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 9 of 12.
“The Minister of State is very welcome. I raise an issue that has come past my desk a couple of times over the last few weeks. There seems to be an increased pressure on families, especially vulnerable families, some of them headed up by women, in relation to rent arrears. In one of two cases of rent arrears, one for €12,000 and another for €10,000, the person has been put out onto the street with their family. They have been in the house over 42 years. A figure of €12,000 is a drop in the ocean compared to the fact that the Dublin Region Homeless Executive stated that it can cost up to €180,000 per year to put a family in emergency accommodation.”
“People are terrified to pull others into their situation. When they are safe, they may pull more people in but when the ground is moving beneath them, they are afraid. What is proposed in this Bill is a very conservative measure. When I read it, I wondered whether Senator Stephenson was for real in providing for only three months of free transport. The provision is extremely modest. I ask everybody to pause for a moment. It is not too late for the Government to take a different approach. The Minister's Department, with the will of the Government, can work with Senator Stephenson to ensure the Bill can be operational, is funded and will do what it says on the tin. We do not need a timed amendment to achieve that.”
“Over the years, with very little uproar, women's children's allowance payment has been associated with their children still being in school, completely ignoring all the issues a family may face and further pushing vulnerable women into poverty. There are loads of reasons women do not have the ability to travel, whether to school or appointments. An issue I encountered on many occasions from people trying to leave difficult situations was that when asked why they had not called me or another safe person, they said they did not want to be a burden. They did not want to pull another person in because that person knew their partner's sister, say, and they were terrified the partner would be contacted. All of a sudden, the web of fear cripples the person and prevents them being able to ask for a lift or money for a bus or taxi.”
“Those are the types of decisions people are making on a daily basis. I supported a woman years ago when I worked in addiction services who was in a situation where someone had complete financial control of all her payments and access to money. When I asked whether she had access to her children's allowance payment, she said she did not because the State now required a stamp from her child's school to prove the child was still attending school past 15 years of age. There are really vulnerable people who struggle to get their children to school, whether because of additional need or trauma in the household.”
“One woman I supported refused to go into a refuge because there was no bus route to the suburb of Dublin where it was located. She did not want to disrupt her children's school day because their lives were already disrupted enough. She wanted them still to have one constant in their day, which was the teacher and friends they were used to. She was terrified to take that refuge space because she might not be able to get the children to school. Being unable to get them to school was not just a question of disruption but the worry that Tusla might get involved. All the barriers presented, layer upon layer, and then the panic came and she said she could not go. She needed safety but she was terrified of all the other things that would happen when she sought safety. Sometimes, seeking safety can reduce one's safety.”
“We work collaboratively by recognising legislation on its principles, merits and what it can achieve. The Government might want some changes but that can be worked out between us before Committee Stage. What should not be done is delay the legislation. I ask for some reflection on that in the time we have left. Will the Government allow us to be legislators and have faith that the Department and the Minister will be able to have those discussions between now and Committee Stage without a time delay? I will not lecture anyone on why this Bill is important. I accept that everybody in the Chamber knows that. I will give some examples of where it comes into play outside of rural areas. Without giving away the locations of refuges, some are in the suburbs of Dublin for people from Dublin Central.”
“As an Independent Senator who has had a lot of my legislation passed in the House, I have always been able to come to arrangements with Departments that I would not table a Bill for Committee Stage until there had been robust engagement on the crux of the proposals and until we had agreement that what the Bill could look like when it came back on Committee Stage, what the operational part would look like and what amendments there might be. I did that with former Ministers Charlie Flanagan and Deputy O'Gorman. All those Bills were passed in this House, having been worked out by way of the normal process. A 12-month delay is not needed. We should have faith in our capabilities and capacity. On my first day in this Chamber, everybody spoke about the need to work collaboratively. Delaying legislation is not working collaboratively.”
“It is about working issues out at each Stage. For some reason, in the ten years I have been here, a brand-new feature of the legislative process has been created over time by the Government. I refer to the putting forward of timed amendments. That started happening two or three years into my term in the House; it did not exist beforehand. Timed amendments were brought in purposely to delay legislation because the Government did not want to be seen to vote against something about which many people within the parties of government cared, because the parties had policies on it or because they could see the proposal might not align with the intentions of the Government of the day or the relevant Department. This is one of those moments.”
“I get a sense that the general feeling in the Chamber is not one of support for the Government's amendment. Sometimes, listening to Members from the Government parties speak, one can tell there is not an energy behind wanting to delay something. That can be felt in how Members present their contributions on a topic. I can sense that here today. I encourage colleagues opposite not to provide tellers for the vote on the amendment. Beyond the substance of the issue we are discussing, which I will get to, we all, whether representing the Government or the Opposition, should have faith in the job we do here and in our ability, whether as officials, Departments, experts or legislators, to work together to come to arrangements about legislation between Second and Committee Stages. That is what the legislative process is for.”
“I would imagine that public interest can be a much wider thing and that public benefit would be where you have to show that it actually benefits the public, which obviously feels like a different bar from just public interest. Will the Minister give me insight into what the difference is between public interest and public benefit?”
“On the right to reply, with politicians and other people, if something is in the media, in most cases people are offered the right of reply. When people are in much more marginalised situations, especially if they are serving a sentence, nobody is given the right of reply. Does that mean that, even though your liberty is removed and certain rights are removed due to imprisonment, defamation law does not apply to people in prison? Do they not have those same rights of right of reply, which do not currently happen? The other question relates to public interest and public benefit and the difference between the two. The original defamation legislation referred to "public interest" and qualified that with "public benefit". In this new section, it only says "public interest". What is the difference between those two thresholds?”
“If we do not have an opportunity to develop our reputation and our name and to right the wrongs we may have done in the past, that is really problematic because we do not give anyone a chance to re-engage in society and to be able to become trustworthy citizens who want to contribute to society in a much better way and do no more harm. How do we ensure that people who are much further away from systems and with no platforms are also protected, whether it is through the original section 26 in the original Act or through this legislation? What do we actually understand to be a good name and do we allow people to reassume their good name because they may have got into particular situations due to particular circumstances?”
“Reputational damage has already happened to them, potentially from being involved in criminality, they engage in psychology and rehabilitation, get their degree through the Open University or in college, they start volunteering, they have a job on the land and they are working their way out, and then we we allow the newspapers to write anything about them because it is like once you have a good name, you only have it as long as you have that forever. Does a person have an opportunity to develop and reassume a good name, good character and good reputation?”
“The red-top media in particular will often say "a source has told us" or "a source has said". Even if this is proven wrong, the person was never taken to court or the situation was not actually as it was, these people are so vulnerable and so on the margins that they will never be in a position to actually take a case against those newspapers. This relates also to the language of hyperbole that some of the red-top newspapers use. They may say things that are quite fictional like "psychotic" or "doesn't show any remorse", a view that may be given by a secret contact, which is usually a prison officer who has no contact in a therapeutic way with the individual. What do we believe to be a good name? On a very philosophical level, does someone have such a right?”
“It may be, however, that it is actually written into the contract that you cannot disparage your employer in any way, shape or form. How do non-disparagement clauses, which also I feel are wrong, intersect with the defamation legislation, section 11 specifically? I suppose Members are all very focused on how the media may represent us or other people in the public eye, but there are people who are a lot more vulnerable who are commented on in public and in the media a lot. It is often not a cohort whom people want to protect from further reputational damage because I think there is a feeling that this cohort's reputation is already damaged and they do not deserve to reassume a good name. Consider, for example, people currently serving prison sentences.”
“When the Minister spoke about how references will be protected, I wondered how that fits with the new non-disclosure agreement legislation, which provides that such agreements are no longer legal. How we can retrospectively protect people by ensuring false statements are not given in references, which to me seems completely and wholly wrong? We must also look at the use of non-disparagement clauses. Currently under non-disparagement clauses an employer has the potential to take someone to court if, perhaps, they called out the employer. I will use a random example of a deli that is supposed to freeze a certain food after a certain amount of days and they do not do so. Perhaps an employee takes umbrage with this and goes out on social media and speaks about the practices there are blah blah blah.”
“The problem is that people may be giving references for problematic employees in order to move them on to other vulnerable places of work. This is especially important if that person has harassed women within the role. I say all of this from experience. It is where the initial non-disclosure agreements Bill came from. A non-disclosure agreement may mean that a manager who is providing a reference, having been asked to do so by his or her senior, has to collude in giving a false reference for an employee in an attempt to pass the trash, which is what it is called internationally. This means that the employee in question is basically protected within the reference by the non-disclosure agreement. The employer gives a false statement about the employee purely to move them on because they are so problematic within that workforce.”
“This is being done in order to future-proof any hypothetical situations that may occur between an employer and an employee in a certain profession or whatever. The reason I bring this up is specifically in relation to non-disclosure agreements. Currently, the non-disclosure agreement legislation - I introduced the initial Bill before the Government passed its own version last year - does not address retrospective non-disclosure agreements. What is the role of this legislation in relation to employment references? I ask that question in the context of circumstances in which somebody in employment - there may not have been a criminal case - may have a record of harassment, bullying or other particular behaviours. What I am hearing is that an employer would be protected in what they say about that person in a reference.”
“I did not initially have any questions but I had similar concerns as others that were previously raised. I did not have any additional questions until the Minister’s contribution. My questions can probably be answered quite easily without me having to look at submitting future amendments on Report Stage. This may see seem like a side point compared to the conversation here today, but I ask the Minister to bear with me. The Minister mentioned references as an example of something that may be protected; for example, if an employer gives a reference for somebody. For me, that brought up a concern around the use of non-disparagement clauses, which are being written into contracts before someone takes up employment.”
“Primary schools may be looking for different supports, such as occupational therapists and other types of support hours, while at post-primary level it is essential that DEIS+ include a deputy principal so that principals can actually be involved in those targeted responses. It is something that post-primary principals in those DEIS+ band 1 areas have specifically called for. Sometimes we put a figure on how many students a school has to have to be able to avail of something, but it needs to be seen as the need of the school . The schools in DEIS+ band 1 are already vulnerable. It should be based on need and not on the number of students in the school.”
“There is still time to be able to have that very serious discussion to see if we can remove that 18.5-hour cap before this budget comes into effect so that we do not end up widening the gap between carers. They are already such a disadvantaged and vulnerable group as a whole without us creating further gaps and barriers between them depending on their educational attainment or their capacity to earn a certain type of wage. I hope the Minister of State can bring that back to the appropriate Minister. In my last few seconds, I want to home in on the DEIS+ band 1 piece. There is no detail on it. I hope some emerges over the next few weeks because it is very important that we see some detail on that. The differences between what is needed at primary and post primary within that DEIS plus band is, as the Minister of State knows, significant.”
“That measurement need not exist within the policy. Instead, the policy should be about the sum someone can earn, not the number of hours they can earn it within. If we remove the number of hours someone can earn it within, we will increase the opportunity for single-parent households to increase their workload to 24 or 25 hours a week. Another thing that affects these households is that it also includes voluntary work and education. If a single parent wants to engage in further education or gain a degree so that she can fall into that higher bracket of earning €54 per hour, she cannot do that while also working for 18.5 hours a week because her education will be counted in those 18.5 hours.”
“To avail of the increase, therefore, of up to €1,000 for a single person within the regulated 18.5 hours, those who will be eligible for such an increase are those who already fall into a bracket where they may have had the opportunity of getting a higher level education and did not take up lower paid and low-skilled, manual jobs. What we are actually seeing is the opposite of the desired effect on a single-parent household or someone who does not have the skills required to earn €54 an hour, according to our calculations. The carer I spoke to in relation to this is not a position to earn €54 an hour for 18.5 hours' work. That is a policy question; it is not even a budgetary one. We need the Minister of State to go back to the Minister, Deputy Calleary, and say we need to remove the 18.5-hour cap.”
“I wonder what that says about class and poverty analysis, as well as poverty impact assessments of budgets, or how budget decisions actually play out in real terms in real-life scenarios. One real scenario relates to the carer's allowance budget proposal. The increase in the income disregard of €375 to €1,000 for a single person seems very positive, as does the increase of €750 to €2,000 for a couple, but we have to take account of the bureaucratic barriers that exist within the criteria for that. The regulation provides that carers can be in employment or attend education or training for a maximum of 18.5 hours.”
“Effectively, the Parliamentary Budget Office is saying is there is going to be a rise in poverty, based on its budget analysis. It states that poverty rates will rise "from 11.5% in 2024 to a forecast level of 13.2% in 2025 and 12.6% in 2026" and that "a rise in income poverty is evident for the elderly (those aged over 64), rising from 13.3% in 2024, to a forecast 19.0% in 2025 and 17.6% in 2026." Child poverty is also set to rise, according to its analysis, from 15.3% in 2024 to a forecast 16.1% in 2025 and 15.6% in 2026. It is really concerning to read that level of analysis of the budget. Sometimes we can get caught up talking about increases and saying it is great that there will be an increase here or there, but this analysis takes in the whole picture and is saying something very different.”
“I caveat it by saying we can announce increases but sometimes we have to look at the policy intention or the bureaucratic barriers that come with some increases and may cause unintended consequences, which I will go into later when I speak specifically to the carer's allowance budget. The Parliamentary Budget Office document states: Our key finding highlights that the full winding down of cost-of-living supports in Budget 2026 will significantly impact low-income households, equivalent to an average decrease in annual income of 4.4% for the poorest ten per cent of households and 3.9% for the next poorest ten per cent, while middle-income households see a decrease of 1.3% on average. Income losses among low-income households leads to a rise in income poverty rates ...”
“Before I make two points on the budget, I want to bookend my contribution with something to frame it and keep in mind. Earlier I read a document produced by the Parliamentary Budget Office's economic modelling and policy costing unit that looks at the impact of the budget, including the announced increases in current spending of €6.1 billion, capital spending of €2 billion and a tax package of €1.3 billion. It analyses how the changes to taxes and social welfare policy announced as part of budget 2026 will affect households and focuses on the distributional implications, namely, how the announced policies will affect low- and middle-income households. I am going to highlight one of the most important and concerning paragraphs from that analysis.”
“Instead of people getting defensive and thinking they care as much as anyone, we need to think about what else we should and can do, what sanctions we need to bring and how we can liberate Palestine so that Palestinians can fulfil the things they expected in their lifetimes, which are the same things we expect in our lifetimes, that is, to put our heads on a pillow at night and not hear bombs raining down around us. That is what is expected. I hope that, in his response, the Minister of State will outline what actions will be taken beyond diplomatic relations to ensure there is an end to the genocide in Gaza.”
“What we want to see today, beyond the protection of our citizens who are currently or will be detained, is concrete action. What we expect is that our Government and the European Union will use every possible lever they have to bring about an end to this genocide. That is what we expect and it is what we would like to hear. We do not want to be here in six months wondering how we will get more colleagues, citizens or activists home. We expect an end to what is happening in Gaza. Despite what any of us think, we have the power to do that.”
“We want our loved ones and friends to come home safely, but we also expect, beyond the embassies and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade making sure the representation is happening, to end the genocide. That is why the flotilla exists in the first place. While we look for humanitarian corridors and the safe return of Irish citizens, including our colleagues, we also expect that to be matched with sanctions, with more than words. Israel is beyond shaming. The world is shaming Israel and it does not curb its actions in any sense of the word. If anything, its language and how it goes about its business has just become more and more morally corrupt. It loses its humanity day by day. When people are that far removed from their humanity, words will not penetrate anything. It is beyond that.”
“What we expect is for the flotilla not to exist in the first place, that people would not have to get on boats and leave their families. That is what people expect. In the face of the fact that flotillas have had to happen, what we expect is to ensure we can take actions to hold Israel to account. The fact is that Palestine does not have the military force to be able to withstand or fight a war. That does not exist. What do exist are economic sanctions. As the military power is not there, we need to create a scenario where Israel feels a loss from what it is doing. That will be economic and every government has the power to create that economic sanction. What do we expect? We expect to be able to break the siege.”
“They never expected to hold the lifeless or limbless bodies of their children in their arms. They never expected to have to look to other countries and beg them to act. It is fair to answer, when people say there is no monopoly on who cares the most, that there is a monopoly on the ability to make decisions. When we ask our Government and the European Union or any government that has any kind of global capacity to act, we are not saying that people do not care. Rather, we are asking what more we can do. How can we create sanctions on Israel? How can we end trade? How can we bring the genocide to an end? We are asking what more we can do, not saying others do not care. If we can put that to the side, people will be able to think about what other steps we need to take. We ask what we expect, as citizens, politicians or anyone.”
“Someone has entered international waters, broken the law and taken people who are not committing a crime to a land they did not intend to go to. That is clear to most people and it is good for us to keep saying that over and over again to ensure no one tries to change that language or diminish or dismiss what is happening and how it is happening. Sometimes, I see commentary online relating to the last flotillas or this one, where people ask what the participants expected. When I think about that, I bring it back a step and ask what the Palestinian people have expected for the past 100 years. What did they expect when they brought their children into the world? What they expected was to work their land, travel, see their children grow and watch their children play.”
“We must ensure we do not take our eyes off what is coming. Obviously, there is so much commotion due to what is happening now. We need to make sure we take the long-term view that these waves of flotillas are going to keep coming because these people are not going to stop. We therefore need to have a long-term action plan about how we will support those flotillas to break the siege and sail alongside them with humanitarian aid boats. We do not need to use humanitarian aid trucks. It is a legal route by sea. It is supported by the ICJ. Imelda Graham, whose daughter Caitríona is part of the mission, and Jenna Almai, whose mother is also part of the mission, are with us today. So far, nine people have been confirmed abducted or kidnapped. They are the correct terms to use. It is essentially piracy.”
“I thank the Leader and the Minister of State for facilitating the discussion and adding this to the schedule today. It is extremely important that we can communicate clearly and be transparent, especially for all of the families who want to know what is going to happen, how their family members are going to be protected and what actions our Government will take to ensure the safe return of their loved ones. In the Chamber today, we are joined by some of those family members. We have Tracey Douglas, whose father is part of the mission. We have Pat Dolan and Miriam McNally, whose daughter, Naoise Dolan, is en route on the next flotilla. That is very concerning when we see what was met just ahead. They have to deal with the anticipation and waiting, knowing there is another flotilla on the way that their loved one is on.”
“It takes nothing for us or from us to vote in favour of an amendment that calls on the Taoiseach or a senior Minister to come to the Chamber to give an update and make a strong statement on this matter. It is a very easy ask.”
“There are ships currently within reach that could provide lifesaving medicines. Imagine being a child who has to have an amputation without anaesthetic. Imagine that pain. We talk about the bravery of those attempting to bring aid and the resistance that continues to exist among the Gazan people to be who they are, namely to be Palestinians who are proud of their heritage. They continue to fight for their own survival in the face of pure evil. To use our privilege to vote for an amendment to call for statements in this Chamber does not take bravery. It just takes a decision on our own behalf to say we want statements on this matter to be taken today in order to send a strong message to our colleagues and to Palestine.”
“I stand open to correction, but I think four boats are still on course. They are not the ones that left a few days ago from Italy, but there are still four that are part of that flotilla and that have not yet been intercepted. They are surrounded, however. They are getting very close Gazan shores, which is completely legal to do. We need to send a strong message to allow those boats to continue on their way. Imagine being starving and knowing that there is aid quite close by at sea and that someone is stopping it getting to you. I think of the women who give birth and who once felt their own bodies could sustain their newborn babies through breast-feeding. They can no longer sustain them as a result of the fact that they are starving and their bodies are stressed and traumatised. They are displaced over and over again.”
“I thank the Deputy Leader for the comments at the beginning of the Order of Business. They are welcome. I propose an amendment to the Order of Business that after statements, instead of finishing at 1.30 p.m., we have statements from An Taoiseach or the next available senior Minister to update the House on the flotilla and send a message to the families at home who, I am sure, are extremely concerned for their family members. As each day goes by in Gaza, the whole world becomes more broken. Every person is impacted, regardless of whether they realise it or not, whether through what they see on their screens or in their daily efforts to try to not see that because the complexities of what they see are often incomprehensible. People are struggling to process what is going on in the world.”
“Given the complexity of that, it is extremely important that people have a right to a jury trial, especially when it could lead to setting precedents for a brand-new area of law or defamation.”
“When you look at the case ten years ago in the UK, it is quite concerning that a person could be held liable, and a law could be created in Ireland, based on sharing something and merely posing a question and that it was seen as defamation. Answering the Senator's question specifically regarding what he raised, which was not answered in his first contribution, it is more important to me now as I remember that case and how scary it would be if a person could be held liable for a retweet or a share in which the person does not actually say anything. The person is not even saying whether he or she agrees with the allegation or not. No determination is being made on what is being shared; the person is merely sharing information that was already shared.”
“She was held liable for that with regard to defamation. When I was listening to Senator McDowell, I was reminded why it is so important we have a right to a jury trial. The complexities that are still to be exposed in relation to some defamation cases, where a mere retweet of information that is out there, whether it is true or not, in the public realm or a reshare on Instagram can be considered as defamation, creating new and or precedents in Ireland. In the public interest, regarding the complexities, we are yet to know how defamation cases can unfold in the future regarding online behaviour or the sharing of stuff.”
“In this case, Lord McAlpine was trending online regarding a report about claims about some misbehaviour around sexual abuse cases or something. Sally Bercow retweeted the report and asked the question, "Why is Lord McAlpine trending?", including an emoji after the question mark. That was it. She made no statement but posed a question. You could say the intent of that question was to draw attention. He was already trending, but anyway it made no statement of guilt or defamation or named him or anything like that. If I am correct, they do not have the right to a jury trial for defamation cases in the UK. Maybe I can be corrected on that. They do not have an automatic right, but the judge can make a decision if it is in the public interest, which coincides with the discussion that is happening.”
“It will be minuscule in comparison to Senator McDowell's. I agree with Senator McDowell's points on discretion. I had some further thoughts about a case from about ten years ago in the UK, which has a similar criminal justice system to ours. I was also thinking about the media or somebody else saying that something happened and they were held liable and brought to court for defamation. I do not think we have seen any precedence in law yet here in Ireland in relation to this, but in the UK, about ten years ago, the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sally Bercow, was held liable by Lord McAlpine, I think it was, for a tweet she sent. It is not only about what damages are given out in defamation cases, but it is also about the discussion on what is and is not considered to be defamation.”
“What I want to know is, if and, hopefully, when we break the siege which is illegal, is Ireland ready to acknowledge that there is a legal humanitarian corridor through the waters into Palestine instead of continuing to wait for land borders to be opened? Land borders are completely controlled by Israel. The seas exist as a legal humanitarian corridor, and when the siege is broken by the humanitarian activists who have attempted to break it several times up until now, Ireland needs to be ready to acknowledge that Israel does not control the seas and we can bring aid through the sea to Gaza. We need to stop acknowledging that there is an exclusion zone that does not actually exist.”
“The only time it becomes illegal to come close to a country’s waters if it is within 12 nautical miles, which is 22 km from a country’s shore. The global sumud has never gone near 22 km of Israel's shores. It aims specifically for the Palestinian shores and continues to be intercepted within 100 nautical miles, which is international waters. Not only are we allowing Israel to completely control the lives of Gazan people, where they move, who they are, how they live, what they eat and what they do, but we are now as a society, country and globe allowing Israel to decide what waters people can travel into.”
“I want to again draw attention to the Global Sumud Flotilla, which is entering its most critical 24 hours on its journey to break the illegal siege of Gaza. Over the past 24 hours, I have been thinking about some of the commentary that has come from some of the countries who have shown support but called it an exclusion zone, saying that the global sumud is entering an exclusion zone, and giving some sort of credence or formal recognition that Israel has some unknown right to create an exclusion zone. There is no exclusion zone. It does not exist. We now have other European countries calling a particular parameter in international waters an exclusion zone. The fact is that it is not illegal to carry aid to any coastal port.”
“We come back to a new term with a new level of energy but to come in to Commencement matters on the first day of term and have no appropriate Minister to take a single one is not something we should not stand for as Senators. On the first day of term, I am asking myself why I would bother tabling any Commencement matter going forward if we did not even have one Minister with the appropriate brief come in today. That is not with any disrespect to the Minister of State who came in to take the Commencement matters but it completely undermines our role and dismisses us as a Chamber. An important function we have is that we can have a Minister in front of us who has a brief and can engage with us authentically on an issue in the moment. We should not start off a new term like this.”
“There needs to be a statement from the Department of foreign affairs now, today, in relation to what is happening to the Global Sumud Flotilla not only because there are 22 Irish citizens on it but because it is wrong. On every level, we are bowing down to the violation of international law by Israel day after day. I want to draw attention to the appalling comments by Deputy Troy that when it comes to housing, we should house those who have a job first. I could not believe in 2025 that we would have a parliamentarian who does not understand the idea of supporting the most vulnerable in our society, those with the least. Saying we should make sure they are housed last is so unintelligent, not even to understand an analysis of class and why people end up homeless or unemployed in the first place.”
“I join my colleagues in relation to what happened to the Global Sumud. It is really concerning that there is not more uproar about the targeting of civilian boats in European waters off the coast of Crete. We are meant to be part of a European Union that is supposed to be underpinned by the principles not only of peace but also international law. It is not acceptable that we would allow and accept in international waters, especially in European waters, that drones can target and damage boats and drop chemicals on 500 civilians who have put their lives at risk to continue to draw attention to the atrocities in Gaza. As a country, we need be strong in the moment it is happening.”