Frustrating to hear @LeoVaradkar say that much of the concern re ownership and governance of #NationalMaternityHospital is ideological in nature.
It simply isn’t. The are serious human rights concerns arising from possible religious control of the hospital #MakeNMHOurs
It simply isn’t. The are serious human rights concerns arising from possible religious control of the hospital #MakeNMHOurs
Access without discrimination to a full range of reproductive health services is not an ideological issue, it is a human rights issue. The Government he is part of, and the one he previously led, have legally binding human rights obligations in that regard. #MakeNMHOurs
Despite all the concerns raised over many years no clarity has been given on question of ownership and control of this hospital
We wrote to @SimonHarrisTD in May 2017 flagging serious concerns about how Vatican could legally take control of all assets owned by Sisters of Charity
We wrote to @SimonHarrisTD in May 2017 flagging serious concerns about how Vatican could legally take control of all assets owned by Sisters of Charity
Ownership and control of governance in the long term are key issues. For example, who will appoint the board of SVH Holdings? The detail of that has been redacted from the constitution of the new holding company published by SVH Group.
stvincents.ie/app/uploads/20…
stvincents.ie/app/uploads/20…
To be clear, I have no issue at all with people promoting or holding an ideology.
But human rights, as in the legal framework, are non-ideological. They are accepted laws and norms developed by states, including Ireland.
But human rights, as in the legal framework, are non-ideological. They are accepted laws and norms developed by states, including Ireland.
Too often political leaders and states seek to sidestep their clear legal obligations in this regard by dismissing established legal norms and rights are ‘ideological’ or somehow contested.
This despite the fact that they agreed the treaties, then signed and ratified them.
This despite the fact that they agreed the treaties, then signed and ratified them.
Bear in mind too, that the treaties and conventions set out minimum standards, many of which were agreed many decades ago.
And yet too often politicians dismiss them as impractical, or as purely aspirational.
Minimum standards.
And yet too often politicians dismiss them as impractical, or as purely aspirational.
Minimum standards.
When human rights orgs demand that govs and states meet their obligations, we are simply saying that they should respect and abide by the laws they created and voluntarily agreed to be bound by.
To at least meet the minimum standards they themselves set.
To at least meet the minimum standards they themselves set.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
