share the information.”
“I thank everyone for their contributions. They will be helpful in teasing out what questions may come up for people. I am always grateful for the further exploration of a topic as it is coming up. I will try to answer some of them. Some of them I cannot answer just now. I considered approaching the Parole Board on this but I was also cautious around including the board in legislation that affects it. Now that it is on the Minister's table, it makes more sense to consult the board. I have consulted legal representation from the North where similar legislation is in situ . I have gone around the houses but have not negotiated or sat down with the Parole Board specifically. To be clear, the special advocate does not determine whether the parolee should be given the information.”
“Also, this Bill will probably never be something that many people will want to champion because it seeks to ensure there is an extra layer of access to justice for life sentence prisoners who often will not be able to raise these concerns or represent themselves in a particular way when they believe there is a barrier to them accessing justice or an unfair decision has been made against them, especially when that unfair decision means they do not know what the information is that is being used and has stopped them from progressing. The Bill ensures that these prisoners have access to justice but it also ensures that we acknowledge the exceptional circumstances, ensure an independent person is brought in to assess the information and that it is not shared with the parolee or their legal representatives.”
“Section 1 is a standard Short Title, collective citation and commencement provisions. Section 2 sets out the interpretation. Section 3 amends section 2(1) of the Parole Act, providing definitions as to what constitutes exceptional circumstances. Section 4 amends section 14 of the 2019 Act to include provisions which set out the procedures to be followed where exceptional circumstances are deemed to exist. Section 5 amends the Act of 2019 through the insertion of a new section which sets out the functions of an appointed special advocate in the parole process. As I said at the beginning, this Bill will definitely not be everyone's radar and it affects only a small minority of people in this country.”
“Having reviewed the sensitive information, the function of the special advocate is to make submissions, where he or she deems appropriate, to represent the applicant's interests to the commissioner and the Parole Board. In closed parole hearings the special advocate may additionally make oral submissions to the parole panel and cross-examine any witnesses called to attend such hearings. The parole commissioners, in reaching their determination regarding an application for parole, will consider both the open evidence that is shared with the applicant and the closed evidence, which is the information reviewed with the assistance of the special advocate. This Bill closely mirrors the provisions of the Parole Commissioners' Rules 2009 in Northern Ireland and amends our Parole Act 2019.”
“We must remember that members of An Garda Síochána are not barristers. Gardaí uphold the law but they do not legislate, do not argue the law in court and do not engage with the law in the same way as a barrister. Once appointed, the special advocate is granted access to the sensitive information to form an understanding of its content and implications. The advocate is precluded from communicating with the applicant or their legal representative throughout the process unless leave has been granted by the commissioner or chairman of the panel. Again, this legislation provides an extra layer of protection to make sure that the special advocate is completely independent of the parolee or their legal representative.”
“They are where disclosures would be likely to adversely affect the safety of an individual, result in the commission of an offence, facilitate an escape from lawful custody or the doing of any act prejudicial to the safekeeping of persons in custody, impede the prevention or detection of offences or the apprehension or prosecution of suspected offenders, be contrary to the interests of national security, or otherwise cause substantial harm to the public interest. People can see where it is laid out under similar legislation in the North, under rule 9, that there are lots of safeguards for when to use exceptional circumstances. However, where a determination is made to withhold the information for any other reason, which I have outlined, a special advocate is appointed from a panel of qualified barristers.”
“The use of special advocates in the North is designed to ensure fairness in proceedings where sensitive information, often related to national security or public interest, can be disclosed to the parole applicant or his or her legal representative. The context for when this occurs is clearly provided in rule 9 of the Northern Ireland legislation and provides absolute clarity regarding the contexts which might give rise to information being withheld in the parole process.”
“Special advocates would be independent of the parolee and his or her legal representation. The Bill, additionally and importantly, inserts an amendment that provides a definition for "exceptional circumstances" to provide greater clarity to applicants, legal representatives, the Parole Board and the general public. I feel that An Garda Síochána should have an extra layer of oversight in terms of how exceptional circumstances are used and this Bill protects their decisions. On the alternative, where this occurs the commissioner or chairman of the panel dealing with the parole application has the power to recommend that the advocate general - the Attorney General for these purposes here in Ireland - ensures that a special advocate be appointed to represent the interests of the prisoner in the parole process.”
“When the documentation and information are withheld, applicants and their legal representatives do not receive an explanation as to why. Additionally, they have no right of reply or recourse. While there are certain circumstances where this may be necessary, and I do not discount or disagree with that, we need to ensure the applicant has a right to due process and it is not negatively undermined. Additionally, there should be greater clarity about the nature of the exceptional circumstances that might give case to the board's decision to withhold in the first instance. We have tabled an amending Bill. Therefore, we propose that special advocates are appointed to represent the interests of parole applicants in circumstances where information is to be withheld in the parole process.”
“According to section 14 of the 2019 Act, the applicant and their legal representative will receive "a copy of any document" or information "furnished to the Board ... where the Board is of the opinion that exceptional circumstances exist that warrant such a document or indication ... not being so given". This means that the representative or the parolee never actually gets to answer any sort of case to any sort of evidence. They are never questioned by the Garda, and they are never brought to court. They can never refute any allegation or give any documentation to say that it is not accurate or that it is not a good use of exceptional circumstances. They have nothing to argue against because it is kept from them.”
“If somebody has evidence and is taking a case in Ireland - obviously not in relation to a life sentence prisoner but just in general - the DPP's office evaluates all the evidence available to it and then decides whether the case should be taken to court. That does not happen here. There is no extra layer of oversight in relation to exceptional circumstances. Also, we are not clear what "exceptional circumstances" actually are. I thank Robert Somerville, who works in my office, for drafting this legislation. I also thank the legal experts who supported us to understand the process here in Ireland and assess how it compares with the process in Northern Ireland in the hope that we could create legislation that would bring us in line with other jurisdictions rather than create a new process.”
“If we look to An Garda Síochána for a report or insight when a person is at a certain point in his or her parole and An Garda Síochána says it has evidence that the person is involved in X, Y or Z or is a potential threat to the State, at that point it can share that information with the Parole Board and then it can decide under the guise of exceptional circumstances that the information cannot be shared with the individual or their legal representation. This may be true in some cases. Obviously, I do not know what information is there or not there. The problem with this is that it means there is absolutely zero oversight of what exact evidence the Garda may have on a particular person. Is it being used appropriately? Who actually makes that assessment?”
“I understand historically as well why that exists. It existed historically with regard to political prisoners, terrorism or persons who were a threat to the State. An Garda Síochána may say that a person is still involved with criminal activity. It became somewhat apparent to me that there may be a lack of access to justice at that point. With regard to exceptional circumstances, they are currently undefined in the Act, and that also causes an issue.”
“There are different elements to what people look for in parole with respect to their parole recommendations, and it is not always necessarily at a certain point that the person would be released. The information gathered by the board in its consideration of an application is generally shared with applicants and their legal representative but can be withheld in exceptional circumstances. It is through my work with several life sentence prisoners, and the work I do in prisons and around fair, just and transparent access to justice, that it became apparent to me that there was potentially a lack of oversight in that part with regard to those exceptional circumstances. I must state strongly that I am not saying that invoking exceptional circumstances, in certain cases, is not something that may be required.”
“When processing an application for parole, the board must follow the procedures as set out in section 14 of the 2019 Act, the most recent version of which was adopted in 2024. As part of the process, the board may request reports regarding applicants from a variety of sources, including but not limited to the Irish Prison Service, the Probation Service and An Garda Síochána. As I said at the start, this process can be a lengthy one and, going into the parole process, you are not looking immediately at release. You may be looking at other enhancements as part of your sentence, whether that be neutral venues or a job, such as an outdoor job on the grounds.”
“Often, people do not engage very well in the early days of a life sentence with regard to psychology, counselling, addiction supports or education. It is often at that 12-year starting point that people see there is something that needs to happen for them to completely change their life, situation and trajectory if they are going to be considered somebody who can be released at a certain point and date in the future. The Parole Board was established by the order of the Minister for Justice in July 2021 in accordance with the Parole Act, so it is a relatively new board and procedures. The board is completely independent in its functions and has the power to engage with parole applicants and victims of crime in reaching a determination.”
“I know the public, and victims especially, quite rightly get upset or disheartened at the prospect of someone who may have taken their loved one's life being out on parole after 12 years, but that only happens when the parole process is actually instigated. It will take a long time from that starting date before a person is actually released. There are several steps that need to be taken throughout that process. Parole is not an entitlement for all life prisoners, with decisions regarding a person's eligibility to return to the community being made by the Parole Board upon application. With regard to the importance of the parole process, sometimes the fact it begins at 12 years is a disincentive for people to engage with the parole system.”
“I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach and welcome the Minister. I know this Bill came to the Minister's attention within the past week with respect to having time with the legislation but I think it is extremely straightforward. It is a simple, short Bill. I will give it some context in terms of where it comes from and what it is trying to achieve. First, for anyone who is unaware of the parole process - I know most of those present are aware of it - it applies to a person or persons who are serving life sentences and have served 12 years or more of their sentence, which is the beginning of the process of them being released pursuant to a parole order. It is important to state that the parole process only ever begins at 12 years.”
“Under the brothel keeping legislation, two people working together could be seen as a brothel. People work together for safety. If people can put out of their minds the morality perspective and the question of whether they agree with the activity itself, this is about what we can do to cause the least amount of harm and risk to an extremely vulnerable group in society. Sex workers have said time and again that the legislation increases the risk to them and their lives. When we consider the small minority of people who have received convictions under this legislation, we can see it does not do what it was intended to. The legislation does not drive down demand for this type of transaction in any shape or form. I hope we can have statements on that review in the coming weeks.”
“The House should have a discussion of the issue and statements on the review. I will give some context. People who oppose the legislation have said, much as they did in 2017, that a power imbalance is created between a person who sells sex and a person who buys sex. To criminalise the person who buys sex seems like the right move in many people's minds but what sex workers have said time and time again is that because the larger risk is with the person in danger of being criminalised, the sex workers must engage in riskier behaviour. The person buying sex takes more control and power because that person is taking the biggest risk in the transaction. Sex workers and those involved in sex work have long said that this imbalance puts their lives in danger.”
“I hope that in the coming weeks we can arrange statements on the recent publication of the review of the operation of section 7A of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993. I was in the minority in this Chamber in 2017. Only a couple of us at that time spoke against the introduction of section 7A. It was promised at the time that there would be a review of the Act by 2020. Five years later, we finally see that review. I have gone through the review extensively in the weeks since its publication. There were 1,200 public surveys and approximately 199 written submissions. A large majority of those spoke to the risks of, and concerns around, section 7A. It seemed to me that the majority of those contributions spoke about the risks of the section but that does not seem to be reflected in the review.”
“We need to also point out that the Senator had the opportunity to table amendments for today. This is Committee Stage. He had a week, so he should not be disingenuous by standing up now and trying to frustrate this process. He had the chance to table Committee Stage amendments for today and he did not do so.”
“I urge the Minister and the Taoiseach to spend some time reflecting on and assessing what it means to be complicit as we do not get to absolve ourselves when we are part of the chain of harm.”
“It acknowledges varying degrees of culpability, showing that someone can be blameless individually but still be blameworthy due to his or her power, decision-making, interactions or collective responsibility. We have collective responsibility and we are culpable if we do not pass legislation like the Bill we have in front of us today. Whether our Government wishes to recognise it or not, the Irish State bears that culpability, with complicity serving as a fundamental mechanism of vicarious responsibility for the transfer of arms to Israel and, for that matter, the purchase and trade of goods and services with illegally occupied territories. We are leaving a mark, through our action and inaction, that will inform a tragedy to be told for generations to come.”
“Harm and blameworthiness reach as far as those who know what is happening and do not do all within their means and power to interrupt and disrupt the harm that is caused. While we may not have it all, we still have some power. Causal accounts of complicity do not address moral blameworthiness or intention. Being morally not okay with genocide or the slaughtering of innocent children does not get us or the Irish Government off the hook when it comes to the degree to which we are complicit in genocide. The causal account highlights individuals' contributions to other people's failings and in this context, it is Israel's annihilation of Palestine and its people, the failure of the West to stop it and the absence of principled intervention by the international community to end genocide.”
“It also includes the 5,667% increase in weapons flight exemptions granted to Irish registered civil aircraft operating outside of Ireland since 2021; the transfer of more than 1 tonne of munitions through Irish territory to Israel on three Lufthansa flights in the last week; zero inspections of exempted flights undertaken in Ireland since 2021; the facilitation of the sale of Israeli bombs by our Central Bank; the use of Shannon Airport by the American military; and unrestrained trade in goods and services with the occupied Palestinian territories. If that is not complicity, I do not know what is. It is very important to use language properly. The Taoiseach does not get to bend the meaning of complicity to absolve his Government of responsibility. We have obligations under international law, if nothing else.”
“In response to Mothers against Genocide and the Palestine protest, the Taoiseach insisted yesterday that we must place blame where it duly lies. He and his Government, however, represent the powers that can actually place that blame, through passing legislation such as the arms embargo Bill today. In the epistemic domain, complicity can explain why certain individuals or groups share blame for epistemic failures, such as the spread of misinformation or the perpetration of harmful beliefs, or, in the case of genocide, a 70% increase in weapons flight exemptions granted by the State over a decade.”
“Over the past 18 months, more than 18,000 children and babies have been slaughtered indiscriminately, and 90% of Gazans have been forcibly displaced. Despite this, the Israeli Government announced today the planned expansion of its military operation and land seizures in Gaza, a few short weeks after it unilaterally broke the ceasefire. Again, the Irish State is complicit. To hold some sort of moral judgment on the situation in Gaza does not excuse us or absolve us of responsibility. We cannot excuse our action or inaction by stating we are just following orders or, as the Taoiseach implied yesterday, placing the blame where it really lies. We are asking the Government to place the blame where it really lies.”