Source?
Thatâs my analysis
Ah right
AGs advice is just that, advice.
And how many governments go against their own legal advice from their own legal expert they appointed?
Referring to me a paedophile and a rapist even hypothetically is out of order.
I havenât watched the debate but I have followed the story on various platforms. The below article from Dr Maeve O Rourke fairly rebuts the government position. Nobody is looking to print the archive in The Irish Times but victims should be able to access their own personal records. GDPR overrides the right to privacy thus making the sealing of the archive unneccessary.
You know more than the AG?
Probably the same ones that go against Medical advice or the ones that breach EU law on VRT?
Because they got fucked over by the state and are being denied natural justice. Because the McAleese report fucked them over. Because dirty Bertie did a dodgy deal with the religious orders. Because they feel fucked over by redress schemes. Because they were abused for years in many cases and the physical and mental scars just wont heal. Because Tusla, who they fucking hate will be given this database. Because its fucking horrendous and unfair.
Well then 
Iâm not referring to you as a rapist or a paedo. Thatâs quite clear. But if I did your want to defend yourself, naturally. People have a right to know about allegations against them and defend themselves.
Edit. While Maeve O Rourke has written an article in the journal, it doesnât mean shes right. The right to privacy issue here has nothing to do with GDPR. Itâs in the constitution. Multiple ags have advised that it cant be waived. Maeve o Rourke is a paid legal for these groups. She will obviously take their side.
Imo Zappone was their best chance at a good deal. She was also an advocate for them and genuinely wanted to do right by them. They savaged her continually and that government didnt have the numbers to push anything through (remember the âdo nothing dĂ ilâ phrase?). Iâm sure those debates are available on oireachtas archives. They are worth watching. Again, I saw a good few bits of them.
Sadly, this issue will not be resolved anytime soon.
Didnât the Boston College do something similar in relation to the Troubles on the basis the tapes wouldnât be released until the people involved were dead, but then one of the law enforcement agencies forced them to hand over the tapes ?
The current UK govt
The same Tusla who made a copy and paste error on a file and the file just happened to involve Maurice McCabe., What are the odds on that happening? I wonder what odds you would get on some fucking halfwit in Tusla deleting the database by âaccidentâ.
Try to be rationale
The privacy rights are so that say a mother who gave up her kid years ago doesnât want to be contacted, then she has a right not to be. A constitutional referendum would fix that. I agree with you that someone should have a right to their own information though. But possibly not a right to contact. But enforcing that would be almost impossible.
So the files should be opened to the public?
So twice since the 70s? Does that not make my point?
Just on a point of order is it not that the issue with the mother and baby homes is that babies who died in these places were thrown into unmarked mass graves because they were born âin sinâ from unmarried motherâs and so therefore were not worthy of burial on sacred ground? And furthermore other women in these homes who gave birth there had their babies taken from them against their will and shipped abroad for adoption into âproper wholesome homesâ, usually to America? Then you have a whole tranche of people today who a) donât know theyâd a sibling thrown in an unmarked grave or b) a sibling possibly still alive somewhere in America most likely. I donât think the overriding issue with this story is systemic child sex abuse and you are conflating it with something else? Iâm prepared to be proven wrong here.