Much has been made of the recent Supreme Court decision declaring unconstitutional provisions of the 1956 Nationality and Citizenship Act, a case which saw the Courts deny the withdrawal of an Algerian-born convicted terrorist’s Irish citizenship, so that he can travel to France when he is released in 2030.
So who is Ali Charaf Damache, the individual at the centre of this decision? He was suspected to be the ringleader behind a plot to murder the Swedish cartoonist, Lars Vilks, who drew a picture of Mohammad. That was later the crime for which his first wife, who is American, was found guilty of, and sentenced to eight years in prison. Somewhere along the way Damache navigated his way into acquiring Irish citizenship —inevitable given how freely the State hands out citizenship like confetti. Damache would then be extradited to the United States and plead guilty to terrorism offences, with the United States alleging he was actively recruiting and radicalising people to form a terrorist cell.
Pursuant to this, the Minister for Justice issued a notice of revocation of his citizenship on the basis that Damache did not live up to his pledge of fidelity to the State —and into action swung the entire neurotic edifice of Modern Ireland™.
The High Court declared the revocation to be procedurally flawed and unconstitutional, and in submissions, the IHREC sought a striking out, not simply of the offending provisions identified by the Courts, but of another provision, that of the ability to revoke. They wanted to not simply stop the current revocation, but wanted to remove the power of revocation from the Minister by seeking to have section 19(1) removed.
The Minister for Justice didn’t even have the spine to appeal the findings of the High Court, but instead capitulated and asked simply that not all the provisions be struck out, but just section 19(2) and 19(3).
(2) Before revocation of a certificate of naturalisation the Minister shall give such notice as may be prescribed to the person to whom the certificate was granted of his intention to revoke the certificate, stating the grounds therefor and the right of that person to apply to the Minister for an inquiry as to the reasons for the revocation.
(3) On application being made in the prescribed manner for an inquiry under subsection (2) the Minister shall refer the case to a Committee of Inquiry appointed by the Minister consisting of a chairman having judicial experience and such other persons as the Minister may think fit, and the Committee shall report their findings to the Minister.
The Minister requested that the power to revoke remain but for the method to implement it be declared repugnant to the Constitution – a slimy sleight of hand to agree to the neutering of the office and powers of the Minister for Justice. What is the point in having a power if you have no way to use that power?
The Supreme Court decision declared s.19(2) and 19(3) to be unconstitutional, but denied declaring s.19(1) unconstitutional —not simply because the power of revocation is a sovereign right of a Nation, but because the esteemed Justice knew exactly how pusillanimous the Minister for Justice would be:
“Given that it is clear from the principal judgment that there has to be a process which complies with fair procedures before a certificate of naturalisation can be revoked, it would be necessary to have such a process in being before any further step could be taken to revoke the appellant’s certificate of naturalisation. It is therefore not necessary [to] grant an order of prohibition. It is inconceivable that the Minister would proceed with the revocation of the certificate of naturalisation in the case of the appellant before such time as the constitutional frailty in the process of revocation identified by this Court has been remedied.
It follows therefore that the Minister may not establish an administrative scheme to exercise the powers under the surviving parts of the section without statutory authority.”
The court case shows once again how the Courts are so removed from the ordinary lives of people that they sought to impede the right of a Government to protect the interests of its citizens. Any Government, not the current Irish Government. The case displays the timid nature of the State when confronted by the left-wing elements of the global order.
The case of Ali Damache proves one thing and one thing only: elements of the Courts, legal profession, NGO sector and Government, are conspiring to undermine any capacity for a nativist revolt to correct the damage done by mass immigration. They are not just taking their ball and going home, they are bringing their diggers onto the field and tearing up the fabric.